Impelling and inhibiting forces in the perpetration of intimate partner violence.

The huge corpus of research identifying risk factors for intimate partner violence (IPV) has outpaced theoretical models explaining how these risk factors combine to exert their effects. This report presents a 2-stage process model investigating how a previously nonviolent interaction between intimate partners escalates to IPV. The first stage examines whether at least one partner experiences strong violence-impelling forces, which lead the individual to experience action tendencies toward IPV. The second examines whether the partner experiencing violence-impelling forces suffers from weak violence-inhibiting forces, which would otherwise serve to override such action tendencies. This model extends previous research by emphasizing the importance of inhibitory processes in IPV and by imposing a new conceptual structure on the identified IPV risk factors. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

Traits and trade-offs are insufficient for evolutionary personality psychology.

Comments on the article by D. Nettle (see record 2006-11202-005), who has clearly shown that evolutionary psychologists need to focus more attention on individual differences, not just species-typical universals. Such differences are not mere "noise," and evolutionary theory will gain by understanding how they are produced and maintained. However, by focusing on personality traits and the five-factor personality model, Nettle left unaddressed many of the most important aspects of human personality. An evolutionary psychology of personality must ultimately explain not just trait differences but also differences in personal goals, values, motives, identities, and life narratives--essential elements of human individuality and functionality. K. M. Sheldon et al suggest four reasons why traits and the five-factor personality model do not provide an optimal approach for explaining the evolution of personality: (a) As constructs, traits provide little purchase for explaining the causes of behavior; (b) trait concepts do not acknowledge or explain people's variations around their own baselines, variations that are likely crucial for adaptation; (c) traits do not explain or even describe true human uniqueness, i.e. the ways in which a person is different from everybody else; and (d) traits do not explain personality from the inside, by considering what people are trying to do in their lives. In raising these issues Sheldon et al are suggesting that the important question for evolutionary personality study is not why people fall at different points on a continuum regarding traits x, y, and z, but rather why each person is inevitably unique while still sharing the same evolved psychology. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Choosing category or complementary relations: prior tendencies modulate instructional effects

Concepts in semantic memory are associated with other categorically (e.g., dog-horse) and complementarily (e.g., dog-bone) related concepts. Although complementary relations produce more robust priming (e.g., Lupker, 1984), categorical responding is more common in preference tasks where participants choose directly between categorical and complementary relations (e.g., Smiley & Brown, 1979). Three experiments examined the effects of instructions and individual differences on adult preferences. Experiment 1 demonstrated that category preferences were infrequent, and that "most similar" instructions produced modestly more category responses than "goes together" instructions. In Experiments 2 and 3, emphasizing key words enhanced the instructional effect, and "similar" instructions produced especially large increases in category preferences for participants predisposed to categorical relationships. These preference experiments demonstrate that complementary advantages are similar to those for priming, and that instructions and prior tendencies can have subtle influences on semantic memory.     

Effects of social interaction on the development of startling song and the perception of these effects by conspecifics.

To examine the effects of contact with a conspecific in the absence of species-typical song models, the authors raised starlings in male-male pairs in acoustic isolation. The songs of these birds differed significantly from those of either individual isolates or wild adults and resembled in some respects the songs of starlings tutored by live conspecifics. Operant conditioning techniques were used to demonstrate that these differences among songs were perceptually salient to conspecifics. The results indicated that (a) wild-caught adult starlings are capable of forming open-ended categories for isolate and wild song, (b) starlings perceive the songs of isolated pairs as more "isolatelike" than "wildlike," and (c) starlings can distinguish the songs of isolated pairs from those of individual isolates. Both experiments point to the importance of social factors in avian song development. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Behavioral genetics and evolutionary psychology: unified perspective on personality research

