Chapter 1 Decolonizing and Globalizing Psychological Research

Jenny Lee Vaydich (she/her) PhD, College of Applied and Natural Sciences, Seattle Pacific University
Oscar A. Baldelomar (he/him), PhD, Rosemead School of Psychology, Biola University

Seattle Pacific University is located on the lands, both ceded and unceded, of the Coast Salish peoples. The land touches the shared waters of all tribes and bands within the Suquamish, Tulalip, and Muckleshoot nations. The Tongva tribe occupied the land upon which Biola University is built. 


INTRODUCTORY PARAGRAPH NEEDED

1.1 Learning Objectives

Learning objectives for this chapter include the following:

  • Recognize the distinction between internationalizing and decolonizing psychological research.
  • Explain the importance of incorporating cultural inclusivity and sensitivity throughout all stages and processes in psychological research.
  • Discuss the significance of Majority World (non-Western) representation in the design, participation, and interpretation of psychological research.
  • Explain the implications of applying decolonizing approaches and ethics in the practice of psychological research.
  • Describe inclusive research practices for international and cross-cultural research.

1.3 Background

Psychological researchers have explored a wide range of human development and functioning, generating an extensive body of knowledge. Yet, our understanding of human psychology remains limited by a significant lack of global perspectives. Although interest in cross-cultural and international research has increased in recent years (Castleden et al., 2012; Leong & Lyons, 2010; Matsumoto et al., 2006; van de Vijver, 2013), most published studies continue to draw from a relatively narrow segment of the world’s population. For example, the majority of studies appearing in prominent psychology journals have been conducted in the United States and Europe, reflecting approximately 11% of the global population (Rad et al., 2018; Thalmayer et al., 2021). The result is a wealth of information about specific Western groups paired with a striking lack of knowledge about human psychology worldwide, particularly in the Global South 1 (Arnett, 2008; Thalmayer et al., 2021). Compounding this imbalance, findings derived from Western individuals’ experiences are often overgeneralized and framed as universal (Rad et al., 2018), even when applied to diverse cultures 2 (Gopalkrishnan, 2018; Kpanake, 2018). What exists, then, is not a comprehensive global science of human psychology, but a body of theories and findings rooted largely in Western cultures and experiences.

To transform psychology into a truly global science, inclusive of all cultures within the human species, it must consider the historical and cultural contexts in which psychological research is conducted. This is particularly important in the Global South, where many communities continue to grapple with the multifaceted consequences of colonialism, including inequality, dispossession, cultural erasure, and environmental degradation. When well-meaning psychologists trained in the West study these populations, they frequently carry with them Western theories and methods. In doing so, they risk reifying a form of colonialism through knowledge production itself by practicing a narrow psychological science one that grants the Western researchers disproportionate power to determine which topics are worth studying and the epistemic authority to produce knowledge that may not reflect the perspectives, values, and psychological processes of the populations being studied. Furthermore, for psychology to avoid reproducing colonialism, it must become part of the broader process of decolonization (Comas-Díaz et al., 2024), a process defined as “undoing the impacts of historical domination on subordinated populations by powerful outsiders” (Gone, 2021, p. 259). In the context of psychology, this task requires both internationalizing and decolonizing 3 research. Internationalization, if it is to be meaningful, cannot proceed without critically examining and addressing the colonial nature of prevailing research methods and processes.

This chapter is written for a Western audience, predominantly trained in decontextualized and universalistic forms of psychology. Our central thesis is that psychology cannot be internationalized in a culturally meaningful way unless it is also decolonized in its assumptions, theories, and methodologies. Decolonizing psychology means empowering Global South colleagues and the non-Western populations we study to redefine psychological constructs, theories, methodologies, and practices. In this chapter, we explore the implications of studying non-Western populations through Western epistemologies of science and offer recommendations for internationalizing and decolonizing psychological research. Throughout this chapter, we use terms such as “we,” “our,, and “us” intentionally to emphasize that psychologists must commit, both as individual researchers and as a discipline, to critically evaluating and changing our research practices. Using this language acknowledges that each of us is part of the enterprise of Western-dominated psychology. We must collectively own this as a field and avoid distancing ourselves from both the past mistakes and their residual impacts in the present. The scientific language historically used allows us, as researchers, to distance ourselves from our own participation in the coloniality of knowledge 4 and from considering our individual and collective responsibility as researchers and as an academic discipline (Abo-Zena et al., 2022; Adams et al., 2015; Pillay, 2017).

1.4 Global Representation in Psychological Research

Several intersecting factors have contributed to the dominance of Western perspectives in psychological science. Many of the discipline’s foundational figures, including Wilhelm Wundt, William James, Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, and B. F. Skinner, were men of European ancestry working in Europe or North America, and the theories they developed were largely tested on samples that were Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD; Henrich et al, 2010). Despite growing calls for international and cross-cultural research and an increasingly diverse global research community, the majority of published studies continue to feature participants from Western countries (Arnett, 2008; Rad, 2018; Thalmayer et al., 2021), with researchers from the United States continuing to be disproportionately overrepresented (Adams et al., 2015; Thalmayer et al., 2021). For example, Arnett’s (2008) examination of top journals across six areas of psychology found that 73% of first authors and 68% of study participants were based in the United States, suggesting that a large proportion of research findings are grounded in the experiences of roughly 5% of the world’s population. An additional 14% of first authors were from other English-speaking countries, and 11% were from European countries. A follow-up assessment of the same journals showed some improvement a decade later, with approximately 11% of the world population represented among study participants. U.S.-based first authors and participants had declined to 64% and 62% respectively (Thalmayer et al., 2021). However, an additional 33% of first authors and 31% of participants were still drawn from other English-speaking or European countries. Journal editors remained similarly concentrated, with 81% based in the United States, 9% in other English-speaking countries, and 7% in Europe. Undergraduate students further narrow the empirical base, comprising 20%–42% of samples across several prominent journals (Rad et al., 2018; Thalmayer et al., 2021). With approximately 89% of the global population excluded from these samples, existing findings offer a limited basis for claims about human psychology at large.

Thus, despite calls for global representation in research, psychology remains largely centered on populations from Western countries, while comparatively little is known about the Majority World 5(Adams et al., 2019; Katgitcibasi, 2002; Thalmayer et al., 2021). This imbalance has significant consequences for the field. First, limited global representation constrains our ability to distinguish between universal patterns and cultural variations in human psychology. Without globally diverse samples, the field lacks an adequate basis for understanding how psychological processes interact with local conditions or take different forms across settings. Second, the routine generalization of findings from a small segment of the world’s population undermines claims to universal knowledge. When psychological models are developed for and tested primarily on a small percentage of the world’s population, the applicability and validity of those models across cultures and countries cannot be assumed without substantially broader evidence. Given the well-documented underrepresentation of people in the Majority World in psychological research (Arnett, 2008; Rad et al., 2018; Thalmayer et al., 2021), universalizing such findings risks reproducing a narrow and exclusionary account of human psychology. Therefore, expanding representation among underresearched populations in the Majority World and polyethnic societies is essential not only for advancing a more comprehensive psychology, but also for the validity and responsible application of psychological knowledge internationally.

