Beyond bias in developmental science

Beyond Bias to Western participants, authors, and editors in developmental science

Running title: Beyond bias in developmental science

*Yusuke Moriguchi

Graduate School of Letters, Kyoto University, Yoshidahoncho, Kyoto, Japan

*Correspondence should be addressed to Yusuke Moriguchi, Graduate School of Letters,

Kyoto University, Yoshidahoncho, Kyoto 606-8501, Japan

Tel: +81-75-753-2852; E-mail: [email protected]

Funding statement: This research was supported by grants from JSPS to the first author.

Conflict of interest: There are no conflicts of interest.

Abstract In this commentary, I argue that study participants, authors, and editorial members in

1 Beyond bias in developmental science

developmental science are biased toward Western populations. First, I analyzed the study participants and first authors of articles in Infant and Child Development between 2006 and

2010 and between 2016 and 2020. The results suggested that most study participants and first authors were from the Western population. However, since 2010, the number of study participants and first authors from non-Western populations have gradually increased. Second,

I analyzed editorial members from journals in developmental science. The results indicated that most editorial members were Western researchers. Given these analyses, I discuss what we can do to increase diversity in developmental science.

Keywords: diversity, developmental science, Western, bias

Highlights: . Study participants, authors, and editorial members are biased toward Western

2 Beyond bias in developmental science

populations.

. Most study participants and authors published in Infant and Child Development

between 2006 and 2010 were Westerners; however, the situation has been gradually

improving since 2010.

. Most developmental science journal editors are still Westerners.

Introduction When I was a graduate student, my manuscript submission to an internationally renowned journal was rejected. This was partly because my sample did not include Western children, and I was required to replicate my results using a Western sample. I was astonished

3 Beyond bias in developmental science

at the reason for rejection. Although there may have been other issues that contributed to the decision, the manuscript was about basic childhood cognitive development and did not address cultural issues of child development. If I were a Western researcher and collected data based on a Western sample, I would not be advised to replicate the findings among a non-

Western population. This decision was unfair and reflected the inequalities in academic publishing in developmental science.

Although this is an extreme case, it is common for non-Western developmental scientists to have similar experiences. For example, my non-Western colleagues and I have received reviewers’ comments indicating that our article titles should contain the country’s name, such as “Development of XXXX in (countries’ name) children.” Since most published articles in developmental science are from Western countries, these suggestions may indicate that our articles are based on less mainstream populations. However, if we must include race or culture in the title, other researchers should also have similar titles, such as “…in US-

American children” or “… in UK children.” Therefore, I remain unconvinced by these suggestions.

Simultaneously, however, the experience made me realize my own insensitivities toward racial or cultural issues, or diversity, in research practice. As a Japanese scientist, I generally read articles published by Western researchers, where study participants, authors,

4 Beyond bias in developmental science

and even journal editors were mostly Westerners. However, I assumed that basic cognitive development would be universal and independent of race. Therefore, I naively disregarded how the study participants’ race or culture and stimuli can affect research results, how the authors’ race or affiliation can affect the structure and arguments in articles, and how the editors’ race or affiliations can affect editorial decisions.

Over the past decade, the importance of diversity in developmental research practice has come into focus, and research has disproven my prior assumptions noted above. The predominant issue for race and culture concerns the study participants. Most psychological and developmental research is biased toward participants from Western, Educated, Industrial,

Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) backgrounds, and such populations are not representative of all humans (Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010). Regarding developmental science, basic cognitive development, such as attention, executive function (EF), social cognition, and brain development, can be affected by race or culture from the early stages of development (Duffy,

Toriyama, Itakura, & Kitayama, 2009; Quinn, Lee, & Pascalis, 2019; Sabbagh, Xu, Carlson,

Moses, & Lee, 2006). Such racial or cultural differences may occur owing to variances in environmental factors, such as parenting practices and cultural values and norms, as well as genetic variations (Keller & Kärtner, 2013; Oh & Lewis, 2008; Senzaki, Pott, Shinohara, &

Moriguchi, 2021).

