Questions related to Evolutionary Psychology
Hi, I'm writing a research proposal for evolutionary psychology. I want to test the effects of menstrual cycles and pregnancy on females facial preferences for masculinity in male faces. My study will be longitudinal testing females at three times points, 1st when they're in the non-ovulating phase of their menstrual cycle, 2nd when they're in the ovulating phase and 3rd when they are in their 3rd trimester of pregnancy. At these three time points participants will complete a facial preference task where they choose whether they are more attracted to masculinised or feminine male faces.
Am I right in thinking that this is a quasi-experimental longitudinal design with the IV being the body phase of the female and the DV being females facial preferences? Or is this a correlational longitudinal design?
Thank you in advance
What content should be include while making notes for MBA students for -Heredity and Behavior - Genetics and Evolutionary Psychology topic
I have an article on energy metabolism that I want to publish, and I'm not sure what journal would be appropriate for it. The article presents a new theory based on data from existing studies. It is not really a review, because it doesn't address a question that these previous studies asked. Can anyone suggest a journal that might publish such an article?
I am primarily interested in getting this idea into the medical databases. Getting a large amount of exposure is not that important.
If you want to know about the theory, it concerns "weight cycling" -- the strong tendency of dieters to regain the weight they have lost. My theory is that weight cycling is an evolutionary adaptation to seasonal food shortages.
J. S. Shapiro
Dear ladies and Gentlemen;
I would be grateful if anyone can recommend a link offer the titles mentioned below for free.
1. Crenshaw, M. (2000). The psychology of terrorism: An agenda for the 21st century. Political psychology, 21(2), 405-420.
2. Horgan, J. G., & Horgan, J. (2004). The psychology of terrorism. Routledge.
3. Horgan, J. G. (2017). Psychology of terrorism: Introduction to the special issue. American Psychologist, 72(3), 199.
4. Post, J. M. (2007). The Mind of the Terrorist: The Psychology of Terrorism from the IRA to al-Qaeda. St. Martin's Press.
5. Taylor, M., Roach, J., & Pease, K. (Eds.). (2015). Evolutionary psychology and terrorism. Routledge.
6. Walls, C. (2016). Beyond fear: The psychology of terrorism. Scientific American Mind, 27(3), 32-49.
I have found the spiral dynamics value systems model (Beck & Cowan 2005) an interesting heuristic model but I was struggling to find scientific evidence for its validity. [e.g. The Inglehart-Welzel model (Inglehart & Wezel 2010) from traditional to secular/rational societies seems to correlate the blue to orange value system shift in spiral dynamics but no formal connection has been establised.]
Would you know studies which would back the spiral dynamics model?
If not, would you know better models of human value systems and how they evolve?
If one accepts the broad truths of ethical error theory, what comes next in figuring out how to live? What still matters (pace Parfit), and how much ? Are we simply left with a subjective 'desirism' to pursue our own goals and pleasure...? with widely shared, if non-objective, values we pursue as we choose? Can we sign on, without contradiction, to a pragmatic utilitarianism that seems to promote mostly common goals...and, if so, how do we reckon with the exceptions we may desire, e.g., not torturing one to save many? How much of this is a matter of psychology vs philosophical principles we may choose (and how does that sit with a deterministic or at most compatabilist view of free will)...? And what about change? What changes would it make sense to work towards given what we decide does or doesn't matter? This includes both societal change and individual change. Should I work to modify my presumably innate and sometimes satisfactory vengeful implulses? How about competitiveness...or excessive self-interest (but what is excessive)...? What about sex and love? Camus has sometimes been flatteringly described as a rakish womanizer who told a woman he loves her before going on to the next and professing the same, and meaning both. Deception was presumably part of this. What philosophical or psychological judgments should we apply to someone acting that way? [Note: I have started a similar discussion group at philpapers.org. We can decide later if one or the other should be merged/eliminated.]
AWAY ! Unfortunately.
