Abstract:Although neurosciences have made notable progress in theory and technology, a significant methodological issue persists with the continued reliance on homogeneous sample groups (Burns et al., 2019). This observation is neither new nor recent, as several authors have already raised concerns about the fact that behavioral scientists base their conclusions mostly on samples composed almost exclusively of people from Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) societies, even though these groups are very peculiar, representing only 12% of all humans and may be considered outliers (Henrich et al., 2010). The problem is exacerbated by the frequent use of convenience samples, which tend to consist primarily of university students, resulting in a narrower demographic range that fails to represent the broader diversity within society. The inclusion of more diverse populations is crucial, notably in light of the nature versus nurture debate. It is indeed now widely accepted that both cultural and biological factors contribute to shaping human psychology and behaviors (Chiao and Ambady, 2007). However, the lack of diversity in population samples diminishes the impact of cultural (nurture) factors in the obtained results and makes it difficult to claim whether neurocognitive processes are universal or culture specific (Burns et al., 2019). Beyond cultural differences, the lack of access to diverse populations can hinder the exploration of innovative research questions in the field, which may require targeting specific populations that use, for instance, different metric systems, have unique hierarchical structures, or have experienced a unique historical event. A critical question thus remains: Why does the pursuit of greater diversity in population samples remain so limited? Part of the answer is undoubtedly tied to the unequal distribution of funding and the number of scientists in specific parts of the world who lack the resources to conduct research ... Correspondence should be addressed to Emilie A. Caspar at emilie.caspar{at}ugent.be.

Reply to Jacquet Et Al.: Culture and the Neurobiology of Norm Violation Detection

How culture gets embrained: Cultural differences in event-related potentials of social norm violations

Social Judgments from Faces Are Universal

Preventing Cross-Cultural Bias in Deception Judgments

Cultural effects on mindreading

Culture Embrained: Going Beyond the Nature-Nurture Dichotomy

Guidelines for Inclusive and Diverse Human Neuroscience Research Practices

Beyond Whom and When

Perceptions of the appropriate response to norm violation in 57 societies

Cross-Cultural Neuropsychology in Historical Perspective: Origins, Echoes, Challenges, and Future Directions

Cross-Cultural Neuropsychology: History and Prospects

A Call for Greater Attention to Culture in the Study of Brain and Development

Neural Responses to Affective Stimuli Across Culturally Similar and Dissimilar Situations

Does culture moderate the encoding and recognition of negative cues? Evidence from an eye-tracking study

Cultural Collectivism and Tightness Moderate Responses to Norm Violators: Effects on Power Perception, Moral Emotions, and Leader Support

Culture and Attention: Future Directions to Expand Research Beyond the Geographical Regions of WEIRD Cultures

Exploring cultural contributions to the neuropsychology of social cognition: the advanced clinical solutions

How embarrassing! The behavioral and neural correlates of processing social norm violations

Cultural Influences on Social Feedback Processing of Character Traits

The same analysis approach: Practical protection against the pitfalls of novel neuroimaging analysis methods

Culture shapes spontaneous brain dynamics - Shared versus idiosyncratic neural features among Chinese versus Canadian subjects