Behavioral geneticists and evolutionary psychologists have generally pursued human behavioral analyses with little theoretical or methodological exchange. However, significant benefits might accrue from increased communication between these disciplines. The primary goals of this article are (1) to identify meaningful junctures between behavioral genetics and evolutionary psychology, (2) to describe behavioral genetic research designs and their applications to evolutionary analyses, and (3) to reassess current personality research in light of behavioral genetic and evolutionary concepts and techniques. The five-factor model of personality is conceptualized as subsuming variation in normative species-typical systems with adaptive functions in the human environment of evolutionary adaptation. Considered as universal evolved mechanisms, personality systems are often seen in dynamic conflict within individuals and as highly compartmentalized in their functioning between settings. However, genetically influenced individual differences in personality may also be understood within an evolutionary framework. Studies of the heritability of personality traits indicate broad-sense heritabilities in the 0.40-0.50 range with evidence of substantial nonadditive genetic variation and nonshared environmental influences. Evidence indicates that evolutionary theory (e.g., inclusive fitness theory) predicts patterns of social interaction (e.g., cooperation and bereavement) in relatives. Furthermore, variation in personality may constitute a range of viable strategies matching the opportunities available in the complex niche environment of human societies. Within this wide range of viable strategies, personality variation functions as a resource environment for individuals in the sense that personality variation is evaluated according to the interests of the evaluator (e.g., friendships, coalitions, or mate choice).     

Bridging psychology and biology with animal research.

Comments on the article by S. M. Kosslyn et al (see record 2002-12932-001), which advocated combining group-based research and individual differences research to illuminate the links between psychology and biology. The authors agree that the study of individual differences is vital for uncovering processes that have hitherto remained obscured by relying too heavily on group-level approaches, and commend their multilevel, multidisciplinary approach to this important topic. However, they believe that Kosslyn et al should have given more attention to one of the most promising avenues for pursuing their multilevel approach--comparative research. The authors suggest that, although Kosslyn et al did refer to animal studies, they did not sufficiently emphasize the potential contribution of animal research. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Microbes, mating, and morality: Individual differences in three functional domains of disgust.

What is the function of disgust? Whereas traditional models have suggested that disgust serves to protect the self or neutralize reminders of our animal nature, an evolutionary perspective suggests that disgust functions to solve 3 qualitatively different adaptive problems related to pathogen avoidance, mate choice, and social interaction. The authors investigated this 3-domain model of disgust across 4 studies and examined how sensitivity to these functional domains relates to individual differences in other psychological constructs. Consistent with their predictions, factor analyses demonstrated that disgust sensitivity partitions into domains related to pathogens, sexuality, and morality. Further, sensitivity to the 3 domains showed predictable differentiation based on sex, perceived vulnerability to disease, psychopathic tendencies, and Big 5 personality traits. In exploring these 3 domains of disgust, the authors introduce a new measure of disgust sensitivity. Appreciation of the functional heterogeneity of disgust has important implications for research on individual differences in disgust sensitivity, emotion, clinical impairments, and neuroscience. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Dynamical evolutionary psychology: Individual decision rules and emergent social norms.

A new theory integrating evolutionary and dynamical approaches is proposed. Following evolutionary models, psychological mechanisms are conceived as conditional decision rules designed to address fundamental problems confronted by human ancestors, with qualitatively different decision rules serving different problem domains and individual differences in decision rules as a function of adaptive and random variation. Following dynamical models, decision mechanisms within individuals are assumed to unfold in dynamic interplay with decision mechanisms of others in social networks. Decision mechanisms in different domains have different dynamic outcomes and lead to different sociospatial geometries. Three series of simulations examining trade-offs in cooperation and mating decisions illustrate how individual decision mechanisms and group dynamics mutually constrain one another, and offer insights about gene-culture interactions. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Steps toward an evolutionary personality psychology: Individual differences in the social rank domain.

A comprehensive evolutionary personality psychology can be developed by identifying individual differences within each of the evolved systems that regulate social behaviour. We developed a questionnaire measure of social rank style, defined as individual differences in preferred strategies for pursuing, defending, and, when necessary, relinquishing social rank. The 17-item Rank Style with Peers Questionnaire (RSPQ) comprises three nearly independent scales: dominant leadership, coalition-building, and ruthless self-advancement. A series of studies demonstrated that: (a) the RSPQ’s, factor structure is robust; (b) the three rank style variables are not redundant with the five-factor traits or adult attachment styles; (c) they are related in theoretically expected ways to adjustment outcomes, to agentic and communal interpersonal behaviours, and to social reputations; (d) they predict group and individual performance outcomes relevant to organisational psychology; and (e) they are related in theoretically expected ways to psychopathology, including social anxiety disorder and depressive symptoms. Future directions for research on social rank styles and prospects for an evolutionary personality psychology are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Explaining affective linkages in teams: Individual differences in susceptibility to contagion and individualism-collectivism.