Nowadays, proximate explanations are, at least almost always, in terms that are neurobiological, endocrinological, or molecular-genetic . There usually appears to be absolutely no concept of a behavioral pattern or change in a behavioral pattern (either, of course, in response to aspects of the current environment) AS themselves a proximate cause of a new behavior pattern [change] -- I.E. a true observable behavior pattern phenomenon proceeding, and needed for, the key subsequent behavior pattern change. I believe there is a BIAS there , due to our philosophical cultural traditional-beliefs.
And, this is a problem.
THIS PROBLEM HAS NOT ALWAYS BEEN THE CASE, and certainly has not always been the case in ethology. The ethology Tinbergen and Lorenz were given a Nobel prize for often did have one behavior pattern as a proximate cause for certain behavior pattern(s) that followed. This is what needs to be re-learned and abided by or real ethology may be lost. Such a relationship between behavior patterns was a hallmark of classical ethology.
Modern ethologists failed to have the "backbone" to maintain that which was most distinctive and best about ETHOLOGY. They basically "caved in" to how others characterized them. (Now, the field is indistinguishable from comparative psychology and/or evolutionary psychology.)
Listen up, International Society for Human Ethology !
Real science, real biological science, the real biology of behavior DEPENDS on behavioral pattern(s), themselves, being seen as a major proximate cause of new behavior patterning [and of behavior pattern change]. Ethology must return to what it uniquely was OR THERE IS NO CHANCE OF BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE. I am sure, if I were a analytic philosopher, I could argue this. It really is logically and scientifically irrefutable. Behavioral sciences, of all "stripes", have been becoming more and more stupid -- there is no better word (since they defy biology and defy science). (Simply look for the lack of the words "behavior pattern" and you are on the way to seeing the whole problem.)
P.S. Consider this a big "kiss ...." to our philosophical cultural heritage; certainly the stupidity is a "love letter" to those arm-chair thinkers.
My research is in social and evolutionary psychology, so I would be interested in websites used by researchers in these areas.
Sexual research shows that the sexual arousal of a male from a teenage girl is entirely normal. Is normal also hebephilia (persistent and dominant sexual interest by adults in pubescent children), as indirectly indicated by evolutionary psychology, by stating that the sexual contact with reproductively mature woman - even when in pubertal age - is an evolutionary advantage as it can guarantee reproductive success.
What do you think about it?
Example: For my PhD, I am constructing a narrative of racial classification of the Philippines within the perimeter of anthropological and colonial situational contexts. Which best, on an introductory level, can be identified as my (would be) research expertise?
Basically, I'm looking for methods that, instead of running detailed Interviews with few people, aggregate similar answers by asking many people few very basic questions.
Is there something established in Sociology, Psychology?
i need help to find some experimental studies conducted in south east asian popluation.
Also, is it easier to conduct and be able to control extraneous variables?
Both current and old data or places to look would be greatly appreciated! I speak German, so the information needn't be in English.
I think it's possible because, it could be important for survival in the past (e.g. To not fight against animals stronger than us). Unfortunately, I haven't found any article about this kind of discussion...
I'm performing research investigating the relationship between actual strength, acoustic characteristics of the voice, and rated strength. Participants produced roars and screams, and as participants varied in their ability to produce realistic vocalisations, I obtained realism ratings from listeners of these vocalisations.
As realism ratings and strength ratings share variance (correlate at around r = .4), I don't want to include realism as a random covariate in a regression, as it will arbitrarily remove variance from the model that could be explained by strength. Instead, I would like to perform a weighted least squares regression, with realism ratings as the weighting variable (scores ranging from 1-7), where the least realistic vocalisations are given less weight in estimating the relationship between actual strength (IV) and an acoustic variable (DV), and an acoustic variable (IV) and rated strength (DV).
I have never performed weighted least squares regression before, and all I can find on the internet is that you use the weighting variable to control for unequal variability across a range of scores. So I was wondering if anyone might be able to answer a couple of questions:
1. Is it appropriate to use weighted least squares regression in this manner, and if so, should I convert the realism scores (1-7 likert scale) into a different form of weighting?
2. Am I correctly assuming that it doesn't matter if a weighting variable is correlated with an IV/DV? If higher scores on a measurement are more variable and thus given less weighting, the weighting variable and the DV would correlate, but I'm using WLS in a different context so I'm not sure if its still okay.