At the same time, the problem cannot be reduced to sample diversity alone. Researchers frequently acknowledge the lack of participant diversity as a methodological limitation and recommend broader sampling in future work. This is an important step, but it addresses only part of a larger and more systemic problem. Global representation in psychological science is shaped not only by who participates in research, but also by who conducts it, where it takes place, and which scientific perspectives and values guide the process. Even when researchers focus on international settings beyond WEIRD groups, researchers often bring with them theories, methods, and frameworks rooted in Western cultural experiences and scientific epistemologies, thereby perpetuating the coloniality of knowledge regardless of where the data is collected (Abo-Zena et al., 2022; Adams et al., 2015; Denzin, 2009; Pillay, 2017; Quijano, 1992). Despite the disembodied and impersonal language often associated with scientific inquiry, researchers and their methods do not exist separate from their cultures, social identities, or historical positions of power, and the knowledge they produce reflect this. When researchers and participants share similar cultural locations, that influence may be less visible because the assumptions guiding the research often align with participants’ lived realities. However, when Western researchers study non-Western populations, the cultural assumptions embedded in the research process may shape psychological knowledge in ways that do not accurately reflect the perspectives, values, or meanings of the communities being studied. Thus, the predominance of Western perspectives among participants, researchers, journal editors, and research methods in psychology has far-reaching consequences for how we conceptualize and study human psychology. As researchers we must move beyond expanding samples and evaluate how culture shapes research questions, methods, interpretation, and standards of evidence, confronting the systemic “manifestations of coloniality” embedded in research practices long treated as neutral or standard (e.g., Adams et al., 2015).

1.5 Barriers to Global Representation

Despite growing recognition of the importance of international and cross-cultural research, significant barriers to global representation among study participants persist. One of the most consistently documented barriers is mistrust. Research on diversity in psychological and medical contexts has repeatedly identified mistrust in researchers, along with fears of being treated as a “guinea pig” or “being experimented on,” as major obstacles to study participation (Clark et al., 2019; George et al., 2014; Katz et al., 2006; Salman et al., 2016). Similarly, Williams and colleagues (2013) found that cultural mistrust may function as a specific barrier for African Americans in psychological research, and a lack of cultural competence among principal investigators and research teams has also been noted as a deterrent to participation. These findings raise concerns not only regarding participant representation in studies, but also about public trust in research practices and scientific findings within psychology.

Closing these gaps also requires examining why psychology continues to rely so heavily on WEIRD samples. However, limited representation among study participants is only part of the problem. A deeper issue is that many methodological approaches in psychology have never been adequately evaluated for their cultural relevance or appropriateness in non-Western contexts. Achieving genuinely global representation will therefore require not only recruiting more diverse participants, but also critically examining the assumptions embedded in how research is designed and conducted. Addressing these issues requires culturally responsive research design from the outset. Furthermore, evaluating the cultural appropriateness of our research practices and our relationships with community partners presents a critical opportunity to address long-standing issues of mistrust with psychological research. It is important to note even well-intentioned research practices can pose barriers to participation when they are not genuinely attuned to and aligned with the cultural context of the community (Clark et al., 2019). Efforts to increase representation that focus only on recruitment, without attending to the cultural fit of the research process itself, are unlikely to overcome the participation barriers that have long characterized the field.

The examination of research processes and researcher’s assumptions must extend to institutional structures as well. Research methodologies must demonstrate validity, reliability, and adherence to ethical standards to gain Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, a requirement for studies conducted at educational institutions. Yet, IRB frameworks themselves often reflect cultural assumptions about research ethics, informed consent, and participant protection that may not translate uniformly across cultural contexts. Therefore, developing globally relevant and inclusive research methodologies requires critical attention to the role IRBs play in either facilitating or constraining culturally sensitive research practices.

1.6 Institutional Review Boards and Cultural Consideration

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs, see chapter 8) are responsible for reviewing research proposals to ensure the ethical treatment and protection of human participants. The frameworks guiding IRB oversight today emerged from a long history of ethical failures in research. In 1865, French physiologist Claude Bernard questioned the ethics of harmful experimentation on humans, stating “The principle of medical and surgical morality consists in never performing on man an experiment which might be harmful to him to any extent, even though the result might be highly advantageous to science” (Lederer, 2009). This principle, however, was egregiously violated by Nazi physicians during World War II, prompting the development of the Nuremberg Code (1947) and the Declaration of Geneva (1948) in Europe, both of which established voluntary consent and the imperative to do no harm as foundational to ethical research. In the United States, Henry Beecher’s (1966) landmark article in the New England Journal of Medicine documented ethical lapses in at least 22 medical research studies, which posed serious risks to participants, generating widespread concern about the state of clinical research ethics (Veatch, 2016). In the 1970s, The Tuskegee Syphilis Study in the United States attracted considerable attention and underscored the urgent need for rigorous ethical oversight in research. Beginning in 1932 in Alabama, the study withheld treatment from 400 African American men with latent or late-stage syphilis for over 40 years without clearly disclosing the study’s aims to the participants (U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, 1973). The outcry it generated contributed to the National Research Act and the Belmont Report (National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 1979), as well as federal regulations in 1974 mandating IRB oversight of research involving human participants in the United States.

These protections represent genuine and important progress. Recognizing the additional ethical risks associated with research involving vulnerable populations such as children, prisoners, pregnant individuals, and disadvantaged persons, IRBs require additional safeguards to ensure ethical practices when conducting research with these groups (American Psychological Association, 2017). However, considerably less attention has been given to cultural considerations in research with marginalized, minoritized, or understudied groups, including in polyethnic, cross-cultural, and international contexts. Despite advancements in regulatory oversight, ethical guidelines too often fail to account for the complexities of conducting research in ways that are responsive to cultural differences and fully respectful of marginalized groups (Gil & Bob, 1999).

Historically, IRBs have primarily been tasked with safeguarding participants from physical and emotional harm, often without clear guidance regarding cultural sensitivity in research methods. For example, the Belmont Report, though a pivotal response to the history of participant abuse in research studies, does not explicitly address cultural sensitivity in research practice. Its three core principles—respect for persons, beneficence, and justice—were formulated primarily within a U.S. context and do not specifically account for the diverse cultural factors that shape the conduct and ethics of research across international settings. Acknowledging past failures to protect participants, the American Psychological Association (APA, 2017) has issued supplementary principles calling on psychologists to respect culture, race, and ethnicity and to incorporate culturally relevant considerations into their work. For country-specific guidance, researchers may consult The International Compilation of Human Research Standards (2024), which enumerates over 1,000 statutory and regulatory standards regarding human subject protections across more than 130 countries, encompassing both national frameworks and standards issued by international bodies. Although invaluable for multinational research, the Compilation remains limited in its coverage of issues beyond general human protections and rarely contains country-specific mandates for cultural sensitivity in research or for the ethical treatment of indigenous and other marginalized groups. In practice, both researchers and IRBs would benefit from clearer and specific guidance on the use of culturally appropriate methods.

Despite multiple guidelines and increased awareness of the existence of unethical studies, research across multiple disciplines–including psychology and the health sciences– continues to be marked by instances of culturally inappropriate and potentially harmful research practices (Bhutta, 2004; George et al., 2014; Keller, 2018; Simonds & Christopher, 2013). Informed consent offers a particularly instructive example. Widely regarded as a cornerstone of ethical research (Marshall, 2006), standard consent procedures are often rooted in Western values of individual autonomy and independent decision-making, and ethical challenges can arise when applying standardized consent procedures globally. Preferences for written consent, individual signatures, and uniformly applying consent protocols across cultural contexts may be culturally inappropriate, especially in the context of global health research (Bhutta, 2004; Brant Castellano, 2004; Davison et al., 2006; Ellis et al., 2006; Krogstad et al., 2010; Marshall, 2006).

