The many tools that social and behavioral scientists use to gather data from their fellow humans have, in most cases, been honed on a rarefied subset of humanity: highly educated participants with unique capacities, experiences, motivations, and social expectations. Through this honing process, researchers have developed protocols that extract information from these participants with great efficiency. However, as researchers reach out to broader populations, it is unclear whether these highly refined protocols are robust to cultural differences in skills, motivations, and expected modes of social interaction. In this paper, we illustrate the kinds of mismatches that can arise when using these highly refined protocols with nontypical populations by describing our experience translating an apparently simple social discounting protocol to work in rural Bangladesh. Multiple rounds of piloting and revision revealed a number of tacit assumptions about how participants should perceive, understand, and respond to key elements of the protocol. These included facility with numbers, letters, abstract number lines, and 2D geometric shapes, and the treatment of decisions as a series of isolated events. Through onthe-ground observation and a collaborative refinement process, we developed a protocol that worked both in Bangladesh and among US college students. More systematic study of the process of adapting common protocols to new contexts will provide valuable information about the range of skills, motivations, and modes of interaction that participants bring to studies as we develop a more diverse and inclusive social and behavioral science. generalizability | diversity | cross-cultural | social discounting | Bangladesh I n 1932, the psychologist Rensis Likert (1) published his dissertation on a novel method for measuring attitudes. After giving university students printed statements about race relations, Likert asked them to check one of five options (strongly approve, approve, undecided, disapprove, and strongly disapprove) indicating how much they endorsed each of these statements. Likert then assigned numbers to these levels of approval and took an average across all statements. The simplicity of both the response format and construction of the scale soon spurred researchers to adopt elements of the technique to assess not only attitudes (Likert's original interest) but also subjective judgments along many dimensions, including likelihood, desirability, difficulty, and happiness (2). Today, after decades of testing and refinement on generations of participants, Likert's simple format has become a reliable mainstay of social and behavioral research.Given its ubiquity in the social and behavioral sciences, one might guess that a five-or seven-item Likert format is a natural way of asking humans about their subjective judgments. However, in the rare cases when researchers have described their experience using Likert items outside of formally educated populations, they have been met with mixed success (3,4). It turns out tha...

Current scientific reforms focus more on solutions to the problem of reliability (e.g. direct replications) than generalizability. Here, we use a cross-cultural study of social discounting to illustrate the utility of a complementary focus on generalizability across diverse human populations. Social discounting is the tendency to sacrifice more for socially close individuals—a phenomenon replicated across countries and laboratories. Yet, when adapting a typical protocol to low-literacy, resource-scarce settings in Bangladesh and Indonesia, we find no independent effect of social distance on generosity, despite still documenting this effect among US participants. Several reliability and validity checks suggest that methodological issues alone cannot explain this finding. These results illustrate why we must complement replication efforts with investment in strong checks on generalizability. By failing to do so, we risk developing theories of human nature that reliably explain behaviour among only a thin slice of humanity.

Current scientific reforms focus more on solutions to the problem of reliability (e.g. direct replications) than generalizability. Here, we use a cross-cultural study of social discounting to illustrate the utility of a complementary focus on generalizability across diverse human populations. Social discounting is the tendency to sacrifice more for socially-close individuals—a phenomenon replicated across countries and laboratories. Yet, when adapting a typical protocol to low-literacy, resource-scarce settings in Bangladesh and Indonesia, we find no independent effect of social distance on generosity, despite still documenting this effect among U.S. participants. Several reliability and validity checks suggest that methodological issues alone cannot explain this finding. These results illustrate why we must complement replication efforts with investment in strong checks on generalizability. By failing to do so, we risk developing theories of human nature that reliably explain behavior among only a thin slice of humanity.

Humans rely on both kin and non-kin social ties for a wide range of support. In patrilocal societies that practice village exogamy, women can face the challenge of building new supportive networks when they move to their husband's village and leave many genetic kin behind. In this paper, we track how women from 10 diverse communities in rural Bangladesh build supportive networks after migrating to their husband's village, comparing their trajectories with women who remained in their childhood village (Bengali: n = 317, Santal: n = 36, Hajong: n = 39, Mandi: n = 36). Women who migrated for marriage started with almost no adult close kin (mean 0.1) compared to women who remained in their childhood village (mean 2.4). However, immigrants compensated for the lack of genetic kin by a combination of close affinal kin and close friends. By their late 20s, immigrants reported substantially more non-kin friends than did non-immigrants (mean 1.4 versus 1.1) and a comparable number of supportive partners in several domains. These findings raise questions about the functions and quality of these different social ties and how different composition of supportive networks may provide different opportunities for women in these settings. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Cooperation among women: evolutionary and cross-cultural perspectives’.

Social scientists have developed numerous asset-based wealth indices to assess and target socioeconomic inequalities globally. However, there are no systematic studies of the relative performance of these different measures as proxies for socioeconomic position. In this study, we compare how five asset-based wealth indices—the International Wealth Index (IWI), the Standard of Living portion of the Multi-Dimensional Poverty Index (MPI-SL), the Poverty Probability Index (PPI), the Absolute Wealth Estimate (AWE), and the DHS Wealth Index (DHS)—predict benchmarks of socioeconomic position across 11 communities in rural Bangladesh. All indices were highly correlated. The IWI best explained variation in individual and community ranking of economic well-being, while the PPI best explained variation both between and within communities for total household wealth and a general measure of subjective social status.