Personality Psychology (740)






         a qwriting.qc.cuny.edu blog

03/15/2018

Krupić et al., (2016) OR Brumbaugh & Wood (2013)

Filed under: Uncategorized — drcb @ 10:56 am

Please post on only one paper this week, and indicate which paper you are posting about.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
33 Comments to “Krupić et al., (2016) OR Brumbaugh & Wood (2013)”
  1. Emnet Gammada says:

    Brumbaugh & Wood 2013

    I appreciated the objectives of Brumbaugh & Wood in their study. They clearly highlight the bias in the literature of examine young adults on mate preferences/selection most probably due to who is available to the researchers (i.e. undergraduate samples), and I appreciated their exploration of how age plays a role into mate selection. In their description of mate preferences across the life span, they describe a shift toward increased preference for communal characteristics. I thought about how this aligns with developmental research and the shift from an egocentric world to one that is more allocentric. In this study, the researchers, aimed to examine diversity both within age demographics, along with examining different cultural groups. These aims are highly commendable and ambitious. However, as noted the age demographics in this study ranged from 18-25 years of age. They utilized an online paradigm to conduct the study and accomplish these goals, and this may have been problematic for an older cohort of individual and hence, bias the sample into individuals with computer proficiency and access. Another thoughts I had while reading this article was about how malingering or random responding is controlled for in these online paradigms. I am not familiar with this and was curious about what this entailed, and how reliability and validity is measured for in these paradigms.

    • Caroline Nester says:

      Emnet, that is such a good catch that you made! I didn’t even think about how computer and internet usage is much less common in older adult populations – and I imagine this trend is even stronger outside of North America. I also wondered about older adults rating the attractiveness of targets so much younger than them, aged 18-25. I would be interesting to see a study older adults rated the attractiveness of potential mates closer to their own age!

    • Gabriella Robinson says:

      Emnet, I too read the article and thought about the online sample. In my nascent research I utilize murk, Qualtircs and, Inquisit all online platforms, however I was introduced to these by various PI’s that I’ve worked with, so I thought they were common in the field. Thats why when I read this article I was surprised, and felt naive about the utilization of “www.yourpesronality.net,” and am naive as to whether that is a common online platform in personality research. In using online samples even though I get good data, I have to note that you are right in bias of individuals sampled in their privilege/proficiency/access.

    • drcb says:

      “random responding is controlled for”

      Often researchers collecting online data will insert an attention check question to control for random responding. When there is no incentive to participate (such as in this study), it’s less of an issue.

  2. Caroline Nester says:

    I really enjoyed the way that the Krupic et al (2016) article and the Brumbaugh and Wood (2013) took very distinct approaches to addressing evolutionary psychological theory. The Krupic paper looked at individual differences (how values of reward interest, reward reativity, reward sensitivity, etc different from person to person) while the Brumbaugh study took a lifespan, generational, cross sectional approach (looking at how personality and mate preferences change over time within the same individual). I found it interesting how the Krupic article made the point to distinguish between motives and personality traits (as we discussed in class a few weeks back). This idea is interesting to see applied within the Bruambaugh paper, which looked at motives (in the form of mate selection/preferences) which evolved overtime independent of corresponding personality traits within the individual.

    I was particularly drawn to the Brumbaugh paper, because it deals with romantic interests of older adult populations (and my research is in geriatric populations! Romance and sex is so under-discussed within this population) and also because I see so many ways in which evolutionary psychology can be applied to the findings. For instance, analyzing trends cross-culturally is a phenomenal way to interpret underlying genetic and biological causes of human personality traits – allowing us to explore the direct actions of evolution on our genotype and typically corresponding phenotype (personality, mate preferences). I was also fascinated by the finding that women have more of a shift in mate preferences across the lifespan than men do. To me, this is such a profound confirmation of evolutionary theory and biological impacts on personality! The article touched on this a bit, but I wish that it would have said a bit more. Women have a limited reproductive window, followed by a shift (brought on by menopause) in which dramatic role reversals are assumed. Women go from having the ability to create new life, to now primarily caring for offspring and the future generations. This profound hormonal shift must certainly impact on mate preferences in women; however, the same is not true in men, who are essentially just as capable at creating new offspring on the day they die as they were at 20 years old. So of course men would have less of a shift in mate preferences! Fascinating finding.

