SavedAdd your journal

Journals / İstanbul Antropoloji Dergisi / 2025 / Sayı: 5

A Dual Inheritance Perspective on Cultural Bias, Psychological Science, and Human Diversity

Melih Varol(KADIR HAS UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-0716-7458
Onurcan Yılmaz(KADIR HAS UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-6094-7162
Pages
51–65
Publication Date
2026-05-21
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Finally, we outline theoretically grounded strategies for improving psychological research, emphasizing interdisciplinary collaboration, attention to underrepresented populations, and methodological pluralism.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Psychological science has become increasingly aware that its empirical foundation relies on samples drawn from Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) societies.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this article, we clarify and consolidate existing arguments by situating the WEIRD problem within a coherent explanatory framework that generates new theoretical insights into cultural and psychological variation accessible to both psychologists and anthropologists.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Finally, we outline theoretically grounded strategies for improving psychological research, emphasizing interdisciplinary collaboration, attention to underrepresented populations, and methodological pluralism.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:WEIRD problem · culture · diversity

Abstract

Psychological science has become increasingly aware that its empirical foundation relies on samples drawn from Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) societies. Accumulating evidence suggests that individuals from these contexts differ systematically from the majority of the world’s population—and from the broader evolutionary history of Homo sapiens—across various psychological domains. Despite this recognition, the WEIRD problem is still often framed primarily as a methodological issue of sampling bias. In this article, we clarify and consolidate existing arguments by situating the WEIRD problem within a coherent explanatory framework that generates new theoretical insights into cultural and psychological variation accessible to both psychologists and anthropologists. Drawing on a Dual Inheritance perspective, we conceptualize psychological variation as the product of interacting genetic and cultural evolutionary processes, highlighting mechanisms such as social learning, norm transmission, and institutional reinforcement. From this perspective, cultural norms, institutions, and practices are not merely background variables but active mechanisms shaping cognition across historical time. WEIRD psychological patterns are therefore interpreted not as anomalies requiring statistical correction, but as culturally evolved configurations emerging from specific ecological, institutional, and historical conditions that systematically structure learning environments and behavioral tendencies. We review four interrelated challenges associated with the overreliance on WEIRD samples and reinterpret them through a cultural evolutionary framework: limited generalizability, cultural bias and ethnocentrism, insufficient attention to within-culture variation, and the absence of historical depth in psychological explanation. Integrating evidence from psychology, anthropology, archaeology, and cultural evolution, we show these challenges are mutually reinforcing rather than independent. Finally, we outline theoretically grounded strategies for improving psychological research, emphasizing interdisciplinary collaboration, attention to underrepresented populations, and methodological pluralism.

🔖

Cite This Article

Varol, M., Yılmaz, O. (2026). A Dual Inheritance Perspective on Cultural Bias, Psychological Science, and Human Diversity. İstanbul Antropoloji Dergisi, Sayı: 5, 51–65. https://doi.org/10.26650/IAR2025.1847261

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (58)