To expand on the understanding of how affective states are linked within teams, the authors describe a longitudinal study examining the linkages between team members' affective states over time. In a naturalistic team performance setting, they found evidence that the average affective state of the other team members was related to an individual team member's affect over time, even after controlling for team performance. In addition, they found that these affective linkages were moderated by individual differences in susceptibility to emotional contagion and collectivistic tendencies such that the strength of the linkage was stronger for those high in susceptibility and those with collectivistic tendencies. Implications for research and practice are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

What breaks a leader: The curvilinear relation between assertiveness and leadership.

The authors propose that individual differences in assertiveness play a critical role in perceptions about leaders. In contrast to prior work that focused on linear effects, the authors argue that individuals seen either as markedly low in assertiveness or as high in assertiveness are generally appraised as less effective leaders. Moreover, the authors claim that observers' perceptions of leaders as having too much or too little assertiveness are widespread. The authors linked the curvilinear effects of assertiveness to underlying tradeoffs between social outcomes (a high level of assertiveness worsens relationships) and instrumental outcomes (a low level of assertiveness limits goal achievement). In 3 studies, the authors used qualitative and quantitative approaches and found support for their account. The results suggest that assertiveness (and other constructs with nonlinear effects) might have been overlooked in research that has been focused on identifying what makes a leader rather than on identifying what breaks a leader. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

Demonstrating specific cognitive deficits: A psychometric perspective.

Cognitive deficits associated with psychopathology often do not occur in isolation. Consequently, identifying a specific deficit in a disorder requires comparing the magnitude of group differences on theoretically relevant measures with those on control tasks measuring other constructs. L. J. Chapman and J. P. Chapman (1973) noted that common forms of such Group?×?Task interactions are theoretically ambiguous unless performance measures have comparable discriminating power. The principles of psychometric matching for discriminating power developed in the Chapmans' research program are reviewed, and both criticisms and alternative psychometric approaches are evaluated. Psychometric matching can be mindful of threats to the construct validity of measures and frequently remains methodologically necessary. Otherwise, interactions involving measures that vary in sensitivity to individual differences may be misinterpreted as evidence for specific deficits. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Developmental psychopathology and the reciprocal patterning of behavior and environment: Distinctive situational and behavioral signatures of internalizing, externalizing, and mixed-syndrome children.

In contrast to assessment approaches that conceptualize traits as generalized response tendencies, this research develops a conditional approach that conceptualizes traits as patterns of relations between contexts and behaviors. Using extensive observations of social interactions, this study investigated internalizing, externalizing, and mixed-syndrome children identified by T. M. Achenbach's (1993) measures. Children in these groups differed in the patterning of their responses to social contexts and in the likelihood of encountering them. Mixed-syndrome children showed a distinctive behavior pattern consisting of aggressive and withdrawn responses to nonaversive contexts. The results demonstrate how measures of overall tendencies confound person and environment influences and obscure differences between children that are revealed by contextualized measures. The need to incorporate contexts more fully into clinical assessment is discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Social or evolutionary theories? Some observations on preferences in human mate selection.

In this article, we extend the research by Buss and Barnes (1986) on preferences in human mate selection. Buss and Barnes explored human mate preferences by identifying major dimensions of preferences, sex differences in selection preferences, and the relations between mate preferences and characteristics of obtained partners. To examine these questions, Buss and Barnes studied two heterosexual samples. In discussing their findings, they specified two general theoretical orientations to understanding human mate preferences, the first based on social factors and the second based on principles of evolutionary biology. The relative adequacy of these two perspectives was not evaluated because as Buss and Barnes noted, the two sets of hypotheses are not inherently incompatible. In this extension of their research, we examine mate preferences in samples of both heterosexual and homosexual couples, using variation in sexual orientation to evaluate further the adequacy of social and evolutionary theories in explaining human mate preferences. Although some aspects of partner preferences are consistent with both theoretical orientations, we demonstrate that other patterns are explained more adequately by a social perspective. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Psychological studies of values.

Research and discussions of values are reviewed with regard to (1) individual differences in values (sex; body and personality type; intelligence, aptitude, and achievement; vocational interests; religion; regional, national, and other cultural differences; etc.), (2) the origin and development of values, and (3) the influence of values on the individual's cognitive life. The relationship between value systems and other variables can be better understood by capitalizing on the interdisciplinary approach and by emphasizing the individual, rather than the particular variable, as the important unit of interest. Knowledge of the development of values will be facilitated by more longitudinal studies where "lifelike complexity" is not obscured. 211 references. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Taking the theorizing in personality theories seriously: Comment.

