Still WEIRD, still underreported: An updated benchmark for psychological science

Psychological science has long been critiqued for relying on samples drawn primarily from Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic 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 American Psychological Association reporting standards. We analyzed all human subjects research published in 2024 in six leading psychology journals (k = 1,217) and compared their samples with previous reviews. While the proportion of U.S.-based samples continues to decline, U.S. participants remain vastly overrepresented (59% of samples in 2024). 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 for Race, Ethnicity, and Culture (APA, 2023). We find wide variation across journals in the adoption of practices, with some, such as including sample justifications, 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 Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic samples, with only modest and uneven progress toward inclusivity and transparency. By combining three evaluation criteria, we establish a holistic benchmark that can be used to systematically monitor change in these research practices in the future. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).