    • Susie McHugh says:

      Caroline, I also agree that one of the most interesting findings from this study was the unique ways in which women’s preferences change over time. This confirms a lot of what I have observed in individuals ~two generations older than us – our parents’ ages. It seems very often that men in their sixties are eager and able to mate with women generations younger than they are, while women in their sixties are relatively limited, as they are “competing” with younger women for same-aged men. While this always seemed (unfortunately) intuitive, given men’s lifelong fertility, what was less intuitive but now elucidated to me from the article was women’s apparent selectiveness in choice that may also be limiting their ability to find a mate in late-life. I appreciate the hypothesized evolutionary mechanisms proposed by the authors, and also appreciate such suggestions as future research exploring these tendencies in non-human primates.

      • drcb says:

        “women’s apparent selectiveness in choice that may also be limiting their ability to find a mate in late-life”

        Women are selective in some ways, and pickier too (as shown by their lower mean attractiveness ratings compared to men). On the other hand though, women have less consensus than men on what is attractive, so in other words women are more broad in what they find desirable.

    • Lexi Pritchett says:

      I’m also very interested in how hormone changes influence mate selection both across the lifespan via menopause, but also with hormone fluctuations associated with menstruation. Whenever I think of mate selection I think of the tshirt smelling study which reduces mate selection to such a biological level. I wonder what that same study would look like in the same person before and after menopause.

  3. Ashley Olivera says:

    Brumbaugh & Wood (2013)

    I found this article to be particularly interesting because it primarily focuses on relationships and I’ve always been drawn to work with family and couples therapy. I was also interested in Brumbaugh & Wood’s (2013) study because it focused on what qualities individuals find appealing, not only with age but cross-culturally. I think that culture plays a significant role when it comes to mate selection. Some cultures can be more strict and selective than others. Culture in some ways can be preventive or hold some restriction when it comes to mate selection. As for age shifts, I believe that as time changes, people change along with it. This can clearly be seen where social trends have altered throughout the decades such as the 80’s, 90’s and today. It makes sense that the qualities we find desirable in people will also change with whatever is currently popular at the time. A perfect example of culture impacts and age shifts, my brother’s girlfriend is Indian, and her family won’t approve simply because he is not Indian. Although her family (older generation) doesn’t approve and strictly follows their cultural rules of dating in marrying an Indian partner, my brothers girlfriend (younger generation) has no issue in dating someone outside of her race.

    However, I felt that because this study only used college aged participants ranging from the ages of 18-25, was a limitation because how can one truly measure ones’ preference change throughout time if we don’t utilize participants who are older. I feel it would be wise to consider using participants who are middle-aged and older to take a closer look at what desired qualities they preferred in a partner when they were younger. Another suggestions would be to consider conducting a longitudinal study, so one can truly experience the shift in mate preference as the time is passing in the moment. I also noticed that this study focused on mate preference among heterosexual relationships. I would have liked to have seen if there was also a shift in desired qualities among homosexual relationships as well.

    • Tiara Newson says:

      The age selection stood out to me as well. Up until I reached the participant section I though a condition group in the study was at least middle age. The age range does do well for studying the difference in mating preferences at different stages of life, and supporting the fact that agreeableness and consciousness increases as one ages. I just felt that I was just thrown off from the introduction referencing mating changes throughout life span, not 2 different stages in life, especially so close in age, it was just not expected.

    • drcb says:

      18-25 was the targets’ age (the pictures showed people aged 18-25)

  4. Tiara Newson says:

    In regards to Brumbaugh and Wood’s 2013 Mate study, I first thought the study was focused on older adults, such as 50 or so, and how their mating preferences changed from experience and wisdom, along with changes in the big 5 traits. Only having participants from age 18-27 is barely a measure of what would be expected over a life span. Of course 18 and 27 are two different stages in life, and you would definitely want to start becoming more serious and involved in a relationship because people are now searching for a mate to settle down with. But it was a good study to see the difference in these different stages of life, I just felt from the introduction of the article that participants would be much older, and was very interested in the difference of like age 50 from age 25. Being ages 18-27 is still a great study, just caught me a little off guard. I believe a lot of information in the introduction is connected to the prior study done by Brumbaugh which could explain mentioning other stages in life span, not looked upon in the articles. Overall I found it pleasing to see the changes that occur in the Big 5 traits during aging, to be explored in such a unique outlook, such as choosing a mate. Not only did performing this study act as a validation to the findings that consciousness and agreeableness increases during older age, it also gave insight on mating preferences for two different stages of life. Also, viewing traits across cultures gave an added outlook to the changes that occur during aging in accordance to in Big 5 traits throughout different cultures.

