Do student samples provide an accurate estimate of the general public?

PLoS ONE

Volumn 11, Issue 12, 2016, Pages

  Hanel, Paul H P ^a   Vione, Katia C ^a  

^a CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; PERSONALITY; POPULATION; PSYCHOLOGY; STUDENT; ATTITUDE; FEMALE; KNOWLEDGE; MALE; PSYCHOLOGIC TEST; STANDARDS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; YOUNG ADULT;

ATTITUDE; FEMALE; HUMANS; KNOWLEDGE; MALE; PERSONALITY; PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS; STUDENTS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 85007433686     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0168354     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Arnett JJ. The neglected 95%: Why American psychology needs to become less American. Am Psychol. 2008; 63: 602-614. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.63.7.602 PMID: 18855491
2. Saucier G, Kenner J, Iurino K, Malham PB, Chen Z, Thalmayer AG, et al. Cross-cultural differences in a global "Survey of World Views." J Cross-Cult Psychol. 2015; 53-70.
3. Diener E, Diener M, Diener C. Factors predicting the subjective well-being of nations. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1995; 69: 851-864. PMID: 7473035
4. Fischer R, Schwartz S. Whence differences in value priorities? Individual, cultural, or artifactual sources. J Cross-Cult Psychol. 2011; 42: 1127-1144.
5. Henrich J, Heine SJ, Norenzayan A. The weirdest people in the world? Behav Brain Sci. 2010; 33: 61-83. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X0999152X PMID: 20550733
6. Peterson RA, Merunka DR. Convenience samples of college students and research reproducibility. J Bus Res. 2014; 67: 1035-1041.
7. Sears DO. College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of a narrow data base on social psychology's view of human nature. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986; 51: 515-530.
8. Greenfield PM. Sociodemographic differences within countries produce variable cultural values. J Cross-Cult Psychol. 2014; 45: 37-41.
9. Peterson RA. On the Use of College Students in Social Science Research: Insights from a Second-Order Meta-analysis. J Consum Res. 2001; 28: 450-461.
10. Schwartz SH. A theory of cultural value orientations: Explication and applications. Comp Sociol. 2006; 5: 137-182.
11. Srivastava S, John OP, Gosling SD, Potter J. Development of personality in early and middle adulthood: Set like plaster or persistent change? J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003; 84: 1041-1053.
12. Open Science Collaboration. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological. Science. 2015; 349: aac4716. doi: 10.1126/science.aac4716 PMID: 26315443
13. Bavel JJV, Mende-Siedlecki P, Brady WJ, Reinero DA. Contextual sensitivity in scientific reproducibility. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2016; 201521897.
14. Gelman A. The connection between varying treatment effects and the crisis of unreplicable research: A Bayesian perspective. J Manag. 2014; 41: 632-643.
15. Klein RA, Ratliff KA, Vianello M, Adams RB, Bahník Š, Bernstein MJ, et al. Investigating variation in replicability. Soc Psychol. 2014; 45: 142-152.
16. Schwartz SH. Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Adv Exp Soc Psychol. 1992; 25: 1-65.
17. Schwartz SH. The 7 Schwartz cultural value orientation scores for 80 countries [Internet]. Dataset; 2008. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304715744-The-7-Schwartz-cultural-value- orientation-scores-for-80-countries
18. Harding S, Phillips D. Contrasting values in Western Europe: Unity, diversity and change. London: Macmillan; 1986.
19. Vauclair C-M, Fischer R. Do cultural values predict individuals' moral attitudes? A cross-cultural multilevel approach. Eur J Soc Psychol. 2011; 41: 645-657.
20. Gosling SD, Rentfrow PJ, Swann WB Jr.. A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. J Res Personal. 2003; 37: 504-528.
21. Gosling SD. A note on alpha reliability and factor structure in the TIPI [Internet]. n.d. [cited 3 Jul 2016]. http://gosling.psy.utexas.edu/scales-weve-developed/ten-item-personality-measure-tipi/a-note-onalpha-reliability-and-factor-structure-in-the-tipi/
22. United Nations Developmental Programme. Human Developmental Report: Human Development Index (HDI) [Internet]. 2014. http://hdr.undp.org/en/data
23. Economist Intelligence Unit. Democracy index 2012. Democracy at a standstill [Internet]. The Economist; 2012. http://pages.eiu.com/rs/eiu2/images/Democracy-Index-2012.pdf
24. Gelfand MJ, Raver JL, Nishii L, Leslie LM, Lun J, Lim BC, et al. Differences between tight and loose cultures: A 33-nation study. Science. 2011; 332: 1100-1104. doi: 10.1126/science.1197754 PMID: 21617077
25. Bender R, Lange S. Adjusting for multiple testing-when and how? J Clin Epidemiol. 2001; 54: 343-349. PMID: 11297884
26. Dienes Z. Using Bayes to get the most out of non-significant results. Front Psychol. 2014; 5.
27. Morey RD, Rouder JN, Jamil T. BayesFactor: Computation of Bayes factors for common designs. R Package version 0.9.12-2 [Internet]. 2016. http://bayesfactorpcl.r-forge.r-project.org/
28. Druckman JN, Kam CD. Students as Experimental Participants: A Defense of the "Narrow Data Base." In: Druckman JN, Green DP, Kuklinski JH, Lupia A, editors. Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science. New York: CUP; 2011. pp. 41-57.
29. Bardi A, Buchanan KE, Goodwin R, Slabu L, Robinson M. Value stability and change during self-chosen life transitions: Self-selection versus socialization effects. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2014; 106: 131-147. doi: 10.1037/a0034818 PMID: 24219783
30. Button KS, Ioannidis JPA, Mokrysz C, Nosek BA, Flint J, Robinson ESJ, et al. Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2013; 14: 365-376. doi: 10. 1038/nrn3475 PMID: 23571845
31. Kerr NL. HARKing: Hypothesizing After the Results are Known. Personal Soc Psychol Rev. 1998; 2: 196-217.
32. Simmons JP, Nelson LD, Simonsohn U. False-Positive Psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychol Sci. 2011; 22: 1359-1366. PMID: 22006061