The Neglected 95% Why American Psychology Needs to Become Less American Jeffrey J. Arnett Clark University This article proposes that psychological research pub- lished in APA journals focuses too narrowly on Americans, who comprise less than 5% of the world’s population. The result is an understanding of psychology that is incomplete and does not adequately represent humanity. First, an analysis of articles published in six premier APA journals is presented, showing that the contributors, samples, and editorial leadership of the journals are predominantly American. Then, a demographic profile of the human pop- ulation is presented to show that the majority of the world’s population lives in conditions vastly different from the conditions of Americans, underlining doubts of how well American psychological research can be said to represent humanity. The reasons for the narrowness of American psychological research are examined, with a focus on a philosophy of science that emphasizes fundamental pro- cesses and ignores or strips away cultural context. Finally, several suggestions for broadening the scope of American psychology are offered. Keywords: international, cultural psychology, second psy- chology, universals, philosophy of science A s part of a field devoted to the study of human behavior, cognition, development, and relation- ships, and to the amelioration of mental health problems, American 1 psychology produces research find- ings that implicitly apply to the entire human population, the entire species. Psychological studies, journals, and text- books in the United States describe the nature of social, emotional, and cognitive functioning, with the assumption that the processes described apply to all human beings (Rozin, 2006). In order for this assumption to be legitimate, it would seem necessary for it to be based on studies of diverse sectors of the human population. Yet a striking feature of research in American psychology is that its conclusions are based not on a broad cross-section of humanity but on a small corner of the human population—mainly, persons living in the United States. Recently the population of the United States reached 300 million persons (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2007). The current world population is about 6.5 billion persons (Population Reference Bureau [PRB], 2006). Consequently, by concentrating primarily on Amer- icans, psychological researchers in the United States re- strict their focus to less than 5% of the world’s total population. The rest of the world’s population, the other 95%, is neglected. In this article I make a case for turning greater atten- tion in American psychology to this neglected 95%. I argue that research on the whole of humanity is necessary for creating a science that truly represents the whole of hu- manity. I further argue that American psychology can no longer afford to neglect 95% of the world given that many of the problems psychology can potentially address are worse among the neglected 95% than in American society. Others have observed that psychological research is dominated by Americans (Cole, 2006; Denmark, 1998). For example, Sue (1999) asserted that “Americans are the largest producers of psychological research. The over- whelming subject of the research is Americans . . . [Nev- ertheless,] theories and principles are developed that are mistakenly assumed to apply to human beings in general; that is, they are assumed to be universal” (pp. 1072–1073). However, the present article contains the first empirical analysis of the degree of American and international rep- resentation in major journals of the American Psychologi- cal Association (APA). Several other content analyses of major APA journals have been conducted with other goals. For example, Rob- ins, Gosling, and Craik (1999) analyzed four major APA journals for trends in the representation of four schools of psychology (psychoanalysis, behaviorism, cognitive psy- chology, and neuroscience). Another analysis examined gender representation in journal articles in four areas of psychology, coding for sex of first author and of partici- pants (Gannon, Luchetta, Rhodes, Pardie, & Segrist, 1992). Graham (1992) analyzed African American representation I wish to thank the following people for their comments on various drafts of the article: Peter Arnett, Esteban Cardemil, Steve Heine, Lene Jensen, Reed Larson, Laura Padilla-Walker, Paul Rozin, Richard Shweder, Jen- nifer Tanner, Niobe Way, and James Youniss. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jef- frey J. Arnett, Department of Psychology, Clark University, 950 Main Street, Worcester, MA 01610. E-mail: arnett@jeffreyarnett.com 1 I use the term American in this article to refer to people living in the United States. I am aware that some object to the use of this term to refer only to the United States, as people who live in Canada, Mexico, Central America, and South America are also, in a sense, Americans. However, American is commonly used to refer to the United States, including in the title of this journal, and I chose to follow that established usage here rather than use the more awkward “people living in the United States.” 602 October 2008 ● American Psychologist Copyright 2008 by the American Psychological Association 0003-066X/08/$12.00 Vol. 63, No. 7, 602– 614 DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.63.7.602