    • Pashminder Kaur says:

      Tiara,

      I agree with your reasoning towards the participant’s age! Even though it was a great and interesting study, the article should have focused with older age participants. It would be interesting to find the differences between middle age participant and old age participants. However, 27 is a good age to ask for their mates rating because that is usually the age when couples are mostly settle down and having a family!

    • Ashley Olivera says:

      I agree with what you said about the age range of the participants. I felt that mid 20’s is still fairly young to see a dramatic shift in mate preference because its typically the age where a person tends to settle down. As it was mentioned earlier in the article, some individuals are looking for potential partners due to other factors such as divorce and the loss of a spouse at much later ages in life. I believe looking at ages in which enough time has passed, where at least one of these situations is more likely to be possible; should be utilized in the study.

    • drcb says:

      Participants varied in age (although 27 was the mean age). Around 1,000 people were over age 50, and we even had some in their nineties.

  5. Pashminder Kaur says:

    Article #5- In the article, Mate Preference Across Life and Across the World, examined how mate preferences shift as a function of age. Brumbaugh and Wood (2013) overall goal was to dig deeper into the nature of attraction by considering how age plays a role in who people find attractive and from a cross-cultural perspective. This article was an attention-grabbing article to read about mate preferences and I was quite fascinated in the results that were found.
    Brumbaugh and Wood (2013) conducted an online questionnaire where participants had to describe dealing with personality and social relationship. In my opinion, online survey isn’t a great source to gather accurate information due to the misleading information that participant may provide. In the study, about 17,000 women and about 11,000 men participated in this study, which was quite a big sample size. So, when it comes down to gathering information from over 10,000+ participants, I guess online questionnaire is the quickest way to gain information but not the best way. In addition, based on the ethnic’s breakdown, I found it interesting that there were mostly white participants, who participated in this study, than Hispanic, Asian, and others. That should be one of the limitations and may be biased towards the results that were found.
    The results were similar to the previous study, where age is positively correlated with agreeableness and conscientiousness- becoming more communally oriented with age. As women gets older, they showed increased preference for men who looked sensitive , conventional, formal, intelligent, well-groomed, and who were always smiling and avoid men who were thin, sexy and trendy, which was quite an interesting finding for me and I agree upon. These days, women prefer men who are more sensible and can take care of their family rather than focusing on their looks and trends. Going after looks is not great for a family in a long run, especially for women.

    • Mahathi Kosuri says:

      I agree with the limitation of the online questionnaire, but yes sometimes its the only way. And sometimes its actually perfect for the type of study you’re doing— which I think applies to this study. I also noticed that 70% of the participants were White. This was surprising, as they really emphasized the main purpose of the study being cross-culturally focused. Going after looks isn’t always bad- sometimes attractive people are good mates!

      • Carly Tocco says:

        I too can understand the hesitation in using a large online survey system such as MTurk to gather data. Emnet brought up in a previous comment that the type of people who do these surveys may be biased (ex: access to a computer). With this said, as long as it is mentioned as a limitation, this means of data collection allows researchers to access large sample sizes (even if different parts of the world) feasibly. I also felt the sample being primarily causation raised a question due to the nature of the study questions.

  6. Daniel Saldana says:

    I chose to speak on Krupíc, Gračanin, & Corr (2015). While I enjoyed reading about the theory, there were a few issues that I had with the paper as I was reading (and rereading it). Firstly, I believe their definition of the Behavioral Approach System (BAS) is lacking. It makes the reader think too hard to realize the link between the approach system and personality, at least for non-experts. In particular, I looked up articles such as Leone et al. (2001) that did a better job. For example, Leone et al. (2001) further explained that the “BAS system prompts individuals to initiate and maintain active goal pursuit and to seek novel and rewarding experiences”. To its credit, the paper does eventually mention this (although not in explicit terms) when talking about the BAS’ four subscales as per the RST-PQ. This seems to be a theme throughout the paper. Although I appreciate the brevity (and perhaps this may be an issue of publication space allotted) some of the concepts needed some further explanation. For example, when discussing how the heterogeneity of the BAS may derive from the “arms race” between predator and prey, it is not clear as to how it relates to humans until the final sentence of that paragraph. Eventually, I drew my own conclusions that they are stating that the BAS is more complex than originally thought (as past research with rodents has theoretically construed it as a unidimensional system) because humans can be both predator and prey (especially in terms of evolutionary theory where it is assumed that the development of these systems happened over time—when humans were posed with greater threats). However, perhaps they clearly meant humans to be predators who needed to develop more complex strategies regarding BAS to counteract prey’s defensive behaviors. I thought the results were interesting, although I would have suggested that they provide hypothetical examples of how each motive-trait-approach strategy may be expressed in everyday life. I think that showing how people with assumed personality traits (e.g. impulsivity, extraversion) could be driven by evolutionarily derived human motives (e.g., competition, cooperation, integrity) to approach an adaptive problem (e.g., obtaining food, water, sex, and social status) would have made the results more resounding. 