  1. Adjerid, I., & Kelley, K. (2018). Big data in psychology: A framework for research advancement. American Psychologist, 73, 899–917. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000190 google scholar
  2. Andersen, J. P., & Zou, C. (2015). Exclusion of Sexual Minority Couples from Research. Health Science Journal, 9 (6:10), 1–9 google scholar
  3. Apicella, C., Norenzayan, A., & Henrich, J. (2020). Beyond WEIRD: A review of the last decade and a look ahead to the global laboratory of the future. Evolution and Human Behavior, 41 (5), 319–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2020.07.015 google scholar
  4. Arnett, J.J. (2008). The neglected 95%: Why American psychology needs to become less American. American Psychologist, 63, 602–614. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016723 google scholar
  5. Barrett, H. C., Bolyanatz, A., Crittenden, A. N., Fessler, D. M. T., Fitzpatrick, S., Gurven, M., … & Laurence, S. (2016). Small-scale societies exhibit fundamental variations in the role of intentions in moral judgment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113 (17), 4688–93. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1522070113 google scholar
  6. Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (1985). Culture and the Evolutionary Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press google scholar
  7. Buss, D. M., & Von Hippel, W. (2018). Psychological Barriers to Evolutionary Psychology: Ideological Bias and Coalitional Adaptations. Archives of Scientific Psychology, 6 (1), 148–158. https://doi.org/10.1037/arc0000049 google scholar
  8. Callahan, J. L., Smotherman, J. M., Dziurzynski, K. E., Love, P. K., Kilmer, E. D., Niemann, Y. F., & Ruggero, C. J. (2018). Diversity in the professional psychology training-to-workforce pipeline: Results from doctoral psychology student population data. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 12 (4), 273–285. https://doi.org/10.1037/tep0000203 google scholar
  9. Case, L. & Smith, T. B. (2000). Ethnic representation in a sample of the literature of applied psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 1107–1110. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.68.6.1107 google scholar
  10. Chua, H. F., Boland, J. E., & Nisbett, R. E. (2005). From The Cover: Cultural variation in eye movements during scene perception. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102 (35), 12629–12633. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0506162102 google scholar
  11. Coolidge, F. L., & Wynn, T. (2016). An Introduction to Cognitive Archaeology. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25 (6), 386–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721416657085 google scholar
  12. Curtin, C. M., Barrett, H. C., Bolyanatz, A., Crittenden, A. N., Fessler, D. M., Fitzpatrick, S.,. & Henrich, J. (2020). Kinship intensity and the use of mental states in moral judgment across societies.Evolution and Human Behavior,41 (5), 415–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2020.07.002 google scholar
  13. Dehaene, S., Cohen, L., Morais, J., & Kolinsky, R. (2015). Illiterate to literate: Behavioral and cerebral changes induced by reading acquisition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 16 (4), 234–244.Duarte, J. L., Crawford, J. T., Stern, C., Haidt, J., Jussim, L., & Tetlock, P. E. (2015). Political diversity will improve social psychological science.Behavioral and Brain Sciences,38, e130. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3924 google scholar
  14. Ellemers, N., & Van Nunspeet, F. (2020). Neuroscience and the social origins of moral behavior: How neural underpinnings of social categorization and conformity affect everyday moral and immoral behavior. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29 (5), 513-520. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721420951584 google scholar
  15. Emery, L.F., Silverman, D.M., & Carey, R.M. (2023). Conducting Research With People in Lower-Socioeconomic-Status Contexts. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 6 (4). https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459231193044 google scholar
  16. Fein, E., & Yahalom, J. (2023). Ethnography in psychological research. In H. Cooper, M. N. Coutanche, L. M. McMullen, A. T. Panter, D. Rindskopf, & K. J. Sher (Eds.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology: Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological (pp. 171–188). American Psychological Association. \ https://doi.org/10.1037/0000319-009 google scholar
  17. Fincher, C. L., Thornhill, R., Murray, D. R., & Schaller, M. (2008). Pathogen prevalence predicts human cross-cultural variability in individualism versus collectivism. Proceedings of The Royal Society, 275, 1279–1285. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2008.0094 google scholar
  18. Gould, S. J. (1981). The mismeasure of man. W. W. Norton & Company google scholar
  19. Gurven, M.D. (2018). Broadening horizons: Sample diversity and socioecological theory are essential to the future of psychological science. PNAS, 115 (45), 11420–11427. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1720433115 google scholar
  20. Inbar, Y., Pizarro, D. A., Knobe, J., & Bloom, P. (2009). Disgust Sensitivity Predicts Intuitive Disapproval of Gays. Emotion, 9 (3), 435–439. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015960 google scholar
  21. Harris, M. (1977). Cannibals and Kings, The Origins of Cultures (1st ed.). Random House google scholar
  22. Haviland, W. A., Prins, H. E. L., Walrath, D., & McBride, B. (2011). Cultural anthropology: The human challenge (13th ed.). Wadsworth Cengage Learning google scholar
  23. Henrich, J. P. (2020). The WEIRDest people in the world: how the West became psychologically peculiar and particularly prosperous (1st ed.). Farrar, Straus, and Giroux google scholar
  24. Henrich, J. (2015). The Secret of Our Success: How Culture Is Driving Human Evolution, Domesticating Our Species, and Making Us Smarter. Princeton University Press google scholar
  25. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X google scholar
  26. Kagitcibasi, C. (2005). Autonomy and relatedness in cultural context: Implications for self and family. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36 (4), 403-422. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022105275959 google scholar