Even when researchers adhere to the ethical guidelines, discrepancies can persist between research practices that are culturally appropriate and those considered standard in psychology (Cwik, 2021; Flicker et al., 2007; Leong & Lyons, 2010; Turner et al., 2023; Wilson et al., 2018). While developed with good intentions, these ethical codes are products of the cultures and countries of their origin (Leong & Lyons, 2010). As such, it is important to acknowledge the ethical codes we use in psychological research are neither value-free nor culturally neutral. The standards and guidelines used by many IRBs in Western countries have largely been developed within Western contexts and epistemologies, and may inadvertently reflect colonial perspectives (Adams et al., 2015). Consequently, the definition of ethical research practices in psychology is culturally limited, further extending the issue of underrepresentation in research beyond participants and researchers themselves to include representation in the very processes by which ethical research standards and methods are defined. In summary, although IRBs and foundational documents such as the Belmont Report established essential protections for research participants, sustained critiques and the emergence of new guidelines—such as those issued by the APA and international bodies—reveal the need for continual re-evaluation and enhancement of ethical practices to ensure cultural sensitivity and representation. These remain a pressing responsibility and an ongoing challenge for all researchers operating in an increasingly globalized and pluralistic research landscape.

1.7 Colonization in Psychological Research

In recent years, interest in internationalizing psychology has increased among psychologists, leading to growing calls for greater inclusion of diverse samples and culturally appropriate research practices. Yet, substantial ethical and methodological challenges remain when conducting studies in cultures, communities, or countries different from those of the researchers themselves (Clough et al., 2013; Dzidic & Bishop, 2017; Leong & Lyons, 2010). Despite the existence of research models that incorporate cultural considerations in psychological research–such as the Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961) Framework, Community Based Participatory Action Research, and Critical Participatory Action Research–as well as ethical guidelines for cross-cultural research (e.g., Ponterotto & Grieger, 2008), the dominance of Western scientific research practices in global or multicultural contexts remains both culturally limited and ethically fraught. Failure to meaningfully integrate cultural considerations in both research methods and ethics reflects a long-standing deficiency in psychology, leading to potential mismatches between research practices and the communities being studied.

To conduct ethical research we must approach both participant representation and research methodology in culturally appropriate ways, ensuring that culture informs every step of the research cycle. This shift requires moving beyond simply adding cultural variables to research and instead fostering genuine cultural integration into all aspects of the research process. In the following sections, we discuss several ways in which the legacy of colonization may appear in psychological research, and how recognizing and addressing these influences is vital for advancing not only the cultural sensitivity of psychology but also its scientific validity and ethical integrity.

1.8 Positionality

Research methods and practices in psychological research have been largely shaped by colonial and Western worldviews–with these foundations so deeply ingrained in research training that they often go unquestioned and undetected. For instance, privileging the scientific method as the sole path to uncovering and discovering truth dismisses alternative epistemologies valued by cultures and communities across the Majority World. Many of the widely accepted research practices, methods of assessment, and even the very notion of scientific rigor in psychology all reflect the cultural context in which they originated (e.g., Abo-Zena et al., 2022. Amidst growing calls to internationalize and decolonize psychological research, the field has made limited efforts to critically examine and address the ways Western cultural biases have shaped scientific epistemologies, research methodologies, and ethical standards.

Even less attention has been devoted to recognizing the influence of researchers’ cultural backgrounds and positionality at each stage of the research process. For example, when Western researchers conduct studies in non-Western contexts, despite their good intentions, they may rely on concepts presuming individualism and employ research practices that are culturally inappropriate (Adams et al., 2015). Such practices, grounded in Western conceptions of human nature, reinforce the hegemony of Western standards and further contribute to the persistent underrepresentation of the Majority World in psychological research, thereby limiting our understanding of how culture shapes human variability (Abo-Zena et al., 2022).

Whether we as psychological researchers explicitly acknowledge it in our research questions or the variables we choose, we are always studying culture. Participants’ responses are shaped by their identities and by broader sociocultural, economic, and political contexts. Just as participants are embedded within culture, so are the researchers and the methods they employ. As stated previously, psychological research methods are grounded within culturally-constructed epistemologies of science. Thus, research questions, research methods, study findings, and researchers are inherently non-neutral and culturally situated. In multiple ways, culture is always present in psychological research.

1.10 Validity and Generalizability

Cultural bias in research impacts not only participant representation and methodology, but it can also undermine the validity and generalizability of study findings (see chapter 1). As researchers, we are rarely taught that the scientific method itself can introduce bias. Instead, it is often presented as value-neutral and essential for avoiding bias. Furthermore, we are told that it is this scientific objectivity that safeguards research from bias and thereby ensures valid and generalizable findings. Rarely have we considered how maintaining Western epistemologies and utilizing research methods developed within Western cultures can introduce bias into findings, particularly when these approaches are applied cross-culturally and globally. What we know about human psychology is a function of the theories, research processes, methods and assumptions we privilege. Ignoring cultural differences at any stage of the research process (e.g., research question, study design, recruitment, data collection, data analysis and interpretation) can compromise results, especially if participants feel uncomfortable or distrustful of the researchers and the research process, which may impact their responses. This can result in a lack of knowledge culturally, racially, and globally and may also produce findings that lack reliability and validity (Clark et al., 2019; Keller, 2018; Schmidt et al., 2021; van de Vijver, 2013). For example, psychometric issues have been documented when psychological concepts and methods have been applied cross-culturally without cultural consideration or appropriate adaptations (Boer et al., 2018; Lacko et al., 2022). Such issues present significant limitations to achieving a global understanding of human development, which concerns not only the validity and generalizability of study findings but also calls into question the ethics of applying decontextualized psychological models and empirical findings to global populations (Bhatia & Priya, 2018; Gone, 2021; Shah, 2012; Turner et al., 2023).

Conducting culturally appropriate research is not just an ethical imperative; it is necessary for scientific validity. Without appropriately considering relevant cultural factors, variable measurement (the way we measure constructs) and interpretation (the way we understand human diversity) may be biased, restricting our understanding of human psychology (Dana, 2000). Next, we review a few examples within psychology.

1.10.1 Applied Examples

Few psychological theories have been applied across cultures more broadly than attachment theory. Attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969; 1973; 1979) suggests infants form emotional bonds with their caregivers early in life and these attachment relationships have significant influence on children’s psychological development. However, these ideas of parenting and child development are based in the parenting practices of Western, middle-class families (i.e., later parenthood, high levels of formal education, few children in a nuclear household), which represent approximately 5% of the global population (Keller, 2018; Vicedo, 2017). Widespread acceptance among psychologists of attachment theory’s universal validity and generalizability has led to attachment theory’s assessments–such as the Strange Situation (Ainsworth et al., 1978), Attachment Q-Sort technique (Waters & Deane, 1985), and Adult Attachment Interview (George et al., 1996)–being used across cultures often without sufficient regard for cultural or family context (Gaskins et al., 2017; Rosabal-Coto et al., 2017; Schmidt et al., 2021). Subsequent studies have raised questions regarding the universality of the claims associated with attachment theory and its measurement. For example, attachment theory assumes a single person serves as the primary attachment figure. Yet, Schmidt and colleagues (2021) found in Costa Rican Guanacaste and Bribri communities that children were raised by multiple caregivers in extended family households. Here, in contrast to attachment theory’s original claims, forming multiple close attachments (e.g., older siblings or extended family members) may be normative and mothers may not be the primary attachment figures (Schmidt et al., 2021). These findings highlight the need to assess attachment in ways that account for caregiver roles and sociocultural norms for family and kinship.

