scholarly journals Corrigendum: The Evolutionary Mismatch Hypothesis: Implications for Psychological Science

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (6) ◽  
pp. 626-626
2017 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 38-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
Norman P. Li ◽  
Mark van Vugt ◽  
Stephen M. Colarelli

Human psychological mechanisms are adaptations that evolved to process environmental inputs, turning them into behavioral outputs that, on average, increase survival or reproductive prospects. Modern contexts, however, differ vastly from the environments that existed as human psychological mechanisms evolved. Many inputs now differ in quantity and intensity or no longer have the same fitness associations, thereby leading many mechanisms to produce maladaptive output. We present the precepts of this evolutionary mismatch process, highlight areas of mismatch, and consider implications for psychological science and policy.


2020 ◽  
pp. 40-57
Author(s):  
Mark van Vugt ◽  
Lianne P. de Vries ◽  
Norman P. Li

2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana Gantman ◽  
Robin Gomila ◽  
Joel E. Martinez ◽  
J. Nathan Matias ◽  
Elizabeth Levy Paluck ◽  
...  

AbstractA pragmatist philosophy of psychological science offers to the direct replication debate concrete recommendations and novel benefits that are not discussed in Zwaan et al. This philosophy guides our work as field experimentalists interested in behavioral measurement. Furthermore, all psychologists can relate to its ultimate aim set out by William James: to study mental processes that provide explanations for why people behave as they do in the world.


2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michał Białek

AbstractIf we want psychological science to have a meaningful real-world impact, it has to be trusted by the public. Scientific progress is noisy; accordingly, replications sometimes fail even for true findings. We need to communicate the acceptability of uncertainty to the public and our peers, to prevent psychology from being perceived as having nothing to say about reality.


Methodology ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 132-138 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Höfler

A standardized index for effect intensity, the translocation relative to range (TRR), is discussed. TRR is defined as the difference between the expectations of an outcome under two conditions (the absolute increment) divided by the maximum possible amount for that difference. TRR measures the shift caused by a factor relative to the maximum possible magnitude of that shift. For binary outcomes, TRR simply equals the risk difference, also known as the inverse number needed to treat. TRR ranges from –1 to 1 but is – unlike a correlation coefficient – a measure for effect intensity, because it does not rely on variance parameters in a certain population as do effect size measures (e.g., correlations, Cohen’s d). However, the use of TRR is restricted on outcomes with fixed and meaningful endpoints given, for instance, for meaningful psychological questionnaires or Likert scales. The use of TRR vs. Cohen’s d is illustrated with three examples from Psychological Science 2006 (issues 5 through 8). It is argued that, whenever TRR applies, it should complement Cohen’s d to avoid the problems related to the latter. In any case, the absolute increment should complement d.


1999 ◽  
Vol 54 (2) ◽  
pp. 106-116 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frederick P. Morgeson ◽  
Martin E. P. Seligman ◽  
Robert J. Sternberg ◽  
Shelley E. Taylor ◽  
Christina M. Manning

2004 ◽  
Vol 59 (4) ◽  
pp. 272-273 ◽  
Author(s):  
Todd B. Kashdan ◽  
Michael F. Steger

1994 ◽  
Vol 39 (6) ◽  
pp. 607-608
Author(s):  
William C. Howell

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document