  27. Kagitcibasi, C. (2017).Family, self, and human development across cultures: Theory and applications. Routledge google scholar
  28. Killin, A., & Pain, R. (2023). How WEIRD is Cognitive Archaeology? Engaging with the challenge of cultural variation and sample diversity. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 14 (2), 539–563. ~https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-021-00611-z google scholar
  29. Lewontin, R. C. (1972). The apportionment of human diversity. Evolutionary Biology, 6, 381–398. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-9063-3_14 google scholar
  30. Ma, V., & Schoeneman, T. J. (1997). Individualism versus collectivism: A comparison of Kenyan and American self-concepts. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 19 (2), 261–273. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp1902_7 google scholar
  31. Meadon, M., & Spurrett, D. (2010). It is not just the subjects – there are too many WEIRD researchers. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2-3), 104–105. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x10000208 google scholar
  32. Mehrabi, N., Morstatter, F., Saxena, N., Lerman, K., & Galstyan, A. (2021). A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learning. ACM Computing Surveys, 54 (6), 1–35. 104–105. https://doi.org/10.1145/3457607 google scholar
  33. Montagu, A. (1997). Man’s most dangerous myth: The fallacy of race (6th ed.). AltaMira Press. (Original work published 1942) google scholar
  34. Muthukrishna, M., & Henrich, J. (2019). A problem in theory.Nature Human Behaviour,3 (3), 221–229. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0522-1 google scholar
  35. Muthukrishna, M., Bell, A. V., Henrich, J., Curtin, C. M., Gedranovich, A., McInerney, J., & Thue, B. (2020). Beyond Western, Educated, Industrial, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) Psychology: Measuring and Mapping Scales of Cultural and Psychological Distance. Psychological Science, 31 (6), 678–701. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620916782 google scholar
  36. Muthukrishna, M., Henrich, J., & Slingerland, E. (2021). Psychology as a historical science. Annual Review of Psychology, 72, 717–749. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-082820-111436 google scholar
  37. Muthukrishna, M. (2023).A theory of everyone: The new science of who we are, how we got here, and where we’re going. MIT Press google scholar
  38. Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108 (2), 291–310. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.108.2.291 google scholar
  39. Rad, M. S., Martingano, A. J., & Ginges, J. (2018). Toward a psychology of Homo sapiens: Making psychological science more representative of the human population. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 201721165. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1721165115 google scholar
  40. 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620927709 google scholar
  41. Tangney, J. P. (1998). How does guilt differ from shame? In J. Bybee (Ed.), Guilt and Children (pp. 1–17). Academic Press google scholar
  42. Tangney, J. P., Stuewig, J., & Mashek, D. J. (2007). Moral emotions and moral behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 345–372. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070145 google scholar
  43. 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000622 google scholar
  44. Saribay, S. A., & Yilmaz, O. (2024).Reflection and intuition in a crisis-ridden world: Thinking hard or hardly thinking? Taylor & Francis google scholar
  45. Sear, R. (2020). Strengthening the evolutionary social sciences with more data, less ‘theory-worship’. Evolution and Human Behavior, 41( 5), 462–463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2020.07.010 google scholar
  46. Shearn, I. (2020). Substance. In N. Brown, T. McIlwraith, & L. Tubelle de Gonzales. (Eds.) Perspectives: An Open Invitation to Cultural Anthropology (1st ed.) (pp. 96–118). Arlington: American Anthropological Association google scholar
  47. Sheeran, P., & Webb, T. L. (2016). The Intention–Behavior Gap. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10 (9), 503–518. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12265 google scholar
  48. Suh, E. M. (2002). Culture, identity consistency, and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83 (6), 1378–1391. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.6.1378 google scholar
  49. Sunar, D. (2002). Change and continuity in the Turkish middle class family. In R. Liljeström & E. Özdalga (Eds.), Autonomy and Dependence in the Family (pp. 217–239). Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul google scholar
  50. Wallbott, H. G., & Scherer, K. R. (1995). Cultural Determinants in Experiencing Shame and Guilt. In Self-conscious emotions: The psychology of shame, guilt, embarrassment, and pride (pp. 465–487). Guilford Press google scholar
  51. Wagner, J. K., Yu, J. H., Ifekwunigwe, J. O., Harrell, T. M., Bamshad, M. J., & Royal, C. D. (2017). Anthropologists' views on race, ancestry, and genetics.American Journal of Physical Anthropology,162 (2), 318–327. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.23120 google scholar
  52. Wolf, E. (1966). Economic aspects of peasantry. In Peasants (1st ed.) (pp. 18–59). Prentice–Hall google scholar
  53. Yılmaz, O. (2025). Current challenges and proposed solutions in psychological sciences. In S. Cesur et al. (Eds.), Social Psychological Insights into Current Morality Topics (pp. 22-33). İstanbul University Press. https://doi.org/10.26650/B/SSc18.2025.015.002 google scholar
  54. Curtin, C. M., Barrett, H. C., Bolyanatz, A., Crittenden, A. N., Fessler, D. M., Fitzpatrick, S.,. & Henrich, J. (2020). Kinship intensity and the use of mental states in moral judgment across societies.Evolution and Human Behavior,41 (5), 415–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2020.07.002 google scholar
  55. Gould, S. J. (1981). The mismeasure of man. W. W. Norton & Company google scholar
  56. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X google scholar
  57. Kagitcibasi, C. (2017).Family, self, and human development across cultures: Theory and applications. Routledge google scholar
  58. Muthukrishna, M. (2023).A theory of everyone: The new science of who we are, how we got here, and where we’re going. MIT Press google scholar