3. The actual strength score was calculated as a z-score (composite z-score of z-scored performance on 3 strength measurement devices) - am I right in thinking that this z-score doesn't need to be re-estimated using weighted means/SDs, because doing that would already control for the variance in realism, rendering WLS needless?
Thanks, and if anything is unclear I am more than happy to clarify!
Does it matter if the weighting variable and the predictor/DV are correlated?
so far I found scales developed by chauduri et al. 2011 and by eastman et al. 1999.
is that all or are there other suitable scales / measures?
thanks in advance for your hints!
Mackie’s moral “error theory” seems committed to a view of objectivity that takes ‘objective’ as coeval with ‘intelligible apart from human sensibility’. That's certainly one way of cashing out 'objective'. But isn’t McDowell’s description of objectivity as “there to be experienced” (i.e., regardless of whether the experience is actually instantiated by any given agent) at least equally coherent? If not, why? And are there still other ways to cash out the notion of objectivity in moral judgment (perhaps in the case of evolutionary utility to sentient beings, such as we are)?
We would like to invite you to our new, large-scale cross-cultural research project.
Our previous research projects, conducted in 53 study sites, turned out to be a great success. One of our manuscripts (from a first project) was published in Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, other from the new project is currently under review in the same journal, one will soon be submitted to the Journal of Marriage and Family, and three more papers are in the final stages of preparations. Thanks to our efficient team work we now collaborate with, e.g., David Buss.
We would like to continue the research in the area of cross-cultural/evolutionary psychology. This time, we plan to conduct six studies.
a) Sexual Morality Project
b) Comparison of daily life touch between countries
c) Creativity study
d) Love study
e) Mate study
f) Facebook study
Now, we have collaborators from 60 countries. Algieria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Croatia, Cuba, Czech Rep, Estonia, Etiopia, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Hong Kong, Hugary, India, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Korea, Latvia, Lebanon, Lithuania, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Salvador, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, UK, Ukraine, Uruguay, USA.
New collaborators from other countries are WELCOME!
IsIs there any research - in psychology, evolutionary psychology, the cognitive sciences - on the pleasure human beings experience when a) understanding something or b) realising that they understand more/better than others? the The broader issue underpinning my question is the pheonomenon of "dramatic irony" - that is, the awareness of a member of an audience (in a play), a reader of a text or a viewer of a film/TV programm that he/she knows more about the situation depicted than the characters involved. Literary scholars tend to assume that we get quite a kick out of such constellations and I'm wondering whether there is any research on humans' awareness of their own knowledgeability that would support that claim.
I cannot remember the term for a construct that describes our tendency to prioritize negative memories. Evolutionary psychology (I think) says that we risk manage: danger affects our lives more than reward, so we prioritize avoiding negatives and remember them more. Not to crowdsource research, but I seriously cannot remember this or find it.
For several years some scholars have accepted the engraved pieces of ochre from Blombos cave in South Africa, at least one of which has a geometric cross-hatched pattern, as evidence of early modern human aesthetic creation (ca. 70,000 BP). See: Henshilwood, Christopher S.; d’Errico, Francesco; et al., “Emergence of modern human behavior: Middle Stone Age engravings from South Africa,” in Science, new series, vol. 295, no. 5558, February 15, 2002, pp. 1278-1280 (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/295/5558/1278.abstract?sid=da7c3755-b2bc-4ced-93da-2c024c50b1fd, access: March 14, 2015).
The recent discovery of similar engravings on shells on Java, from ca. 500,000 BP -that is, long before the emergence of modern Homo sapiens-, suggests that aesthetic creation evolved gradually. See: Joordans, Josephine C. A.; d’Errico, Francesco; et al., “Homo erectus at Trinil on Java used shells for tool production and engraving,” in Nature, December 3, 2014 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature13962.html, access: March 14, 2015).
Suggestions that chimpanzees make aesthetic decisions while painting are intriguing. See the following texts and video:
Can anybody point me toward additional studies on aesthetic creation by nonhuman primates, either in the archaeological record or among our contemporary primate cousins?
