The Structure of the Mini-K and K-SF-42
- PDF / 571,567 Bytes
- 19 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 34 Downloads / 192 Views
The Structure of the Mini-K and K-SF-42 A Psychological Network Approach Joseph H. Manson 1
& Kristine
J. Chua 1 & Aaron W. Lukaszewski 2
# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020
Abstract Life history theory is a fruitful source of testable hypotheses about human individual differences. However, this field of study is beset by unresolved debates about basic concepts and methods. One of these controversies concerns the usefulness of instruments that purport to tap a unidimensional life history (LH) factor based on a set of self-reported personality, social, and attitudinal variables. Here, we take a novel approach to analyzing the psychometrics of two variants of the Arizona Life History Battery: the Mini-K and the K-SF-42. Psychological network analysis generates models in which psychological variables (thoughts, feelings, or behaviors) comprise the nodes of a network, while partial correlation coefficients between these variables comprise the edges of the network. Centrality indices (strength, closeness, and betweenness) operationalize each node’s importance based on the pattern of the connections in which that node plays a role. Because childhood environments are hypothesized to influence adult LH, we tested the hypothesis that among the Mini-K items, and the K-SF-42 scales, those that tap relationships with parents are central to the networks (pairwise Markov random fields) constructed from these instruments. In an MTurk sample and an undergraduate sample that completed the Mini-K, and an MTurk sample that completed the K-SF-42, this hypothesis was falsified. Indeed, the “relationships with parents” items were among the most peripheral in all three networks. We propose that network analysis, as an alternative to latent variable modeling, offers considerable potential to test hypotheses about the input-output mappings of specific evolved psychological mechanisms. Keywords Life history strategy . Mini-K . Network analysis . Centrality
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-02009373-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
* Joseph H. Manson [email protected]
1
Department of Anthropology and Center for Behavioral, Evolution and Culture, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA
2
Department of Psychology, California State University, Fullerton, Fullerton, CA, USA
Human Nature
Life history theory (LHT), as a basis for hypotheses about human individual differences, has generated a large body of research and an intensifying controversy about basic concepts and methods (Belsky et al. 1991; Copping et al. 2017; Del Giudice 2018; Figueredo et al. 2005; Rushton 1985; Zietsch and Sidari 2019). LHT explains and predicts energy allocations among growth, somatic maintenance, and various facets (courtship, parenting, nepotism) of reproduction (Stearns 1992). These trade-offs affect outcomes such as adult body size, age at commencement of reproduction, mating par
Data Loading...