Comments on "A tale of two visions: Can a new view of personality help integrate psychology?" by J. D. Mayer (see record 2005-05480-001). Mayer's attempt to find ways to use personality emphases as integrative tendencies in psychology is welcome. Certainly, it would help if the research and practice efforts of psychologists were coordinated more clearly than they are now. The comment author finds Mayer's rather ambiguous and scattered suggestions to be disconcerting. The comment author proposes alternatives he hopes will further Mayer's goals. He believes that emphasizing core, developmental, and peripheral statements is important in envisioning the personality system. The comment author does not agree with Mayer's (2005) assertion that emphasizing existing personality theories is necessarily damaging because of their specific content disagreements. There are, of course, many personality theories, but their diversity can be reduced to a more manageable level by inducing from them the basic models of personality theorizing. When the comment author engages in this process, what emerges is the conflict, fulfillment, and consistency models, each with two subtypes. Psychologists need to collaborate with each other in formulating comparative analytic research that can resolve the fundamental issues arising from the differences between these three models. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Darwin and developmental psychology: Past and present.

Addresses the historical question of what influence Darwin has had on the emergence of developmental psychology as a scientific discipline. Suggestions for possible synergistic connections between modern evolutionary theory and developmental psychology are offered. Darwin's distinctive contributions to evolutionary theory appear to have had less influence on developmental psychology than traditionally believed. Possible reasons for this include developmentalists' commitment to meliorism, conceptual issues characterizing differences between ontogenetic and phylogenetic change, and methodological differences in studying proximate and ultimate factors. It is suggested that developmentalists use evolutionary theory as a heuristic for structuring new research into human development. In return, evolutionary biologists can have hypotheses concerning the impact of phylogeny on human ontogeny tested by those best qualified to test them. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Dominance, prosocial orientation, and female preferences: Do nice guys really finish last?

Three multimethod studies (total N?=?348) probed the hypothesis that women's attraction to men would be influenced by male prosocial orientation. In Study 1, prosocial men were rated as more physically and sexually attractive, socially desirable, and desirable as dates than were nonprosocial men. Dominant men were no more attractive than low-dominance men, and male dominance did not interact with male prosocial orientation in eliciting attraction from women. In Study 2, prosocial orientation was manipulated to avoid "personalism," but still affected attraction. Across all measures attraction was an interactive function of dominance and prosocial tendencies. Dominance alone did not increase any form of attraction measured. In Study 3, male prosocial tendencies and dominance interacted to affect women's attraction to men. Results are discussed in terms of the place of altruism and dominance in evolutionary approaches to human interpersonal attraction. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Developmental homologues: lineages and analysis

Developmental processes present several problems for identifying homologies and analyzing their evolution. Most evolutionary techniques approach homologies from either a taxonomic or a molecular perspective. Approaches that can accommodate many problems of developmental evolution are not well developed. Developmental process and evolutionary lineage complexity lead to a number of largely unappreciated conceptual and analytic problems. Developmental processes can evolve by duplication or diversification. Each process is in a hierarchy of super- and subprocesses. As they evolve, process components may be exchanged with or acquired by those of other processes. Because they do not fit into standard analytic procedures, these situations (including reticulate or reticulate-appearing lineages, partial homologues, iterative features, and the tracing of nontaxonomic and nonmolecular evolutionary lineages) are often ignored or considered illegitimate. Biology's disdain for the dichotomously branching phylogenetic lineages that are the basis of standard analytic approaches is ignored at the risk of making falsely negative homology evaluations. I will present an approach that can accommodate analyses of these situations. The use of nontaxonomic and nonmolecular lineages provides a way to structure comparisons between other entities, as taxonomic lineages structure comparisons among potential homologues. From an informational point of view, any entity (either a structure or process) with an evolutionary history is a potential homologue with a potential evolutionary lineage. Comparing lineages of interacting entities can reveal topological incongruences among them. Methods that identify reticulated taxonomic and molecular lineages should also apply to other lineages. Partial homologues, resulting from reticulated lineages, can be handled in several possible ways. Analytically, such an entity can be treated as a partial homologue, a novel feature, an independent sub-unit, or a unitary feature homologous to the major contributor of its inherited features.