Bard and colleagues advocate for a reorientation in developmental psychology from WEIRD to WILD perspectives, which is a vitally important move for ensuring that developmental science respects cultural differences. However, we contend that the experiences of migrant children, whether crossing national borders or relocating within a single country, present unique challenges to some of WILD’s foundational constructs, particularly the constructs of “local” and “in situ,” which we aim to address and expand upon.

Driven by globalization as well as economic and social forces, migrant children have become an increasingly large population worldwide (UNICEF, 2024). In recent years, a growing body of research in education, sociology, and psychology has focused on this group (e.g., Levy, Pisarevskaya, & Scholten, Reference Levy, Pisarevskaya and Scholten2020). Over the past 40 years of reform and opening-up, more than 100 million Chinese children have migrated alongside their parents, including both international migration (e.g., immigration) and internal migration (e.g., rural-to-urban relocation) (Ding et al., Reference Ding, Chen, Fu, Li and Liu2020; Tang, Xiang, & Liu, Reference Tang, Xiang and Liu2024; Wang & Mesman, Reference Wang and Mesman2015). These children live in an ever-changing environment that mixes multiple cultures, and their development is shaped by divergent and sometimes conflicting social contexts, such as family, school, and community, each with its own norms and expectations (e.g., Arzubiaga, Noguerón, & Sullivan, Reference Arzubiaga, Noguerón and Sullivan2009). For WILD to achieve greater theoretical inclusivity within developmental psychology, it must integrate the distinctive developmental contexts of migrant children and reconceptualize local and in situ as dynamic, rather than static constructs.

Local refers to the cultural parameters within which development unfolds, encompassing both practices (e.g., caregiving routines) and representations (e.g., cultural beliefs), and it emphasizes that developmental findings should be interpreted within these cultural frameworks rather than treated as universally applicable. However, for migrant children, the concept of local is complex and fluid, shaped by the interplay of home, school, community, and transnational ties. For example, in the case of Chinese migrant children, whether their migration is transnational or rural-to-urban, daily life is embedded in cross-cultural engagement (Curdt-Christiansen, Reference Curdt-Christiansen2020; Ding et al., Reference Ding, McVarnock, Li, Coplan, Ooi, Yu and Sang2025; Dong, Reference Dong2018). In practice, local encompasses both the new sociocultural and normative contexts that children strive to integrate into and the familial environments where traditional values and caregiving practices are preserved, illustrating the coexistence of multiple cultural frameworks (e.g., Chen, Wang, & Wang, Reference Chen, Wang and Wang2009). Moreover, language functions as a prototypical local marker, yet migrant children often navigate multiple linguistic systems across different contexts (e.g., Wei, Reference Wei2011). For instance, a child migrating from China to North America may use Mandarin at home while communicating in English at school (e.g., Zhang, Reference Zhang2010). This multiplicity of locals raises important methodological concerns. Most developmental psychology measures were originally designed within WEIRD populations, which restrict their cultural generalizability. As a result, applying either the original English instruments or the translated Chinese versions to immigrant children in Western contexts fails to adequately reflect their lived experiences (Kong et al., Reference Kong, Brook, Li, Li and Schmidt2024). Lastly, social labeling further destabilizes the notion of local. For internal migrant children in China, the label of “migrant” or “rural” often marks them as outsiders within urban schools, whereas transnational immigrant children are frequently racialized as “foreigners” in their host societies (e.g., Urias, Reference Urias2006; Wang, Reference Wang2008). Taken together, the complexities of migrant children’s lives illustrate that local must be considered as a fluid, multilayered construct, with important implications for the validity and cultural adaptation of developmental measures.

In situ refers to research conducted within the natural ecologies of children’s everyday lives, emphasizing contextual authenticity over controlled experimental settings. For non-migrant children, research in situ typically occurs within a relatively stable and geographically close community. By contrast, the “real environments” of migrant children are often multi-sited and mobile, with enduring connections spanning considerable geographic distances. These connections are frequently sustained through digital communication with extended family in their place of origin, while they simultaneously foster new relationships in their current community (Popyk & Pustułka, Reference Popyk and Pustułka2021; Sinaga, Watloly, & Litaay, Reference Sinaga, Watloly and Litaay2024). If we extend the concept further, it becomes clear that real-life settings encompass not only the physical environment but also social relationships and power dynamics. In schools, immigrant children may be marginalized because of their accents or cultural differences, while at home they may experience another form of regulation through parents’ insistence on maintaining heritage languages or traditional norms (Adair, Reference Adair2015; Tannenbaum, Reference Tannenbaum2005). Moreover, language use constitutes an in situ developmental context. For children of transnational immigrant backgrounds, conducting research exclusively in a single language risks disregarding their routine engagement in code-switching within everyday interactions, thereby failing to adequately capture the ecological validity of their lived experiences (Portes & Hao, Reference Portes and Hao2002). In addition, the in situ experiences of migrant children are not confined to their everyday lives in the host society but also extend across temporal cycles of return. For example, many Chinese migrant children may spend summer vacations or major holidays, such as the Spring Festival, in their hometowns. During these visits, they temporarily reintegrate into their hometown environments, yet their language use, social etiquette, or urbanized mannerisms often mark them as partial outsiders (Lamas-Abraira, 2003; Zhang, Reference Zhang2018). These periodic returns highlight that in situ is not only spatially multi-sited but also temporally fluid. Consequently, capturing the lived realities of migrant children requires research designs that simultaneously attend to their experiences across home, school, province, and transnational connections. In turn, in situ must be reconceptualized not as a fixed geographic location but as a multi-sited, transnational, and digitally mediated construct that more accurately reflects the complexity of migrant children’s developmental ecologies.

The target article provides a persuasive rationale for transitioning from WEIRD to WILD frameworks in developmental science. However, it underestimates the conceptual and methodological challenges introduced by migration. Migrant children inhabit cultural ecologies characterized by fluidity, multiplicity, and transnational linkages. To remain inclusive and analytically robust, WILD must incorporate flexible, context-sensitive frameworks capable of capturing these complex and interconnected developmental realities.