5 Beyond bias in developmental science

For example, research has shown substantial quantitative and qualitative cultural differences in the development of EF. Schirmbeck, Rao, and Maehler (2020) reported systematic quantitative cross-cultural differences, particularly between children from East

Asian and Western cultures, wherein East Asian children outperformed their Western counterparts in several EF tasks. However, some factors, such as bilingual experiences, were consistently related to children’s EF performance across cultures. Such cultural differences may reflect differences in socialization goals and practices, such as that Asian children may be taught the importance of self-control from a very early age.

Moreover, there might be qualitative differences in EF development between Asian and Western children. Moriguchi, Evans, Hiraki, Itakura, and Lee (2012) examined whether

Japanese and Canadian children showed different performances in two versions of rule- switching tasks. In the standard version, children were asked to sort cards according to one rule (e.g., color) during the first phase, after which they were asked to sort the cards according to the other rule (e.g., shape) during the second phase. In the social version, instead of sorting cards themselves during the first phase, children watched an adult model sorting cards according to one rule (e.g., color). Then, the children were asked to sort them according to the other rule (e.g., shape) during the second phase. Thus, in the standard version, the children needed to inhibit the rule they used during the first phase, whereas, in the social version, they

6 Beyond bias in developmental science

were required to inhibit the tendency to use the rule followed by the adult model during the first phase. The results revealed that Japanese and Canadian children showed similar performances in the standard version.

Conversely, Japanese children showed worse performances than Canadian children in the social version of the rule switching task. Japanese children were more strongly influenced by the model’s behavior on the social version than Canadian children. However, their ability to switch rules during the standard version was similar. The results were discussed based on independent and interdependent views of self (Markus & Kitayama, 1991), by which Japanese children are socialized and educated to be dependent on each other. Therefore, the distinction between self and others may be blurred, whereas North American children are socialized to be independent, leading to the distinction between self and others. This example clearly shows the importance of culture and race in discussing basic cognitive development.

Biases in study participants and authors Nielsen and colleagues reported that study participants in all manuscripts published in prestigious journals in developmental science between 2006 and 2010 were highly biased.

Over 90% of the participants were from Western backgrounds (Nielsen, Haun, Kärtner, &

Legare, 2017). Only 6.7% were from Asia, Africa, South/Central America, and Israel/the

Middle East. Furthermore, a notable trend was observed regarding the first authors’

7 Beyond bias in developmental science

affiliations. That is, approximately 95% of the first authors were faculty members of institutions in Western countries. Only 4% were from Asia and Israel, and two articles were from first authors in Central or South America. None were from the Middle East or Africa.

Thus, although some study participants were from non-Western countries, the research projects were mainly initiated by researchers in Western countries.

I conducted the same analyses as in Nielsen’s study, focusing on the participants and authors published in Infant and Child Development between 2006 and 2010. I included original articles for the analyses of study participants and review and original articles for authors’ analyses. Editorials and commentaries were excluded. I coded participant information from the Method sections. If such information was not provided, I coded countries from the affiliations of first authors. I obtained results similar to those reported by

Nielsen et al. (2017) (Table 1). About 90% of the participants, and over 90% of the authors, were from Western backgrounds.

Moreover, I examined whether any changes had occurred recently by conducting the same analyses on Infant and Child Development articles published between 2016 and 2020. I found that most participants (84.17%) and authors (85.48%) were still from Western backgrounds. However, there were increases in study participants (from 5.92% to 12.08%) and authors (from 3.49% to 11.62%) from Asian populations. Although the results seem to

8 Beyond bias in developmental science

suggest that diversity in developmental science is gradually advancing, I must note that there were also increases in study participants (from 35.53% to 40.00%) and authors (from 36.05% to 38.93%) from US-American populations.

