We were pleased to read the comments on our target article expressing views from diverse disciplines, including biology, philosophy, psychiatry, anthropology, and numerous branches of psychology (i.e., developmental, cultural, evolutionary, and comparative psychology). In this response, we discuss their ideas about routes to increasing inclusivity in theories of developmental psychology and present our disagreements with the few who argue that there is no need for change to theories. We highlight the commentators' broad agreement with the main themes of the WILD (Worldwide, In situ, Local, & Diverse) approach and the practical guide of 5 Steps to Inclusivity, and we consolidate commentators' views on infrastructural changes that are necessary to reach our collective goal of increasing inclusivity in theories of developmental psychology.

The starting point of this paper is the colonial heritage of mainstream psychology, and particularly of developmental psychology. The dominant paradigm is still the assumption of universality of theories and findings that originate in research from and with a tiny part of the world’s population. Associated is the neglect, even ignorance, concerning existing anthropological, cultural, and psychological ethnographic research from different communities across the globe, which demonstrate that the so-called WEIRD science (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic) is different in many respects from the multitude of existing cultural patterns, representing an outlier in a statistical sense. The paper presents a reflection of what inclusivity means and how it can be realized. It is obvious that a good intention is not necessary a good deed. Inclusivity necessitates a complete change of perspective. The second part of the paper deals with the necessary decolonization of early childhood development interventions. It is demonstrated how WEIRD assumptions are exported in large parts of LMIC without proving their validity and applicability. These practices not only ignore scientific evidence but are also unethical because of epistemic violence. It is concluded that basic science and applications are highly interconnected. Decolonization should start with including majority world research in the general database. It is important to realize that extending the spectrum of samples is not helpful as long as methods are applied that are developed in the WEIRD world.

Most scientists are aware that developmental databases derive primarily from Western, middle-class samples, but fewer are cognizant that developmental theories can be similarly biased. There is urgency in revising developmental theories, both scientifically (embracing diversity is essential to the study of human psychology) and applied (it is damaging to apply WEIRD standards/methods/theories to evaluate development in the multitude of non-WEIRD contexts). We evaluate the extent to which two prominent developmental theories are inclusive. We find that Shared Intentionality Theory is based on a WEIRD bias in the foundational databases: the core constructs lack culturally diverse data, undermining claims that this theory explains human-general social cognition. In Attachment Theory, we illuminate the lack of inclusivity in the core assumptions and resulting claims of the meaning and measure of the attachment system: this theory excludes cultural diversity in social-emotional constructs focused on communal orientations (e.g., interdependence, attachment networks) found in many people of the Global South, and neglects culture-specific adaptive behavior patterns. Acknowledging the lack of inclusivity at the level of theory is necessary. We urge researchers to take a more WILD approach: obtain W orldwide samples, study development I n situ, focus on L ocal cultural practices and ethnotheories, and consider development as D iverse. Being WILD entails attending to inclusivity during the entire research process, from framing the research questions to interpreting the data (e.g., respecting all adaptive behaviors in development). Five Steps for Increasing Inclusivity can be used as a practical guide to decenter psychological theories from their current WEIRD mindset.

Social interaction strongly relies on the existence of a relationship between two or more partners, some amount of conversational exchange, and attention by all partners to that exchange. Collaboration falls largely in the framework of social interactions but harbors more leverage in that it encompasses culturally permeated sets of practices and values, leading to heterogeneity in its manifestations across groups. What one group of people regards as a way of life, another conceives as a formalized collaboration. Despite its presence in multidisciplinary reports, the role of culture in shaping collaborative interactions has been underestimated, as have the ways that collaboration influences modes of life. Research based on WEIRD societal values fail to contextualize collaboration in other cultures. This chapter explores the cultural nature of collaboration using examples from the Nso' people from the Northwest Region of Cameroon. Collaborative childcare and the network of interpersonal relationships within the Nso' community demonstrate how collaborative systems differ across cultural boundaries. The need to ensure inclusive viewpoints is highlighted when collaboration strategies are explored. From both psychological and anthropological viewpoints, culture plays a significant role and must be included when attempts are made to understand human behavior and belief systems.