Additionally, attachment theory assumes the mother is the primary caregiver and attachment figure, leading subsequent research to focus predominantly on mother-child relationships, which may ignore other important attachment bonds for some children (Cowan & Cowan, 2019). Some studies suggest interactions such as stimulation and play–historically not viewed as attachment-behaviors–may predict father-infant attachment (Cowan & Cowan, 2019; Grossmann et al., 2002; Olsavsky et al., 2019). Furthermore, the involvement of father attachment figures in caregiving, exploration, play, and sociocultural education varies across cultures (Cowan & Cowan, 2019; Olsavsky et al., 2019; Schmidt, 2021). Thus, parenting beliefs and practices related to attachment may differ by culture and gender, suggesting attachment measures valid in one culture may not be reliable or valid in another. However, the same Western methods have often been used to measure attachment cross-culturally with little consideration of the cultural contexts and meaning of attachment behaviors. To ensure reliability, validity, and generalizability, attachment must be conceptualized and assessed in a manner that fits with participants’ cultural practices.

Turning from theory to psychological constructs, the Five-Factor Model of personality (or Big Five; McCrae & Costa, 1987) is the most influential approach in Western psychology used to study personality. The model proposes five traits as the main components of the structure of personality (i.e., openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism, or OCEAN). The great majority of studies on the Big Five have used North American and European samples, and the initial cross-cultural studies obtained their results by sampling university students (e.g., McCrae, 2002). These studies exporting the Western model of personality to test samples from other nations seemed to confirm the universality of the model. However, undergraduates from non-Western countries may not be representative of their cultural groups due to their levels of literacy and exposure to Western culture in their education (Thalmayer et al., 2022). Furthermore, a less universalistic conclusion was reached by research conducted on samples representing non-literate traditional cultures (as opposed to country-level samples of undergraduates). Using interviews based on the Big Five, a study of the Tsimane in the Bolivian Amazon (Gurven et al., 2013) and another study of the Moré in Burkina Faso, found little support for the model (Rossier et al., 2013). Some Indigenous psychology researchers have argued that the very concept of personality might not even be applicable to other cultural groups, and when it is applicable, there could be different traits that are culturally relevant (Fox, 2020). Other researchers point out that even if the Big Five traits were measurable in non-Western groups, these traits might not be culturally relevant in the groups’ everyday life (Cheung et al., 1996; Gurven et al., 2013). In summary, we cannot simply impose the idea of universal and fixed personality traits on non-Western groups based upon the findings of limited studies conducted in largely Western contexts.

Finally, adapting materials originally developed in Western contexts is common in research. In such instances, it is important to consider if psychological concepts, theories, and methods can be culturally adapted for a community and to then carefully consider how to meaningfully adapt study materials. For example, Western theories and measures of parenting tend to portray Asian American parenting practices as less affectionate, more stern and controlling (Huntsinger et al., 2001; Kagitcibasi, 2007), and aligned with authoritarian parenting more than authoritative parenting (Baumrind, 1991). However, several studies that used Asian cultural values to assess Asian American parenting have produced different perspectives. A study that included an Indigenous measure of Korean parenting, captured by ga-jung-kyo-yuk, found Korean American parenting was a blend of the Western concepts of authoritative (warm) and authoritarian (control) parenting styles (Choi et al., 2013). Assessed in a more culturally-informed manner, Korean American parenting was found to comprise primarily positive and limited negative parenting practices. Similarly, the guan parenting and qin measures, developed for Chinese American parents and children, also found Chinese American parenting was made up of both authoritative and authoritarian features (Chao, 1994; Wu & Chao, 2011). When compared to European American parents, Asian American parents rate parental control more positively; however, findings suggest parental control may be viewed differently across cultures (Cho et al., 2021; Li et al., 2022). Therefore, Asian American parenting may illustrate a blending of authoritative and authoritarian practices. This nuanced perspective of Asian American parenting was achieved by considering both the linguistic and cultural relevance of existing theories and measures. Thus, the meaning and impact of parenting behaviors may depend upon the cultural context in which they occur, which may not be assessed in a valid manner if measures are adapted without deeper consideration of language and culture.

1.11 Representation of Local Researchers

Coloniality in psychological research can also extend to representation among researchers themselves. Although well-intentioned international collaborations are often framed as professional opportunities for researchers in the Majority World, they may yield disproportionate benefits for researchers from Western countries (Dahdouh-Guebas, 2003; Steinert et al., 2021). Furthermore, researchers from formerly colonized countries may hold subordinate positions in such partnerships and, thus, have less power to make decisions about research practices (Deb Roy, 2018). This imbalance is further reinforced by Western researchers’ increased access to larger sources of funding that may be available in Western countries, which can contribute to the overrepresentation of Western perspectives in scientific journals (Adams et al., 2018). Therefore, Western researchers may be in a position to determine the research topic and questions, irrespective of the local needs or research interests (Boshoff, 2009). In many cases, local researchers in formerly colonized countries are essential for carrying out the fieldwork for collaborators who are located in other countries, often without co-authorship or while occupying middle-authorship positions (Dahdouh-Guebas, 2003; Deb Roy, 2018; Odeny & Bosurgi, 2022). Local researchers’ cultural knowledge, social capital in the community, and on-the-ground labor may be necessary for participant recruitment and data collection (Boshoff, 2009). Nevertheless, these community-based researchers may be denied the opportunity to contribute their cultural expertise to formulate culturally-informed research questions and design culturally appropriate studies (Dzidic & Bishop, 2017). In a 2003 study, Dahdouh-Guebas and colleagues examined scientific publications across 7,000 scientific journals that involved research collaborations between countries identified as “least developed” and “industrialized” using Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) criteria. They found local researchers in the “least developed” countries were more likely to conduct necessary fieldwork for their collaborators in “industrialized” countries (i.e., Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom, and the USA). Furthermore, local researchers and research institutes were not mentioned as co-authors in 70% of the publications. These patterns illustrate concerns regarding inclusive research methodologies as well as how both local participants and local researchers may continue to experience coloniality in regions still shaped by colonial legacies. To build a more inclusive and equitable discipline, when conducting studies in non-Western contexts, in communities that still experience the ongoing legacy of their colonial past, we must partner equitably with local researchers and use research methods that are appropriate in those cultural contexts.

Additionally, the majority of psychological studies are not positioned culturally or geographically. That is, despite their localism, Western psychological findings tend to be situated as if they are universal. To those in the Majority World, Western psychology can be viewed as decontextualized, ignoring the “coloniality of the modern global order” (Adams et al., 2015). Psychologists are called to be respectful of culture, avoid participating in culturally biased practices, and eliminate the influence of cultural bias in their work (American Psychological Association, 2017), including psychological research. Therefore, greater attention is needed regarding the ways Western scientific practices and Western researchers’ positionality may perpetuate Western hegemonic dynamics–such as privileging individualism, particular conceptions of scientific rigor, and Western epistemologies of science (Abo-Zena et al., 2022; Adams et al., 2015). To develop a global understanding of human psychology, researchers need to evaluate potential sources of cultural bias in their research methodologies and scientific perspectives (Adams et al., 2015; van de Vijver, 2013). Much of the literature on internationalizing psychological research emphasizes the need for more diverse samples, particularly the inclusions of individuals and communities from the Global South. However, few encourage Western researchers to engage in sustained listening to participants and equitable partnership with colleagues from these regions (Adams et al., 2017; Cwik, 2021; Rodriguez Ramirez & Langhout, 2023). As psychologists, we must recognize the historical and structural conditions under which research has been conducted, conditions that have disproportionately benefited Western researchers and reinforced power imbalances that often exist between researchers in Western countries and the Majority World. In the next section, we highlight examples that are relevant in the context of the United States.

1.12 The Culture of Research: Using the United States as a Case Study

The United States has emerged as a leader in psychology, producing many of the theoretical models and assessment methods now widely applied cross-culturally and globally. Yet, findings derived primarily from U.S. researchers, methodologies, and participants may not provide the knowledge needed to understand the experiences of the Majority World. Not only does the United States represent less than 5% of the world population, but several studies also suggest WEIRD samples from the United States are not representative of hums globally, including people from other Western countries (Henrich et al., 2010). As a result of the limited studies conducted internationally, psychology has little empirical basis for determining the extent to which findings from the United States generalize to other cultures and countries, the potential mechanisms involved, or the conditions under which those processes occur (Thalmayer et al., 2021).