    Leone, L., Perugini, M., Bagozzi, R. P., Pierro, A., & Mannetti, L. (2001). Construct validity and generalizability of the Carver–White behavioural inhibition system/behavioural activation system scales. European Journal Of Personality, 15(5), 373-390. doi:10.1002/per.415

    • Katie Dana says:

      Danny, I completely agree! I found myself googling BAS as I was reading the paper to make sure that I fully remembered what it was. The paper did not do much to jog my memory on the topic. It appeared as though the authors took for granted that readers would already have a solid background in the BAS before reading the paper. You are also probably right that word count limitations may have lead the authors to cut down sections that might originally have explained the concept more fully.

    • Safa Shehab says:

      I had the same issue of having to go back to the definition of the scales to make sense of the results. It seemed like there were too many words describing very similar constructs but not doing a great job at capturing the essence of each (like reward reactivity and sensitivity to reward??). However, I did like that this article referred to personality differently from trait theories.

  7. Mahathi Kosuri says:

    Reading Brumbaugh and Wood (2013) was a pleasurable read and made me think a lot about the theory behind the study, and whether or not there would be a difference in findings that could occur today. The first thing I would like to mention is how interesting it was to understand if there is a shift in mate selection cross culturally. As we have learned from Bleidorn (2013), the phenomena changing personality, as we get older is a cross cultural occurrence. Thus it seemed natural to assume mate selection would follow a similar pattern, however, I didn’t believe this to be true before reading this article. When I first read the results of the study, I wasn’t surprised that women had a more consistent shift in mate preferences around the world than men. It is easy to understand this, as little girls are constantly told that there exists “perfect man”, most often one that is in fact conventional. Women are subject o much more societal pressure to believe in a caricature of a long-term mate while men have the freedom to create this image as they wish.

    On a separate note, it is a bit difficult for me to grasp the definition of “conventional” and “traditional,” as it is so strongly tied to my idea of culture and religion. It would be very interesting to measure how much people identify with a religion—I would imagine this would be a significant factor in their communal shift.

    Lastly, I found it a bit disheartening to learn that with age, women especially, shift their mate preferences to one set of characteristics (conventionality, sensitivity, UN-sexy! etc.). Though I believe this is a positive thing overall, as it is a sign of “adaptive” behavior and can “increase inclusive fitness and relational stability,” I think this stability may be difference now (2018) than it may have been in 2013. The shift in the women’s movement across the world has gained significant power over the past three years- so much so that it has created a mass generational movement against conventionality. Today, will women experience less of a shift, with age, in mate selection towards an ideal “long term mate,” or will we always have a pattern of gravitating towards settling down with a non-bearded and traditional man?

    • Melissa Chavez says:

      Mahathi,

      Based on your last paragraph, great point. I feel that now that women are more career focus and independent, I would think there is no constant need for just “settling down”. If anything I’d think the opposite in which its more based on how they really feel about their partner.

      • Melissa Henao says:

        Hi Mahathi, I also thought the same thing in regards to women less of preference shift with age. With the women’s movement and the significance of independence and all that, I don’t see why an independent woman with stable career and goals, would avoid gravitating herself to the more “sexy” guy. I mean, I do kind of see why, but if we’re able to do things on our own and not have to rely so much on a man for economical support (vs years and years ago), why not settle down with the “sexier” man if things are right? I feel like theres this unfair stereotype that “better looking” people are not as smart or have as much depth to them, when compared to the more conventional and cleaned up sensitive looking person. The first and last sentence of your last paragraph really made me glad to think I was not the only one who thought about this stuff!

    • Melissa Henao says:

      Hi Mahathi, I also thought the same thing in regards to women less of preference shift with age. With the women’s movement and the significance of independence and all that, I don’t see why an independent woman with stable career and goals, would avoid gravitating herself to the more “sexy” guy. I mean, I do kind of see why, but if we’re able to do things on our own and not have to rely so much on a man for economical support (vs years and years ago), why not settle down with the “sexier” man if things are right? I feel like theres this unfair stereotype that “better looking” people are not as smart or have as much depth to them, when compared to the more conventional and cleaned up sensitive looking person. The first and last sentence of your last paragraph really made me glad to think I was not the only one who thought about this stuff!

