Two Decades Later – Are Psychological Samples Still WEIRD?

Psychological science has long been critiqued for relying on samples drawn primarily from Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) societies. The present study examines the current state of this critique by integrating three lines of evaluation: national sample origins, demographic representativeness, and adherence to APA reporting standards. We analyzed all human subjects research published in 2024 in six leading psychology journals (k = 1,217) and compared their samples to previous reviews. While the proportion of U.S.-based samples continues to decline, U.S. participants remain vastly overrepresented (59% of samples in 2024), and recent declines appear to have slowed, dropping only 4 percentage points in the last decade. For demographic representativeness, we found substantial improvements in demographic reporting since 2014, but participants’ race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and education are still frequently omitted. For reporting standards, we evaluated compliance with Journal Article Reporting Standards–Race, Ethnicity, and Culture (JARS-REC; APA, 2023). We find wide variation across journals in adoption of practices, with some, such as including sample justifications, which are almost unanimously adopted, whereas others, such as conducting analyses of diversity, are much less common. Overall, our findings show that psychology still depends heavily on WEIRD samples, with only modest and uneven progress in inclusivity and transparency. By combining these three evaluations, we establish a holistic benchmark that can be used to systematically monitor change in these research practices in the future.