Diversity, Openness, and Generality in Practice: An analysis of Psychological Science publications from 2019-2024

Psychological science aspires to produce generalizable knowledge about mind, brain, and behavior, a goal that requires a convincing empirical foundation. In this article, we present an empirical audit of sampling, reporting, and generality practices in Psychological Science across a six-year period (2019–2024). Across 728 empirical articles comprising over 200 million participants, we examined geographic distribution of studies, demographic reporting about participants, modes of data collection, sample-size justification, and inferential restraint. Metascientific practices improved markedly over time, particularly with regards to sampling decisions (sample size; sample size justification) as did expressions of inferential restraint. However, there was limited progress in geographic, socioeconomic, and cultural diversification of testing sites and participants. In each demographic measure, there was also substantial under-reporting throughout the window of analysis. Together, these findings indicate challenges in participant and geographic specification of samples and achieving globally representative samples alongside encouraging advances in sample size, justification, and inferential restraint.