Intergenerational households and labor migration are common characteristics of many rural Chinese communities. Intergenerational caregivers offer various forms of autonomy support to nurture children's development, especially when parents migrate to industrialized areas for work. To understand such support, primary caregivers, including 21 parents and 24 grandparents from families with various migration trends, were recruited from a southwest rural village with a high migration flow. All caregivers participated in interviews about their developmental ideals for children and how they help children meet these expectations. All caregivers defined the developmental ideals as Zili (self-reliance), Qinkuai (diligence) when completing chores, Zijue (self-awareness) in learning, and social and reflective skills while putting self-directed effort into learning. Emphasis on educational attainment for future independence, expanding intellectual horizons, and imparting moral knowledge supported children's psychological autonomy. Welcoming children's personal preferences and granting children the necessary space to manage their time-ideals apparent in industrialized societies-were also evident. Action autonomy support included using chores to train action, expecting behavioral self-reliance, and forming relevant habits as early in the life cycle as practical. When comparing two generations, most grandparents emphasized children's effort in learning, whereas parents stressed children's prosocial behaviors, sibling roles, and commitment to expanding intellectual horizons. All caregivers from families experiencing long-term parental migration put more emphasis on children's academic self-awareness and effort, fulfilling children's preferences, and teaching moral judgment compared to short-term and nonmigrant families. Childrearing goals reflected adaptive responses to children's expression of autonomy and intergenerational support regardless of migration status. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).

The science and practice of Early Childhood Development (ECD) rely heavily on research from the Euro-American middle class—a minority of the world's population—and research in or from the majority world is severely under-represented. This problem has been acknowledged in ECD, 1 Draper CE Barnett LM Cook CJ et al. Publishing child development research from around the world: an unfair playing field resulting in most of the world's child population under-represented in research. Infant Child Dev. 2022; e2375 Crossref Scopus (31) Google Scholar an applied field aiming to assess and improve child development globally, and in the related fields of global health 2 Bhakuni H Abimbola S Epistemic injustice in academic global health. Lancet Glob Health. 2021; 9: e1465-e1470 Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (107) Google Scholar and developmental sciences. 3 Nielsen M Haun D Kärtner J Legare CH The persistent sampling bias in developmental psychology: a call to action. J Exp Child Psychol. 2017; 162: 31-38 Crossref PubMed Scopus (527) Google Scholar Thus, now is the time to search for effective pathways towards global representation. To date, most calls for change within ECD and related fields have focused on various aspects of knowledge production 4 Rasheed MA Navigating the violent process of decolonisation in global health research: a guideline. Lancet Glob Health. 2021; 9: e1640-e1641 Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (14) Google Scholar and publication. 1 Draper CE Barnett LM Cook CJ et al. Publishing child development research from around the world: an unfair playing field resulting in most of the world's child population under-represented in research. Infant Child Dev. 2022; e2375 Crossref Scopus (31) Google Scholar , 5 Ramani S Whyle EB Kagwanja N What research evidence can support the decolonisation of global health? Making space for deeper scholarship in global health journals. Lancet Glob Health. 2023; 11: e1464-e1468 Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (7) Google Scholar

While many researchers are aware of the decolonizing agenda as applied to research on cognition and development, many are still unaware of how they can increase inclusivity. The papers on this special issue address a variety of ways to increase inclusivity, from increasing diversity in samples and in research teams, to taking more care in the use of generic language when presenting research results. We add our perspective on the need to become culture conscious, and advocate for inclusivity throughout the entire research process.

Caregiver-infant interactions in Western middle class often take place in dyadic play settings, engaged in infant-initiated object stimulation, and surrounded by a positive emotional tone, reflecting a distal parenting style. With this study we aim to investigate whether the same conception of caregiver-infant interaction is embodied in the proximal parenting style. For this purpose, we compare the context and pattern of caregiver-infant interactions in two cultural groups in Costa Rica: Urban middle-class families in San José and rural indigenous Bribri families. Naturalistic observations and caregiver interviews revealed significant differences between the groups, with San José families resembling the Western middle-class interaction pattern. Among the Bribris, adult-child play is uncommon so that children interact with adults in primary care settings and with older siblings in play settings. Bribri interactions are further characterized by emotional neutrality. The groups did not differ in terms of body contact. Also, caregivers in both samples took the lead in interactions more often than infants. The results are discussed in the context of an autonomous-relational style as combining psychological autonomy and hierarchical relatedness. We argue that early childhood theories and intervention programs need to abandon the assumption that Western middle-class strategies are universal and recognize locally relevant patterns of caregiver-infant interaction.

