This paper addresses the challenges of inequity and marginalization in cross-cultural psychology (CCP), particularly concerning scholarship from the Global South, which has roots in historical colonial practices. It highlights how intellectual extractivism and the dominance of Western research methodologies often overlook the contributions of Global South scholars and indigenous ways of knowing. Such imbalances risk narrowing the scope of psychological inquiry, privileging American and European perspectives, and undermining the richness of global human experiences. The paper calls for a shift toward more equitable collaborations and the recognition of diverse epistemologies. By advocating for genuine representation in research and valuing local knowledge, it proposes pathways for a more inclusive and authentic exploration of human behavior across cultures. CCP has historically been dominated by Western perspectives, methodologies, and interests, often at the expense of non-Western cultures and knowledge systems. A comprehensive review is imperative to critically assess and address this imbalance, ensuring that the field evolves to be more representative and inclusive of diverse cultural contexts. Ethical considerations in psychological research are paramount. The historical intellectual extractivism is still sometimes present in research practices, particularly in relation to communities in the Global South, raising significant ethical concerns. This review would provide a platform to interrogate these practices and advocate for more ethical, respectful, and reciprocal research methodologies. Indigenous knowledge systems and local epistemologies are often marginalized in mainstream CCP research. This paper advocates for their inclusion and recognition in the broader psychological discourse. Decolonizing psychological science is a multifaceted endeavor that requires a comprehensive and critical examination of the epistemologies, and practices that have traditionally shaped the field. The literature from Adams, Arnett, Barrero, and others offers a rich tapestry of insights and recommendations for this transformation. This review synthesizes these insights and suggests pathways for a more inclusive and globally representative psychological science. The acronym WEIRD – Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic – describes populations that, despite being the most frequently studied in psychological research, do not represent the global majority. This concept highlights a pervasive bias within psychological studies, emphasizing the need to scrutinize the generalizability of research findings derived predominantly from WEIRD populations to those outside this narrow scope. In contrast, the term "Majority World" encompasses countries and populations that, while forming the bulk of the world's demographic, remain largely marginalized or underrepresented within global economic structures and scholarly discourse. This notion challenges traditional "developed" versus "developing" country dichotomies by foregrounding the demographic weight and advocating for enhanced representation and voice of these populations in global dialogs, including research and policy formulation. The terms "Global North" and "Global South" are used to describe a geopolitical and economic division between countries, transcending mere geographical distinctions. The "Global North" typically includes countries that are wealthier, more industrialized, and often located in the Northern Hemisphere, but not exclusively so. These countries have historically had a larger influence on global economic policies andThis paper addresses the challenges of inequity and marginalization in cross-cultural psychology (CCP), particularly concerning scholarship from the Global South, which has roots in historical colonial practices. It highlights how intellectual extractivism and the dominance of Western research methodologies often overlook the contributions of Global South scholars and indigenous ways of knowing. Such imbalances risk narrowing the scope of psychological inquiry, privileging American and European perspectives, and undermining the richness of global human experiences. The paper calls for a shift toward more equitable collaborations and the recognition of diverse epistemologies. By advocating for genuine representation in research and valuing local knowledge, it proposes pathways for a more inclusive and authentic exploration of human behavior across cultures. CCP has historically been dominated by Western perspectives, methodologies, and interests, often at the expense of non-Western cultures and knowledge systems. A comprehensive review is imperative to critically assess and address this imbalance, ensuring that the field evolves to be more representative and inclusive of diverse cultural contexts. Ethical considerations in psychological research are paramount. The historical intellectual extractivism is still sometimes present in research practices, particularly in relation to communities in the Global South, raising significant ethical concerns. This review would provide a platform to interrogate these practices and advocate for more ethical, respectful, and reciprocal research methodologies. Indigenous knowledge systems and local epistemologies are often marginalized in mainstream CCP research. This paper advocates for their inclusion and recognition in the broader psychological discourse. Decolonizing psychological science is a multifaceted endeavor that requires a comprehensive and critical examination of the epistemologies, and practices that have traditionally shaped the field. The literature from Adams, Arnett, Barrero, and others offers a rich tapestry of insights and recommendations for this transformation. This review synthesizes these insights and suggests pathways for a more inclusive and globally representative psychological science. The acronym WEIRD – Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic – describes populations that, despite being the most frequently studied in psychological research, do not represent the global majority. This concept highlights a pervasive bias within psychological studies, emphasizing the need to scrutinize the generalizability of research findings derived predominantly from WEIRD populations to those outside this narrow scope. In contrast, the term "Majority World" encompasses countries and populations that, while forming the bulk of the world's demographic, remain largely marginalized or underrepresented within global economic structures and scholarly discourse. This notion challenges traditional "developed" versus "developing" country dichotomies by foregrounding the demographic weight and advocating for enhanced representation and voice of these populations in global dialogs, including research and policy formulation. The terms "Global North" and "Global South" are used to describe a geopolitical and economic division between countries, transcending mere geographical distinctions. The "Global North" typically includes countries that are wealthier, more industrialized, and often located in the Northern Hemisphere, but not exclusively so. These countries have historically had a larger influence on global economic policies and