A Content Analysis of the Methods Used to Study Emerging Adults in Six Developmental Journals From 2013 to 2015

Abstract

A content analysis of 2,050 papers published in six leading developmental journals from 2013 to 2015 was conducted to assess methods used in research on 18- to 29-year-olds. Of the 1,713 empirical studies examined, 8.6% included participants exclusively within that age range, and an additional 16.9% included such participants as part of a larger sample. In studies using samples exclusively aged 18–29, the most common methodologies were longitudinal (32.7%) and cross-sectional (31.8%) designs, followed by qualitative (17.6%) and mixed methods (10.1%). Around a quarter (25.7%) of the studies recruited samples from outside the United States. In around one third (34.9%) of U.S. studies, a majority of the sample represented traditionally underrepresented groups (race/ethnicity other than White/Caucasian). Approximately 44% of studies involved recruitment from colleges or universities. The most common stated study limitations involved use of a college sample, being limited to a particular region, and limitations due to ethnicity/race.

Keywords

methodology qualitative methods quantitative methods content analysis emerging adulthood research

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Arnett

J. J.

(2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469–480.

Arnett

J. J.

(2016). College students as emerging adults: The developmental implications of the college context. Emerging Adulthood, 4, 219–222.

Arnett

J. J.

Kloep

Hendry

L. B.

Tanner

J. L.

(2011). Debating emerging adulthood: Stage or process? Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Cohen

(1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37–46.

Côté

J. E.

(2006). Emerging adulthood as an institutionalized moratorium: Risks and benefits to identity formation. In Arnett

J. J.

Tanner

J. L.

(Eds.), Emerging adults in America: Coming of age in the 21st century (pp. 85–116). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Farber

M. L.

(1952). The college student as laboratory animal. American Psychologist, 7, 102.

Gachter

(2010). (Dis) advantages of student subjects: What is your research question? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 92–93.

Henrich

Heine

S. J.

Norenzayan

(2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61–83.

Higbee

K. L.

Lott

W. J.

Graves

J. P.

(1976). Experimentation and college students in social psychology research. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2, 239–241.

10.

Krippendorff

(2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

11.

Peterson

R. A.

(2001). On the use of college students in social science research: Insights from a second-order meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 450–461.

12.

Rozin

(2010). The weirdest people in the world are a harbinger of the future of the world. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 108–109.

13.

Schwartz

S. J.

(2016). Turning point for a turning point: Advancing emerging adulthood theory and research. Emerging Adulthood, 4, 307–317.

14.

Sears

D. O.

(1986). College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of a narrow database on social psychology’s view of human nature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 515.

15.

Swanson

J. A.

(2016). Trends in literature about emerging adulthood: Review of empirical studies. Emerging Adulthood, 4, 391–402.

16.

Syed

(2016). Continuity and change in emerging adulthood. Emerging Adulthood, 4, 375–377.

17.

van Dulmen

M. H.

(2013). Emerging adulthood—The journal. Emerging Adulthood, 1, 3–4.

18.

Veksler

A. E.

& Meyer

M. D.

(2014). Identity management in interpersonal relationships: Contextualizing communication as central to research on emerging adulthood. Emerging Adulthood, 2, 243–245.