Applying U.S.-based research perspectives and methods to other cultures and in countries beyond the United States raises concerns. Little attention has been given to the potential harm that can occur to participants and communities (Shore et al., 2008) when researchers utilize research methods originally developed in Western contexts, even when they are adapted for local use. For example, translating questionnaires without ensuring both linguistic and conceptual equivalence can produce items that are culturally irrelevant or inappropriate. In clinical contexts, diagnoses based upon Western norms and assumptions about mental health have been applied in countries where the underlying concepts may lack cultural equivalence (Foa et al., 2000; Summerfield, 2008; Watters, 2010). Furthermore, the dominance of quantitative methods in the United States has also contributed to the marginalization of qualitative approaches, which are more prevalent internationally, appear less frequently in top-tier psychology journals, and are sometimes regarded as less rigorous (Denzin, 2009; Denzin & Lincoln, 2001; Leong & Lyons, 2010; see chapter 2).

Instead of developing local theories and assessments that are culturally and ecologically informed, U.S. psychologists have often pursued universal theories and assessments, operating under the assumption that their work applies across all cultural contexts. As stated earlier, attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969; 1973; 1979) and its associated concepts have been exported cross-culturally for research and applied purposes. However, attachment relationships and caregiving norms vary across cultures. For example, among the Ivorian Beng and Cameroonian Nso, stranger anxiety may be less common because children are accustomed to multiple caregivers and encounter few strangers, making them less likely to turn to a parent as a marker of secure attachment (Gottlieb, 2004; Otto, 2014). Despite these concerns regarding cultural relevance, Western perspectives on secure attachment and sensitive parenting have been associated with appropriate parenting and have influenced social services, child protective services, and family law in the United States and other countries (Rosobal-Coto et al., 2017). When evaluated against Western middle-class standards of parenting, caregiving practices in other cultures can be misinterpreted as unresponsive, harsh, or emotionally distant (e.g., Brisch, 2016; Weber et al., 2017). Moreover, attachment theory has been used not only to describe parenting practices but also to judge parenting quality. Parenting practices not viewed as sensitive or child-centered by Western child welfare standards have sometimes been interpreted as indicators of inadequate parenting and used to justify removing children from their families (Choate & Tortorelli, 2022; Keller, 2018; Waters et al., 2024). These patterns disproportionately affect BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, People of Color) families, migrant families, and fathers. For example, concerns regarding practices such preadolescents providing care for a younger sibling while home alone, engaging in parent-child co-sleeping, appearing disengaged from a child’s school, or failing to view fathers as significant caregivers are all examples of how attachment theory has informed public policy in ways that may misinterpret or misrepresent families in the Majority World (Gaskins et al., 2017; Teufl & Ahnert, 2022). Attachment theory has also shaped custody and placement court decisions despite ongoing questions about the validity of attachment assessments for fathers and for multi-caregiver households across cultures (e.g., Bretherton, 2010; Rosabal-Coto et al., 2017; Schmidt et al., 2021). Although aspects of the theory have evolved since its inception (Ainsworth, 1978; Main & Solomon, 1986; 1990), Bowlby’s original model did not adequately address cultural variability, and its core assumptions have largely remained intact. Assuming universality in attachment and using it to judge parenting quality raises serious ethical concerns, especially when applied in contexts where caregiving practices have not been evaluated for cross-cultural validity and reliability in clinical and legal settings (Keller, 2018). These examples illustrate what can happen when concepts or measures are generalized beyond the settings in which they were developed.

Limited representation in research also becomes consequential when applying findings on a broader scale, especially in medical treatment. For example, pulse oximeters are medical devices that estimate blood oxygen saturation, and they are considered part of standard care during surgeries and in intensive care units (Henry et al., 2022). Reliably detecting occult hypoxemia (low arterial oxygen tension) is essential for determining whether patients require medical care such as hospitalization or supplemental oxygen therapy. Despite the widespread clinical use of pulse oximeters, multiple studies have found pulse oximeters may systematically overestimate blood oxygen levels in individuals with darker skin pigmentation. A team of physicians that included John Severinghaus, one of the inventors of blood gas analysis, found a positive bias in oximeter readings for participants with darker skin pigmentation (Bickler et al., 2005; Feiner et al., 2007). Moreover, the team acknowledged the majority of participants in their studies of pulse oximeter accuracy over the past twenty years had light skin pigmentation. Their findings suggest dark skin pigmentation may be associated with an overestimation of oxygen levels. In another study, Gottlieb and colleagues (2022) found that, among intensive care unit (ICU) patients, oximeter readings overestimated oxygen levels for Asian, Black, and Hispanic patients. This led to significantly less supplemental oxygen being administered compared to White patients. During the COVID-19 pandemic, further evidence emerged. Sjodling and colleagues (2020) found that Black patients experienced close to three times the frequency of occult hypoxemia undetected by pulse oximeters compared to White patients in a comparison across 178 hospitals. Moreover, in a study involving patients diagnosed with COVID-19, researchers found inaccurate pulse oximeter results for Asian, Black, and Hispanic patients, and overestimates of oxygen levels in their blood were associated with a failure to identify Black and Hispanic patients in need of COVID-19 treatments (Fawzy et al., 2022). In a Mayo Clinic study, Henry and colleagues (2022) found that Black, Asian, and American Indian patients admitted to the ICU or undergoing surgery with anesthesia were more likely than White patients to experience occult hypoxemia. They also found that occult hypoxemia was associated with increased mortality among surgical and ICU patients, regardless of race. Although hypoxemia was detected in fewer than 2% of assessments, it was more common among Black patients than White patients (Henry et al., 2022). Collectively, these findings suggest that differences in pulse oximeter results and supplemental oxygen treatment may be contributing to broader racial and ethnic disparities in healthcare (Gottlieb et al., 2022; Sjodling et al., 2020). The clinical significance of failing to detect oxygen levels in the blood and provide critical treatments as a result of developing and testing devices primarily on individuals with lighter pigmented skin provides an applied example of how limited diversity in research and testing can produce serious real-world consequences.

Even techniques and instruments presumed to be unequivocally objective, such as neuroscience devices and procedures for psychophysiological data collection, are susceptible to phenotypic bias, that is, the systematic exclusion of data from participants with physical characteristics more common among racial and ethnic minority groups, such as hair type and skin pigmentation (Webb et al., 2022). For instance, in a review, Webb and colleagues (2022) documented phenotypical bias in electroencephalography (EEG), which measures the brain’s electrical activity via scalp sensors. This screening procedure, employed to ensure optimal electrode-to-scalp contact, can result in researchers disproportionately excluding many Black participants due to the impact of coarse, curly hair on recorded data, which is often interpreted as “bad” or “unusable data” (Web et al., 2022, p. 411). A similar bias is evident in functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS), a non-invasive technology that measures brain activity by directing light onto neurological tissue to detect changes in blood flow and oxygen levels. Relying on the scattering and absorption of light through tissue, this technique may be less accurate for individuals with darker skin pigmentation, as higher concentrations of light-absorbing molecules such as melanin alter light absorption. Thus, Web and colleagues (2022) challenge the assumption of fNIRS’ effectiveness across all skin tones, as it tends to be less accurate for individuals with darker skin pigmentation due to their higher light absorption.

