The myth of normative development

Abstract

Over the past decade, the field of psychology has come under increasing fire for the replicability of purported findings, for the transparency of the methods used, and for the generalisability of the claims. In general, these criticisms have focused on the methodological and statistical aspects of published work. Herein, we highlight the importance of diversity of both our experimental samples and of our researchers within developmental psychology as a barrier to generalisability. Far beyond being a purely methodological question, e.g., of heterogenous sampling, ignoring the importance of context and environment in development implies risking failing to comprehend pivotal facets of development. Importantly, we discuss the harms done to our science's theoretical contributions as a direct result of defining and maintaining misplaced "norms" or "normative" developmental scenarios. Finally, we outline how even small steps by individuals can be impactful, such as ceasing to request unsubstantiated comparisons to the Western "norm" in peer review.

Cognitive Science and the Myth of the Normal Human

“…Similar over-representations are noted in infant research (Singh et al, 2023) and language development (Kidd & Garcia, 2022). Even with these sample biases, researchers have framed the conclusions from much of this research as being about "normal" human development (Forbes et al, 2022). Yet, from language development to motor development (we see that typical outcomes in countries where the researchers are (North America and Europe) are framed as normal even when we quickly see variation when the entire globe is considered.…”

What makes a good theory, and how do we make a theory good?

“…Bender et al, 2010). And, coloniality, capitalism, patriarchy deform and stunt theoretical development in science by actively or passively excluding, minoritising, and erasing groups of researchers, such as women of colour or indigenous peoples and their ways of knowing (Birhane & Guest, 2021;Forbes et al, 2022;Inoue, 2018;Larivière et al, 2013;Prescod-Weinstein, 2020); and so on. There are properties of θ-, Θ-, or T-theories that cause the direct or indirect, purposeful or inadvertent, exclusion of groups of people.…”

Open science and metascience in developmental psychology: Introduction to the special issue

“…Two papers in this special issue focus on generalisability to broader groups of people. Forbes et al (2022) highlight the importance of the diversity of participants and researchers, and moving away from the Western ‘norm’. Li et al (2022) discuss ‘citizen science’ as a tool for increasing the collection of large and diverse samples.…”