As previously mentioned, my colleagues and I are sometimes requested to include the nationality of the participants in the title. Indeed, Cheon, Melani, and Hong (2020) reported that samples from the United States were less frequently specified in titles than those from other Western and non-Western countries in psychology journals. Therefore, I further analyzed whether the article titles included racial or cultural names of the study participants

(e.g., Chinese children). I excluded cross-cultural studies because I intended to examine whether titles included countries’ names even though the research was conducted in only one geographical region, which should not necessitate including countries’ names in the title. I analyzed the research, including study participants from Western and non-Western countries, by dividing the number of articles containing titles with population names by the total number of articles for the respective population. The results showed that few studies included racial or country names in the Western population (2.94%, 2006–2010; 2.00%, 2016–2020). However, non-Western research was more likely to include racial or country names in the article titles

(40.00%, 2006–2010; 37.5%, 2016–2020). Thus, research from non-Western countries tended to include study participants’ nationalities in the title. Nevertheless, it is unclear whether the

9 Beyond bias in developmental science

authors voluntarily included the population name or if reviewers or editors requested that this information be specified.

Biases in editors The dominance of Western countries is also clear among editorial members who play a gatekeeping role in governing what is worthy of publication. Palser and colleagues reported geographical and gender disparities in the editorial boards of journals in psychology and neuroscience. Specifically, male researchers from Western countries outnumbered individuals from other countries as editors in psychology and neuroscience journals (Palser, Lazerwitz, &

Fotopoulou, 2021). They indicated that the editors of the top 50 journals in psychology were primarily based in Western countries (94%), and few researchers were from other regions, such as Asia (4%), Africa (0.5%), and Latin America (0.5%). A similar pattern was observed for neuroscience journals.

I conducted the same analyses as in Palser et al.’s (2021) study, focusing on developmental science. I selected the top 50 journals of 2019 in the field of “psychology: developmental” from the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) list in Clarivate Analytics’

Journal Citation Reports (JCR). I audited editorial board members, including editor-in-chief and deputies, associate and section editors, and editorial board members, for journal web pages during March 2021. I coded the country of affiliation based on the journals’ public

10 Beyond bias in developmental science

biographical sections for each editor.

The results showed that most of the editors were from Western populations (Table 2).

Over 70% of the editorial members were from the USA. The dominance of the USA was more evident for editorial members than for study participants and authors. Moreover, editors in developmental science were predominantly researchers from Western countries (95%). The results were consistent with previous research (Palser et al., 2021).

Toward diversity in developmental science My analyses suggest that study participants and authors from non-Western countries have been gradually increasing. Nonetheless, those from the USA also have been growing.

Researchers from Western countries still dominate editorial positions in developmental science. I could not analyze the affiliations of reviewers since they are anonymous.

Nevertheless, given that editors select reviewers, most of the reviewers would presumably be from Western countries. Clearly, researchers from Western countries are still choosing what is worthy of publication in developmental science. Undoubtedly, researchers from Western countries play leading roles in developmental science. Nevertheless, the extreme bias favoring researchers from Western countries could limit the research base of theory and practice in developmental science (Barbot et al., 2020).

The situation is not specific to developmental science. Thalmayer, Toscanelli, and

11 Beyond bias in developmental science

Arnett (2021) analyzed sample, authorship, and editors between 2014 and 2018 in six flagship

American Psychology Association journals, Developmental Psychology, Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Journal of Family

Psychology, Journal of Health Psychology, and Journal of Educational Psychology. They compared the results to those reported by Arnett (2008), who analyzed sample, authorship, and editors between 2003 and 2007. They found that, although there is a decrease in US

American authorship and samples, West European and other English-speaking authorship and samples have increased. Moreover, editors and editorial board members were primarily based at American universities, both in 2008 and 2018. Thus, Western and English-speaking researchers, samples, and editors dominate developmental and psychological science.