    • Emnet Gammada says:

      Mahathi, you raise some very interesting points regarding societal pressure on women. I wonder how much of these communal shift is shaped by pressure and not so much adaptive selection. Your comment about spiritual/religious identification also resonated with me, we’ve discussed this being a different component of personality (not often discussed or noted). It would be interesting to examine how this may contribute to the communal shift.

  8. Katie Dana says:

    This blog post is referring to the Krupíc, Gračanin, & Corr paper. I thought it was an interesting suggestion by the authors that dimensions of the BAS were shaped differently over the course of evolution to adapt to specific problems or stimuli. Considering that different BAS scores were related to different resource acquisition strategies and different integrity motives, this hypothesis makes sense. I wonder, though, if we would see similar results if a correlation analysis had been performed with the Fight-Flight-Freeze System (FFFS) or the reinforcement sensitivity theory (RST) instead of the BAS. It seems likely to me that this multidimensional perspective on approach motivation would generalize to the FFFS and RST as well.

    Further, if this multidimensional perspective were indeed supported by research for the FFFS and RST, perhaps the evolutionary perspective that the authors suggested for the BAS would also be useful to explore. Logically, it makes sense that aspects of personality, particularly those believed to be “hardwired” in us, would have evolved over time due to social and environmental needs. It would have enhanced the paper if SCA had been run for all three of the major systems of neuropsychological theory of personality rather than approach behaviors alone. With more information about all three, a deeper understanding of the multidimensionality and, ultimately, evolutionary theory of personality could be gained.

    • Daniel Saldana says:

      Katie, as I have it understood, reinforcement sensitivity theory is the overall umbrella theory under which three subsystems subside: fight-flight-freeze system (FFS), Behavioral approach system (BAS), and behavioral inhibition system (BIS). In my search for better definitions of BAS, or a better grasp of it in general, there was much discussion about the factorial analysis of the BIS system as well. So it seems likely that if the SCA were run with these other systems, then they would also reveal interesting relationships between the strategies being used and the motives behind those strategies, as we saw in the paper here.

  9. Melissa Chavez says:

    Brumbaugh and Wood (2013) study examines the concept of knowing in what way mate preferences fluctuate as we mature. Through their measures they established that those who were older favor those who presented common character traits. These findings convey in the sense that people find others more appealing when they acquire the same agreeable features.
    I thought this article was interesting because it opens discussion on relationships and what essentially becomes important to us as we age and mature. However, it made me think of the attachment styles that we spoke about—if this study were conducted on individuals with different type of attachment styles, would the findings be similar. I say this because I know a lot of couples that are different in many ways especially through attachment styles but they still make it work. And not to be a hopeless romantic but I also wondered maybe its not just all about common character traits, I like to think that some people just click with others because they’re understood by that person more—but it doesn’t necessarily mean that they are similar.
    I enjoyed reading this study through a developmental aspect. At first I wondered why the ages 18-27 were chosen. This is specifically because now that many women and men are more focus on career wise—they are starting to settle down much later. However, through a developmental aspect I can see that those ages are perfect mostly because that’s basically where mate selection begins and ends with a different approach. For example, an 18 year old would perhaps be more focus on appearance than a 27 year old, who’d probably be more focus on personality. I also was curious to know how this would play with dating apps. For example, the app Tinder—individuals have so many options and are able to make that choice with either a right or a left movement. I‘m interested to know if this study would also have similar results those individuals who use dating apps.

  10. Gabriella Robinson says:

    The Brumbaugh and Wood (2013) article is a very interesting read. I agree with authors in that it is curious whether one’s preferences for mate would change with age, as research points that personality changes with age. The wide array of the countries sampled was impressive; when I read that authors utilized a personality website, I thought how would they get enough people from a wide array of places when only a very specific type of person would even know that this particular personality website exists, and go there frequently enough to see if new studies have come out (i.e. one could say the same of popular online research platforms like Mturk and Qualtrics), despite my doubts and questions, experimenters were able to pull it off with samples of greater than 30 people that appeared to come from many continents and regions (despite the authors perceived limitation that there were even more countries not reported on in this article due to small sample sizes, in other words good representation from around the world was still achieved despite missing those who were sampled in places that did not reach high enough sample size to be reported on).