Studies have also demonstrated the effects of lived experiences of racism on psychophysiological data (e.g., Carter et al., 2017a; 2017b; Berger & Sarnyai, 2015; Bird, 2021). Such experiences appear to affect Skin Conductance Response (SCR), a measure of perspiration in response to emotional arousal such as excitement or stress, by placing sensors on the participant’s fingers. In SCR studies of fear conditioning, Black participants have been disproportionally excluded because they show lower baseline activity and diminished or immeasurable responses to fear cues compared to White participants. These excluded participants are often labeled “non-learners” or “difficult subjects,” and their data is deemed “unusable” (Kredlow et al., 2017). However, these differences are partly explained by adverse life experiences, including low income, challenging neighborhoods, and exposure to violence (Harnett et al., 2019; Martínez et al., 2014). When such factors are statistically controlled, racial disparities in SCR responses are mitigated (Harnett et al., 2019). Rather than reflecting a data quality problem, these patterns point to the inadequacy of research frameworks that treat White participants’ responses as the default.

In clinical psychology, representation gaps have similarly consequential implications for treatment. Two meta-analyses suggest culturally adapting materials can improve intervention effectiveness, and interventions with more adaptations may be associated with stronger outcomes (Griner & Smith, 2006; Smith et al., 2011). Yet in practice, cultural adaptations are often minimal, sometimes deliberately so, to preserve fidelity to the original Western perspectives, maintain scientific rigor, or uphold implementation standards (Dzidic & Bishop, 2017; Valente & Sanchez, 2022). This focus on maintaining Western frameworks can further elevate Western methodological norms and limit the effectiveness of interventions across cultures. Thus, ethically responsible adaptation must account for the cultural assumptions embedded in an intervention’s original development, and not only the cultural context in which it is later applied.

Inadequate representation and insufficient cultural adaptation can also create conditions for iatrogenic harm, in which the intervention itself causes harm. Generalizing from WEIRD studies risks mischaracterizing or pathologizing the experiences of Majority World populations (Adams et al., 2015), and implementing treatments without adequate cultural evidence increases the risk of interventions that are ineffective or actively harmful (Buchanan & Wiklund, 2020; Burlew et al., 2013; Garrett al., 2014; Kira, 2010; Valente et al., 2022). As an example, the international response to the 2004 Sri Lanka tsunami illustrates these risks. Following the disaster, trauma counselors and researchers from the United States and several other Western countries arrived to provide what were understood as “modern mental health services” (see Watters, 2010), bringing with them Western notions of trauma, emotional expression, grief, and mental health treatment which were believed to be universal. Survivors’ discomfort with discussing their emotions or memories of the tsunami were framed as denial. In some instances, individuals reported feeling worse after being expected to talk about their experiences during the tsunami using a Western style of counseling. Furthermore, some practitioners reported that children were coached on how they should feel according to Western norms (Wessells & Kostelny, 2021). Western counselors and researchers were largely focused on assessing and treating symptoms of PTSD, with little attention paid to the cultural relevance and validity of the diagnostic tools being used or to the importance of social and cultural factors shaping how people understood traumatic experiences and sought support within their local communities (Watters, 2010).

Beyond the therapeutic problems, the structural consequences of this aid model were also significant. The influx of Western-funded humanitarian projects in Sri Lanka drew workers away from the local communities that needed them, weakening existing social networks and neighborhood relationships, and undermined Indigenous forms of support that had long contributed to well-being (Wessells & Kostelny, 2021). Though well-intended, the mental health and research teams often imposed Western views of mental health support, and ultimately many of the aid projects were not sustainable. Following the rapid exit of many of the largest NGOs once the immediate crisis had passed, many local workers found themselves suddenly unemployed, and communities were left without sustainable services (Steinert et al., 2021; Wessells & Kostelny, 2021).

Taken together, these examples illustrate several ways in which the lack of representation and diversity in studies conducted in the United States, or by US-based researchers, can contribute to a limited and sometimes distorted understanding of human psychology. These instances of racial biases in methodology reflect “colorblind thinking” in science (Web et al., 2022, p. 411), where methods and technologies are optimized for European-descent individuals while erroneously assuming equivalence across racial and ethnic groups. These biased procedures and instruments not only yield biased data, they can also lead to misdiagnosis, underdiagnosis, and maltreatment for BIPOC individuals. As a discipline, psychology knows far less empirically than it often claims due to the paucity of globally representative evidence and because many cross-cultural and international studies have been conducted using Western perspectives and methodologies while nonetheless claiming to represent all of humanity.

Despite many researchers’ genuine interest in global research, significant problems remain. Cultural perspectives are embedded within scientific epistemologies, and the embeddedness of culture in research processes has contributed to a preponderance of measures and assessment methods developed, tested, and normed in the United States and then widely used elsewhere in the world. When researchers fail to examine how culture, including their own cultural location, shapes research at multiple levels, unintended harmful consequences can follow. Internationalizing and decolonizing psychological research therefore requires more than expanding the geographical reach of data collection or diversifying samples. It requires a deeper scrutiny of the processes through which research is conducted and of the role we play as researchers within those processes. It is incumbent upon us, as researchers, to educate ourselves and use culturally appropriate methodologies when conducting research both domestically and internationally.

1.13 Re-envisioning Psychological Research Methods

In this section we discuss several ways to internationalize and decolonize psychological research. Decolonizing must be a part of the process if the field of psychology is to be transformed into a culturally informed science that produces valid and reliable findings about humans globally. Decolonization involves more than adapting research methods; it requires undoing the power inequalities between North and South that shape how knowledge is produced (Gone, 2021). One way to address this is to empower those in the Majority World and include their perspectives in each step of the research process. This includes the way we define concepts and formulate theories as well as the ways in which we collect, interpret, and disseminate findings (see chapters 4 and 5). Thus, decolonizing psychological research is an approach, not a specific methodology, that empowers researchers and fosters inclusive, equitable practices at each stage of the research process. It also calls researchers to engage in humility and openness to the perspectives, expertise, and wisdom of others. This approach supports the specific recommendations presented in this section.

The recommendations that follow are grounded in three basic principles: (a) Western researchers can share the power of knowledge creation and distribution with Majority World colleagues; (b) Western researchers can value and solicit the perspectives of study participants throughout the research process; and (c) outsider perspectives can inform the research process and add value by introducing cross-cultural perspectives.

To date, published studies in psychology are disproportionately authored by researchers in Western countries or those trained in Western epistemologies of science. The lack of global perspectives matters because a power differential has historically existed between researchers and participants, particularly between Western researchers and those in the Majority World. Researchers’ social categories, identities, historical positions of power, and educational experiences can shape the research questions they consider important and the methods they use to pursue them. In recent decades calls have been made to both increase global representation among researchers and to address historical issues of ethics and power in research practices. As an example, the APA Resolution on Culture and Gender Awareness in International Psychology (2004) calls psychologists to recognize how power hierarchies shape global psychological research and to develop ethical and culturally appropriate research methods in response.

Addressing this power differential requires tangible changes to how research is designed and conducted. For example, researchers may consider forming cross-cultural teams to include diverse perspectives when developing research questions, defining constructs, and ensuring that all variables are theoretically framed, operationalized, and assessed in culturally relevant and inclusive ways. Equitable research partnerships may also involve asking local collaborators how they would like to be acknowledged or compensated for their contributions. More broadly, culturally respectful partnerships may require Western researchers to consider and utilize epistemologies and methodological approaches that differ from those in which they were trained.