More editors, study participants, and authors from the non-Western population are needed for advancing diversity in developmental science. However, although several researchers have pointed out the issue for decades, the situation has not changed much. We need to consider how to improve the situation carefully. First, as proposed in psychological research in general (Thalmayer et al., 2021), journals should include more editors and editorial board members from the non-Western population. Editorial members play a gatekeeping role in academic publishing. Therefore, diversity in editorial members can lead to diversity in authors, study participants, and research topics in developmental science.

12 Beyond bias in developmental science

Second, journals could encourage research from multiple geographical regions in terms of study participants and authors. Recent multi-lab projects, such as Manybabies, are good examples (Bergmann et al., 2020). Nevertheless, it would not be easy to conduct and initiate multi-lab research for some researchers. In that case, all manuscripts should note how and whether the findings in a given study can be generalized to other populations or researchers. One possibility is that journals could explicitly create a section for

“Generalization” as recommended by Simons, Shoda, and Lindsay (2017). Third, in non- mainstream academic conferences (e.g., some domestic or regional conferences), I often observe research presentations that aimed to replicate findings from Western countries and failed. In some cases, the researchers believed that they made some mistakes in conducting the replications and may not publish the results (file-drawer problem).” However, cultural contexts could affect the results. This may be related to the recent replication crisis in psychological science (Open Science Collaboration, 2015). Thus, journals should encourage and accept replication studies from the non-Western population as well as the Western population. Recently, several psychology journals created a category for replication study— still, it remains uncommon in developmental science.

Moreover, my analysis suggests that few Western studies included the geographical region in the title, whereas non-Western research was more likely to do so. I propose that all

13 Beyond bias in developmental science

manuscripts should be fair in this aspect. For example, all manuscripts should include the geographical region in the titles. Alternatively, all manuscripts should exclude the geographical region from the title and, instead, include it in other sections, such as keywords.

Additional recommendations for improving the diversity in psychological and developmental science can be observed in other studies (Barbot et al., 2020; Nielsen et al., 2017; Roberts,

Bareket-Shavit, Dollins, Goldie, & Mortenson, 2020).

Researchers, research institutes, universities, and journals related to developmental science should accelerate the movement toward diversity. Owing to word count constraints, other types of diversity (e.g., gender) cannot be argued in this manuscript. However, every type of diversity among study participants, authors, and editors would contribute to research practice and theory in developmental science. I hope that these movements toward diversity will progress and improve the current situation soon.

References Barbot, B., Hein, S., Trentacosta, C., Beckmann, J. F., Bick, J., Crocetti, E., . . . Overbeek, G.

(2020). Manifesto for new directions in developmental science. New Directions for

Child and Adolescent Development, 2020(172), 135-149.

Bergmann, C., Buckler, H., Cusack, R., Tsuji, S., Zaadnoordijk, L., & Consortium, M.-A.

(2020). Toward a large-scale collaboration for infant online testing: Introducing

ManyBabies-AtHome. Paper presented at the Many Paths to Language (virtual MPaL

14 Beyond bias in developmental science

2020).

Cheon, B. K., Melani, I., & Hong, Y.-y. (2020). How USA-centric is psychology? An archival

study of implicit assumptions of generalizability of findings to human nature based on

origins of study samples. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(7), 928-

937. doi:10.1177/1948550620927269

Duffy, S., Toriyama, R., Itakura, S., & Kitayama, S. (2009). Development of cultural

strategies of attention in North American and Japanese children. Journal of

Experimental Child Psychology, 102(3), 351-359.

Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). Most people are not WEIRD. Nature,

466(7302), 29-29.

Keller, H., & Kärtner, J. (2013). Development: The cultural solution of universal

developmental tasks. Advances in Culture and Psychology, 3, 63-116.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self-implications for cognition,

emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224-253.

Moriguchi, Y., Evans, A. D., Hiraki, K., Itakura, S., & Lee, K. (2012). Cultural differences in

the development of cognitive shifting: East-West comparison. Journal of

Experimental Child Psychology, 111(2), 156-163.