I am interested in whether arrogance is useful or detrimental in an evolutionary sense. It seems that the answer may depend on the outcome of interest (short-term or long-term reproductive situations, with arrogance potentially being more attractive in short-term reproductive situations). What other factors play into the evolutionary benefits or costs of arrogance?
There are some measures for slow LHS (alhb, mini-k, hkss), but I could not find a scale for measuring fast life history strategy in humans. Does such a scale exist? Will it make sense to develop such a scale (since I don't think that fast LHS could be accurately measured with K-strategy scales, for example by just inverting it)? Thanks in advance for your hints!
For my master thesis purposes I need a couple of standarized photograpies of masculine faces with diverse level of attractiveness. Does anyone know some open source where I could find them, or should I create the stimuli by myself?
Psychology is developing with dizzying pace. Almost every day psychologists discover a new fact about human cognition, emotion, behavior etc. Can we ask questions about rule-following behavior without any reference to psychological studies? Can legal theorists study law and do not take a psychological perspective (among others, I agree)? Can we discuss a relation between law and morality and at the same time ignore studies conducted in moral or evolutionary psychology?
Is this development of psychology a chance for legal studies or a threat to the very nature of research on law?
I am looking for literature that uses sexual strategies theory and/or evolutionary psychology to examine the association between weight and dating status among high school and/or college age African Americans. So far I am finding very few studies. Before I give up, I want to post to the community and ask for suggestions. Thanks very much!
It's true that mental illness stigma is quiet prevalence in the United States, and I'm curious whether it happens to the animals as well. However, I do not have a background in psychology, and I'd really appreciate it if someone could give me some references.
How does the cognitive ability to distinguish reality and fiction help conecptualise the reception of scripted/sculptured reality formats?
Is there any data or texts which mention the suicide rates in ancient times?
Was suicide common around, say, 500-1000-2000 years ago?
What were the reasons for people to commit suicide in those times?
Or is suicide a recent phenomena?
Particularly a bio-psycho-social model/perspective would be of interest. But any other valuable information considering this topic are very welcome, too.
I wonder whether one of the greatest specificity we developed is the knowledge of our ultimate finitude and how it could account for differentiating us from other animals.
The breadth of research in psychology is rapidly expanding in the absence of an effective system for comprehensively organizing this research. One consequence of this lack of organization is that it is becoming progressively more difficult for psychologists to conduct thorough, efficient literature reviews on any given topic. This is because: (a) many topics in psychology span a wide variety of different areas within the discipline of psychology and also extend beyond the discipline to include those such as medicine, biology, ecology, etc.; (b) operational definitions of the same variable can often vary across these different research areas and disciplines; and (c) the measures used to assess these variables also vary as a function of research area or discipline. As a result of this lack of information about the status of research on a given topic, many researchers are conducting research that has already been done. The end result of all of this is that research in psychology is not nearly as efficient as it could be.
The following are just my initial thoughts about a possible solution to this problem. My hope is that others can/will expand on and refine it:
I propose some type of centralized online registration system where each researcher in psychology registers his or her study by identifying his or her (1) independent variables(s), (2) dependent variables, (3) measures used, (4) primary hypotheses, and (5) secondary hypotheses (if applicable).
The results or outcomes of each study are not relevant to this registration process, since (a) study registration would take place before the study is even conducted and (b) the main purpose of the registration system would be to help researchers identify studies that have already been completed, or are currently being completed, and that involve the specific variables in which they are interested, as well as the measures used to assess them.
In effect, this centralized online system would be a comprehensive database of all the studies in psychology (both published and unpublished) that have already been conducted. Similar to how the Cochrane Collaboration requires systematic reviewers to register their studies prior to conducting them, this system would make it possible for ALL psychologists to register their studies by including information on the five elements listed above. Perhaps this system could piggyback on an existing online system or various research databases (e.g., PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus) could be modified to accommodate such a system.
The benefits of having such a research registration system include: more simplified and comprehensive literature searches; fewer, if any, redundant studies on the same topic (this, of course, does not refer to replications); more efficient systematic reviews and meta-analyses; less-biased systematic reviews and meta-analyses (through identification of grey literature); a more efficient psychological science!
Does anyone have any thoughts/comments/questions on psychology developing such a study registration system?