Second, an internationalized and decolonized approach calls researchers to share authority in the production of knowledge by incorporating participant perspectives throughout the research process. This begins at the design stage: researchers may ask whether variables are operationalized in culturally relevant ways, whether the constructs being measured reflect what participants themselves consider important, and whether the context for assessment or data collection is culturally appropriate. Researchers must also be trained in the ethical requirements of the countries in which they are conducting research, not only those of their own country (Clough et al., 2013). Failure to examine study designs and how variables are assessed from participants’ perspectives can produce findings that are culturally inappropriate and inaccurate. For example, some cultures may place greater value on collectivism and harmony, whereas others may place greater value on individualism and assertiveness. Similarly, concepts such as parental warmth and discipline carry different meanings across and within cultures (Choi et al., 2013; Cho et al., 2021; Li et al., 2022). Thus, researchers must consider not only the variables under study but also how those variables are assessed, incorporating participants’ perspective to improve participant comprehension and strengthen the validity, reliability, and generalizability of findings.

Participant involvement need not end at data collection. Including participants’ perspectives in the interpretation of findings may help situate results within relevant sociocultural, economic, and political contexts while also prompting researchers to reflect on how both their own positionality as well as participant’s positionality shaped the research (Cwik, 2021). By sharing authority with participants, researchers can co-create knowledge that more accurately reflects the communities involved in research studies. Both emic and etic perspectives have scientific value and can be mutually reinforcing: insider knowledge deepens the meaning of findings, while outsider perspectives can reveal patterns that those within a culture take for granted. Allowing each viewpoint to inform the other moves psychological research toward findings that are both culturally appropriate and scientifically valid.

Thus, researchers from outside of a culture or community can be valuable members of a diverse research team, precisely because different perspectives together encourage attention to culture at every stage of the research process. To make psychology inclusive of all humanity, psychological research must incorporate perspectives that are local, international, and cross-cultural. This requires not only critically examining the epistemologies and methodologies we employ as well as representation and positionality of researchers and participants alike, but also scrutinizing potential cultural biases that may shape how findings are interpreted. Without such reflexivity, researchers risk misrepresenting, judging, or over-exceptionalizing other groups (Shah, 2012).

This critical vigilance is especially important in research involving Indigenous communities. While it is essential to recognize, value, and include Indigenous voices and practices in research, failing to apply a critical lens on indigenous practices can produce romanticized or overly narrow portrayals of Indigenous communities (Adams et al., 2018). When cultural practices are not examined in relation to their environmental and historical circumstances, the result may be thin descriptions of participants and misinterpretations of their practices. Dismissing Indigenous knowledge as mere “folk” wisdom or conversely romanticizing it as timeless and unchanging, positions Indigenous peoples as culturally and psychologically static or traditional in ways rarely applied to Western societies, which are typically assumed to be dynamic, adaptive, and ecologically responsive. This double standard obscures the fact that cultural practices evolve over time across all societies.

An important step in decolonizing psychology involves moving from the pursuit of objectivity toward embracing perspectivism (cf. Smith, 2022). Objectivity has long been a bedrock of modern science (Hanna, 2004), and psychology, from its inception, modeled itself after the natural sciences by elevating objectivity over subjectivity. The underlying assumption is that maintaining distance from the phenomena under investigation ensures accuracy. Yet, this conception of objectivity presupposes a clear separation between observer and observed, a stance that is untenable in psychology and the social sciences more broadly (e.g., Halpin, 1989). The challenge emerges from the fact that psychologists are themselves humans embedded in the very kind of topics they study. This problem is especially evident once the influence of the researcher’s own culture is recognized. Even in research conducted in the West, Western psychologists studying their own cultural group function as “unacknowledged insiders” (Greenfield, 1994, p. 23), unaware of how deeply their cultural context is intricately interwoven with the phenomena they investigate, the theories they use, and the interpretations they produce. Failing to recognize culture as a dynamic force within both themselves and their participants, psychologists risk portraying their findings as universally applicable (Taylor, 1986), obscuring the diversity of psychological experience across cultures. Specifically, testing WEIRD theories with WEIRD samples can inadvertently “validate” Eurocentric theories and then present them as universal norms rather than localized phenomena. This tendency results in hegemonic psychology conflating culturally specific findings with universals, thereby imposing an ethnocentric account of human psychology on cultures and countries in the Majority World. To circumvent this predicament, we must abandon the pretense of detached, culture-free, and objective observation. Instead, employing a multicultural perspectivism acknowledges our cultural complexity and creates space for diverse cultural perspectives to be intrinsic to psychological inquiry. Embracing perspectivism in place of an unattainable objectivity lays the foundation for a more globally inclusive and decolonized psychology.

The goal of increasing global perspectives and employing more inclusive methodologies cannot be achieved without also enabling Western IRBs to assess research practices critically and flexibly for cultural relevance and appropriateness, not only regulatory compliance. There is growing recognition that research can harm individuals and communities even when it satisfies ethical requirements but neglects cultural considerations (Fadare & Porteri, 2010; Shah, 2012; Wilson et al., 2018). Expecting participants to comply with culturally inappropriate research procedures is itself inconsistent with the APA Ethics Code (American Psychological Association, 2017). Ethical research, therefore, requires more than procedural compliance; it also includes protection from harm caused by culturally inappropriate research practices (APA Resolution on Culture and Gender Awareness in International Psychology, 2004). Thus, IRBs must be equipped to evaluate whether research practices are culturally appropriate and inclusive when weighing the potential risks and benefits of a study (Baydala et al., 2013; Bhutta, 2004; Clough et al., 2013).

Although this may seem daunting, researchers and institutions have transformed entrenched scientific practices before. One instructive example comes from the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the United States during the 1980s. Prior to the spread of HIV/AIDS, the National Institute of Health’s (NIH) standard operating procedures centered on lengthy clinical trials (National Institutes of Health, 1991; National Research Council (US) Panel on Monitoring the Social Impact of the AIDS Epidemic et al., 1993). In response to the slow pace of governmental agencies and medical research organizations, ACT UP (AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power), an international organization formed in the United States in 1987, advocated for significant changes in medical research. Through what it called an inside-outside strategy, ACT UP effectively pressured the NIH and pharmaceutical companies and eventually became an active partner with research scientists to accelerate change (Aizenman, 2019). The results were striking. The average drug approval time dropped from ten years to one year, and the scientific community was compelled to reexamine both the methods and the ethics of randomized controlled trials, particularly their exclusion of historically marginalized groups (National Research Council (US) Panel on Monitoring the Social Impact of the AIDS Epidemic et al., 1993; Specter, 2002). ACT UP played a critical role prompting government agencies and drug companies to expedite their procedures and to include people with HIV/AIDS in the research process. As Dr. Anthony Fauci later reflected, “ACT UP put medical treatment in the hands of the patients and that is the way it ought to be” (National Institutes of Health, 2023; Specter, 2002). Thus, ACT UP pushed the scientific community to reconsider and change the way medical research was conducted (Aizenman, 2019). What had seemed a radical departure from gold-standard research practices became a model for more responsive, inclusive research. The parallel for psychology is clear. If we are to understand human psychological processes globally, we must reevaluate our procedures and remain open to methodological pluralism and Majority World perspectives, not as supplements to Western frameworks, but as constitutive elements of the science itself. As this example suggests, this work cannot be carried out by individual researchers alone; it also requires institutional change.

1.14 Researchers within Broader Systems

Although this chapter is written for Western psychological researchers, the imperative of internationalizing and decolonizing research extends to every level of the scientific enterprise. A full treatment of these systematic issues is beyond the scope of this chapter. Still, it is important to acknowledge that the challenges to internationalizing and decolonizing research are not limited to individual investigators, but embedded throughout the structures of the field (e.g., university research infrastructure, the tenure system, grant funding, and manuscript review and publication processes). Accordingly, the field must move beyond awareness of these long-standing issues and commit itself to addressing the structural biases that continue to privilege certain cultural perspectives and research practices above others.