According to attachment theory, feeding, including breastfeeding, plays only a marginal role in relationship formation. However, studies-especially in rural traditional non-Western contexts-repeatedly demonstrate that feeding can be an important attachment mechanism. We interviewed 30 urban, middle-class families with 6-to-19-month-old infants in the surrounding greater metropolitan area of San Jose, Costa Rica, to investigate if they consider feeding relevant for attachment formation. Qualitative content analysis revealed that breastfeeding is a key factor in specifying whether caregivers believed feeding to be relevant for attachment formation. The study found that breastfeeding families considered feeding relevant for attachment, and bottle-feeding families associated feeding with mainly alimentary and no attachment-related functions. Furthermore, breastfeeding seems to foster exclusive maternal attachment, while multiple feeding seems to foster multiple attachments. Consequently, the feeding network seems to regulate a child's attachment network in urban middle-class families in San Jose. A triangulation of caregiver interviews, interviews with key informants, and member checking with key informants support the validity of the findings.

Global Early Childhood Development (ECD)—an applied field with the aim to improve the “brain structure and function” of future generations in the global South—has moved to the center of international development. Global ECD rests heavily on evidence claims about widespread cognitive, social, and emotional deficits in the global South and the benefits of changing parenting practices in order to optimize early childhood development. We challenge these claims on the grounds that the leading ECD literature excludes research from anthropology, cultural psychology, and related fields that could provide crucial insights about childrearing and children's development in the targeted communities. We encourage anthropologists and other scholars with ethnographic expertise on childhood to critically engage with global ECD. To facilitate such an endeavor, this article sketches the history, scientific claims, and interventions of global ECD, points out the critical potential of ethnographic research, and suggests strategies to make ethnography more relevant.

Research on childhood in anthropology and neighboring disciplines has continuously broadened the range of the social partners that are considered relevant for young children's development-from parents to other caregivers, siblings, and peers. Yet most studies as well as interventions in early childhood still focus exclusively on parents, who are presumed to be the most significant socializing agents. Objecting to such a hierarchical understanding of the social world of children, I propose a complementarity view. Rather than being linearly ranked in a hierarchy of significance, children's social partners may complement each other by providing different but equally significant experiences. My suggestions are based on an ethnographic study in a rural community in Madagascar. Focusing on children in the first 3 years of life, I explore the full range of their social partners and the respective experiences they provide. Caregivers focus on children's physical needs and aim to keep them in a calm emotional state, while other young related children are the most crucial partners when it comes to play, face-to-face interaction, and the exchange of intense emotions. These complementary roles, I argue, lead to the parallel formation of two distinct socioemotional modes: a hierarchical one and an egalitarian one.

Anthropologie der Emotionen , Seite 201 - 209

What is it to be “an ideal parent”? Does the answer differ across countries and social classes? To answer these questions in a way that minimizes bias and ethnocentrism, we used open-ended questions to explore ideal-parent beliefs among 8,357 mothers and 3,517 fathers from 37 countries. Leximancer Semantic Network Analysis was utilized to first determine parenting culture zones (i.e., countries with shared ideal-parent beliefs) and then extract the predominant themes and concepts in each culture zone. The results yielded specific types of ideal-parent beliefs in five parenting culture zones: being “responsible and children/family-focused” for Asian parents, being “responsible and proper demeanor-focused” for African parents, and being “loving and responsible” for Hispanic-Italian parents. Although the most important themes and concepts were the same in the final two zones—being “loving and patient,” there were subtle differences: English-speaking, European Union, and Russian parents emphasized “being caring,” while French-speaking parents valued “listening” or being “present.” Ideal-parent beliefs also differed by education levels within culture zones, but no general pattern was discerned across culture zones. These findings suggest that the country in which parents were born cannot fully explain their differences in ideal-parent beliefs and that differences arising from social class or education level cannot be dismissed. Future research should consider how these differences affect the validity of the measurements in question and how they can be incorporated into parenting intervention research within and across cultures.