Nielsen, M., Haun, D., Kärtner, J., & Legare, C. H. (2017). The persistent sampling bias in

developmental psychology: A call to action. Journal of Experimental Child

15 Beyond bias in developmental science

Psychology, 162, 31-38.

Oh, S., & Lewis, C. (2008). Korean preschoolers’ advanced inhibitory control and its relation

to other executive skills and mental state understanding. Child Development, 79(1),

80-99.

Open Science Collaboration (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science.

Science, 349(6251), aac4716–aac4716.

Palser, E. R., Lazerwitz, M., & Fotopoulou, A. (2021). Gender and geographical disparity in

editorial boards of journals in psychology and neuroscience. bioRxiv,

2021.2002.2015.431321. doi:10.1101/2021.02.15.431321

Quinn, P. C., Lee, K., & Pascalis, O. (2019). Face processing in infancy and beyond: The case

of social categories. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 165-189.

Roberts, S. O., Bareket-Shavit, C., Dollins, F. A., Goldie, P. D., & Mortenson, E. (2020).

Racial inequality in psychological research: Trends of the past and recommendations

for the future. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(6), 1295-1309.

Sabbagh, M. A., Xu, F., Carlson, S. M., Moses, L. J., & Lee, K. (2006). The development of

executive functioning and theory of mind - A comparison of Chinese and US

preschoolers. Psychological Science, 17(1), 74-81.

Schirmbeck, K., Rao, N., & Maehler, C. (2020). Similarities and differences across countries

in the development of executive functions in children: A systematic review. Infant and

16 Beyond bias in developmental science

Child Development, 29(1), e2164. doi:10.1002/icd.2164

Senzaki, S., Pott, U., Shinohara, I., & Moriguchi, Y. (2021). Roles of culture and COMT

Val58Met gene on neural basis of executive function: A comparison between Japanese

and American children. Developmental Psychobiology. doi:10.1002/dev.22087

Simons, D. J., Shoda, Y., & Lindsay, D. S. (2017). Constraints on generality (COG): A

proposed addition to all empirical papers. Perspectives on Psychological Science,

12(6), 1123-1128.

Thalmayer, A. G., Toscanelli, C., & Arnett, J. J. (2021). The neglected 95% revisited: Is

American psychology becoming less American? American Psychologist, 76(1), 116-

129. doi:10.1037/amp0000622

Table 1. Study participants and first authors in Infant and Child Development during 2006–

2010 and 2016–2020

2006–2010 2016–2020 Study participant ((N = Study participant (N = 152) 242) Western non-Western Western non-Western USA 35.53% African 0.66% USA 40.00% African 0.00% South/ South/ English- Central English- Central Speaking 26.97% American 0.66% Speaking 21.25% American 1.25% European 26.32% Asian 5.92% European 22.92% Asian 12.08% Israel/ Israel/ Middle East 3.95% Middle East 3.33%

17 Beyond bias in developmental science

First author First author (N = 172) (N = 241) Western non-Western Western non-Western USA 36.05% African 0.00% USA 39.83% African 0.00% South/ South/ English- Central English- Central Speaking 30.81% American 0.58% Speaking 22.82% American 0.41% European 26.16% Asian 3.49% European 22.82% Asian 11.62% Israel/ Israel/ Middle East 2.91% Middle East 2.49% Note. English speaking includes Australia, Canada, New Zealand, UK.

Table 2. Editors in developmental science (N = 3172)

Editor Western non-Western USA 73.36% African 0.41% South/ English- Central speaking 14.69% American 0.44% European 7.63% Asian 2.33% Israel/Middle East 1.13% Note. English speaking includes Australia, Canada, New Zealand, UK.

I selected the top 50 journals of 2019 in the field of “psychology: developmental” from

the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) list in Clarivate Analytics’ Journal Citation

18 Beyond bias in developmental science

Reports (JCR).

19