ReviewEvolutionary psychology : an international journal of evolutionary approaches to psychology and behavior2017
Substance, History, and Politics.
Review in Evolutionary psychology : an international journal of evolutionary approaches to psychology and behavior, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Are Higher-Order Constructs in Evolutionary Psychology Attributable to Omitted Cross-Loading Bias? An Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling Approach.Human nature (Hawthorne, N.Y.) · 2025Article
- A Double-Track Pathway to Fast Strategy in Humans and Its Personality Correlates.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Advancing the Psychometric Study of Human Life History Indicators : K Does Not Measure Life History Speed, but Theory and Evidence Suggest It Deserves Further Attention.Human nature (Hawthorne, N.Y.) · 2021Article
- Do Criminals Live Faster Than Soldiers and Firefighters? : A Comparison of Biodemographic and Psychosocial Dimensions of Life History Theory.Human nature (Hawthorne, N.Y.) · 2020Article
- The Structure of the Mini-K and K-SF-42 : A Psychological Network Approach.Human nature (Hawthorne, N.Y.) · 2020Article
- On the Incongruence between Psychometric and Psychosocial-Biodemographic Measures of Life History.Human nature (Hawthorne, N.Y.) · 2020Article
- Life-history theory in psychology and evolutionary biology: one research programme or two?Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2020Review
- The evolution of life-history theory: a bibliometric analysis of an interdisciplinary research area.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2019Article
- Psychometrics and Variation in Human Life History Indicators.Evolutionary psychology : an international journal of evolutionary approaches to psychology and behavior · 2017Review
- The Psychometrics of the Mini-K.Evolutionary psychology : an international journal of evolutionary approaches to psychology and behavior · 2017Article
- Is Narcissism a Slow Life History Strategy Indicator?: The Answer Depends on the LHS Instrument.Evolutionary psychology : an international journal of evolutionary approaches to psychology and behaviorArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this article is to examine the relations between two approaches to the measurement of life history (LH) strategies: A traditional approach, termed here the biodemographic approach, measures developmental characteristics like birthweight, gestation length, interbirth intervals, pubertal timing, and sexual debut, and a psychological approach measures a suite of cognitive and behavioral traits such as altruism, sociosexual orientation, personality, mutualism, familial relationships, and religiosity. The biodemographic approach also tends not to invoke latent variables, whereas the psychological approach typically relies heavily upon them. Although a large body of literature supports both approaches, they are largely separate. This review examines the history and relations between biodemographic and psychological measures of LH, which remain murky at best. In doing so, we consider basic questions about the nature of LH strategies: What constitutes LH strategy (or perhaps more importantly, what does not constitute LH strategy)? What is gained or lost by including psychological measures in LH research? Must these measures remain independent or should they be used in conjunction as complementary tools to test tenets of LH theory? Although definitive answers will linger, we hope to catalyze an explicit discussion among LH researchers and to provoke novel research avenues that combine the strengths each approach brings to this burgeoning field.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.