Some aspects of this work rest within the individual researchers’ control, such as evaluating the cultural appropriateness of their assessment methods. Other areas require broader systemic reform. Tenure and promotion expectations, for instance, can discourage the kind of research that internationalization and decolonization demand. Developing collaborative and trusting relationships within communities takes time, resources, and sustained presence (Castleden et al., 2012; Walker et al., 2020). Furthermore, working with community leaders to meaningfully integrate their cultural expertise into the research questions, study design, data analysis, interpretation, and dissemination of findings is an ethically necessary but time-consuming process. When institutions place a disproportionate weight on publication volume while undervaluing the ethical process by which research is conducted, researchers may be subtly discouraged from pursuing internationalizing and decolonizing practices. One result is the continued overreliance on WEIRD samples largely drawn from undergraduate participant pools.

The WEIRD bias of much published psychological research further points to deeper problems within the publication process itself. Despite their localism, Western studies are often presented without cultural or location indicators, while research conducted outside the West is more likely to be explicitly identified geographically (Pillay, 2017). Across several subdisciplines in psychology, studies conducted in WEIRD contexts were less likely to include the country of data collection in the publication title compared to those conducted elsewhere (Cheon et al., 2020; Kahalon et al., 2022). Including the country in the article title may represent an effort to avoid assuming or implying universality and to acknowledge the situated nature of a given sample. Yet, Kahalon and colleagues (2022) found that non-US articles that named their samples’ country in their titles received fewer citations, suggesting that their findings were viewed as locally bounded and, therefore, not generalizable. They also found that naming the country in the title was more common among studies using non-WEIRD samples. As a result, Kahalon et al. (2022) advise editors, reviewers, and authors to consider the bias that may arise when researchers with non-WEIRD samples are asked to specify their sample’s country in the title. A related concern involves the limitations section. When samples are predominantly WEIRD, researchers often flag the absence of racial representation as a limitation. However, demographically homogenous samples, wherever they originate, can still contribute meaningfully to the broader, cumulative understanding of human psychology. Internationalizing psychological science includes both exploratory and replication studies conducted worldwide to achieve global representation, which means rethinking what counts as a contribution and recognizing both the value and the constraints of any single study within a global literature. Thus, we encourage researchers, reviewers, and editors to reflect carefully on how publication and writing conventions may unintentionally obstruct the goals of increasing international research (see chapter 7).

Finally, research funding structures in psychology can reinforce the dominance of Western research methodologies. Disparities in which researchers or institutions have access to funding, combined with broader structural barriers to conducting culturally appropriate research, can create conditions for “parachute science,” whereby Western researchers may quickly collect data from a community and depart without sharing findings, resources, or credit (Brant Castellano, 2004; Shah, 2012; Villafuerte, 2020; Wessells & Kostelny, 2021). These interrelated factors sustain Western dominance in psychological research. Thus, individual commitment, while necessary, is not sufficient to address long-standing cultural biases and move the field toward a global human psychology. Broader systemic changes are also needed to provide structures that support researchers engaged in international and decolonized work.

The literature on internationalizing and decolonizing psychological research has tended to focus on the historical and ongoing harms experienced by cultures, communities, and countries, especially in relation to race and ethnicity excluding other identities and minoritized communities. That focus is essential, but it is not exhaustive. Developing an international and decolonized human psychology includes gender, sex, sexuality, age, disability, religion, spirituality, and family structure among other dimensions of humanity. A full review of coloniality across all of these domains is beyond the scope of this chapter, and researchers are encouraged to consult additional sources on these topics (e.g., Camarena & Rutter, 2015; Dirth & Adams, 2019; Mosley et al., 2024; see chapter 6).

1.15 Conclusion

Many methodological assumptions in psychological research remain insufficiently examined, and the time has come for researchers to confront the colonial and systemic problems embedded in our methods. When psychology is built on limited knowledge of human diversity, the consequences are not merely theoretical. They can lead to serious errors in diagnosis, treatment, and intervention by obscuring the ways psychological processes and practices may operate differently across cultures. What is needed, therefore, are studies that are international, decolonized, and ethically conducted.

In his now-classic discussion of ethical problems in medical research, Dr. Henry Beecher argued that such failures were not typically rooted in the researchers’ malicious intent and suggested that “an intelligent, informed, conscientious, compassionate, responsible investigator” served as a crucial safeguard to protect research participants (1966, p. 1360). Others have since challenged this reliance on the virtue of researchers as unrealistic and insufficient (e.g., Miller, 2012). Grady and Fauci (2016) offer a more balanced view: the virtuous researcher who takes ethical responsibility to protect participants is essential, but must work in concert with, not in place of, robust systems of oversight (e.g., IRBs). Good intentions, on their own, are not enough. Cross-cultural research conducted with sincere but uninformed goodwill can still be culturally inappropriate and scientifically invalid (Adams et al., 2015; Dzidic & Bishop, 2017; Janes, 2016; Wilson et al., 2018). Conducting ethical research requires more than compliance with ethical codes and IRB processes (Grady & Fauci, 2016). It demands that psychology, as a discipline, and we as researchers move beyond good intentions and make a deeper commitment to understanding the full diversity of human experience, placing people before processes.

  1. The term “Global South” refers to countries and regions primarily located in Africa, Latin America, Asia, and the Caribbean that are often characterized by lower levels of industrialization, economic development, and income compared to the “Global North,” which includes North America, Western Europe, and parts of East Asia. The concept of the Global South highlights historical and contemporary socio-economic and political inequalities resulting from colonialism, globalization, and uneven development (Dados & Connell, 2012). It serves as a framework for understanding global disparities and emphasizes the shared experiences of marginalization and resistance among these regions (Mahler, 2018).↩︎

  2. Throughout this chapter, we use the terms culture, country, and community to acknowledge distinctions between these concepts that are relevant for consideration in research processes.↩︎

  3. We acknowledge that the literature employs various terms such as decoloniality, anticolonialism, and the decolonial turn. Important distinctions have also been drawn between decolonizing, the process of decolonization, adopting a decolonial perspective, postcolonial or decolonial approaches, and using a decolonial framework. These terms represent diverse theories, philosophies, perspectives, and calls to action. We use the term “decolonize” broadly to refer to the process of critically examining our epistemologies of science, research methods, and our positionality and privilege as researchers. We encourage readers to explore additional resources for further insight (Abo-Zena et al., 2022; Adams et al., 2015; Adams et al., 2018; Pavón-Cuéllar, 2022).↩︎

  4. The term coloniality refers to the enduring patterns of power, knowledge, and economic relations established during colonial times that continue to influence contemporary societies, even after the end of formal colonial rule. (Qujiano, 2000). Coloniality is deeply intertwined with concepts of modernity and globalization, shaping inequalities and maintaining the dominance of Western perspectives (Mignolo, 2007). The term coloniality of knowledge refers to the pervasive influence of colonialism on the production and dissemination of knowledge, where Western ways of knowing and understanding the world are privileged over non-Western perspectives (Mignolo, 2009). This concept highlights how colonial power structures continue to shape academic disciplines, research methodologies, and epistemologies, often marginalizing or devaluing indigenous and local knowledge systems. The coloniality of knowledge emphasizes the need to recognize and challenge these power dynamics to create a more equitable and diverse intellectual landscape (Quijano, 2007).↩︎

  5. The term Majority World refers to regions often labeled as developing as well as populations identified as part of the Global South, primarily in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East. These regions encompass the majority of the global population. Using Majority World as a proper name shifts the focus from a deficit-based perspective—commonly associated with terms like Third World, underdeveloped countries or low to middle income countries —to one that acknowledges the demographic significance and diversity of these areas.↩︎