    I think it would be curious for another study regarding an investigation of the specific countries that did not follow the pattern observed of a shift toward communal preferences (i.e. why did those sampled in Mexico show a predilection toward -significant correlation- “trendy, stylish, urban” partners that increase by age for males yet decrease for females, whereas those in the USA and United Kingdom follow the theorized pattern of a -significantly negative correlation – decrease in attraction to “trendy, stylish, urban” partners.

    Additionally, when reading this article (through my own fault) it didn’t become clear to me until it was defined in the discussion the distinction between “revealed” and “stated” preferences. I think I was unclear with the revealed preferences meant, upon reading the discussion I saw that revealed meant those “indirectly revealed through indicators of attraction to real people as done here.” Upon clarity on what revealed preferences was targeting, it made me further curious of the term “conventional” and how the authors would define it.

    Another aspect that further interested me was the “socioemotional selectivity theory”, which reminded me of the “cultural fit hypothesis.” I am intrigued that research has found trends if something is truly an ecological phenomenon that it should be able to be observed across the world. I think what makes this so intriguing to me is that when I think of culture I imply differences (i.e. I always think of one culture vs another). I automatically think of “respecting the differences between cultures,” and I often forget that within culture we are humans and that due to that link many characteristics will be shared, despite how rich culture shapes ones background, parenting strategies/goals, life goals, religion, etc.

    • Aditya Kulkarni says:

      Hey Gabriella,

      I found your comment on differential selection as a threat to external validity to be useful, especially given that in such a cross-sectional sample, we don’t know for sure if the true magnitude of traditionalism is pervasive in the sample, especially for those not privy to the personality questionnaire. I too found parallels between the socioemotional selectivity theory and the cultural fit hypothesis from last week, and I believe that a missing factor in this model is just how important the parental selection of mate plays in dissonance. In countries, wherein the authors deem them to follow a traditionalistic mindset, the stated personality traits may be under the influence of a parental change in mate selection, thus changing stated trait preference. I don’t know why the literature is constantly lacking this piece, but merging cognitive dissonance with trait theory, it is not beyond the individual to have to cope with trait-level changes at that end of the spectrum, thus everything regressing to the mean eventually with the extremes not truly so extreme.

      Aditya

    • drcb says:

      The revealed preference methodology was better explained in the 2009 paper. Basically, 5 raters rated the 97 photos for a variety of characteristics. Then, those photos were shown to the current subjects. So if some photos were rated by the 5 original raters as a “10” for sexy and “10” for conventional, and the subject gives very high ratings to the photos pre-rated as sexy and very low ratings to the photos that were pre-rated as conventional the subject’s “revealed preferences” show that she likes sexy and dislikes conventional people.

  11. Safa Shehab says:

    Krupić et al. (2016)
    The authors suggest that motives and personality traits are not equivalent constructs and reference the weak to moderate correlations between personality as they measured it (BAS subscales and sensitivities to reward and punishment) and the theorized adaptive or evolutionary motives (measured by the AIM-Q). however, this seems to conflict with the high value they obtained for R-squared (.82, meaning that personality traits explain 82% of the variance in motives, or vice-versa, and their relationship is .9 which is a very large effect size that is generally atypical). This high value could mean that either these two constructs are very similar, almost completely overlapping or the items used to measure them are actually measuring very similar constructs, or that this model has done such a good job at explaining almost all there is to personality and motives (which I find to be unlikely). I would have liked to see how the authors would explain this large R-squared value and what they think contributed to it, knowing that most individual correlation coefficients were weak to moderate. I would have suggested separate multiple regression if the goal was to determine personality tendencies related more to which motives, which would also give a clearer overall effect size and allow for the possibility of removing effects that are not significant. I would have also liked to see the results separated by gender and age instead of statistically controlling for these variables, especially that the authors indicate that these factors are of important theoretical relevance in evolutionary psychology, and the large sample size would have allowed for this distinction. Lastly, it is interesting that personality is described in this article in terms of Behavioral Approach System (BAS) and not in terms of traits, although I noticed that some of the constructs used might parallel traits from The Big Five. For example, many of the BAS subscales resemble Extraversion, and Reward Reactivity sounded like Neuroticism. It would have been helpful if the article specified any relationships between these 2 theories.

Leave a Reply

(required)

(required)


WPMU-DEV.

Spam prevention powered by Akismet

Skip to toolbar