Methodologically Sound: Evaluating the Psychometric Approach to the Assessment of Human Life History [Reply to ]

Abstract

Copping, Campbell, and Muncer (2014) have recently published an article critical of the psychometric approach to the assessment of life history (LH) strategy. Their purported goal was testing for the convergent validation and examining the psychometric structure of the High-K Strategy Scale (HKSS). As much of the literature on the psychometrics of human LH during the past decade or so has emanated from our research laboratory and those of close collaborators, we have prepared this detailed response. Our response is organized into four main sections: (1) A review of psychometric methods for the assessment of human LH strategy, expounding upon the essence of our approach; (2) our theoretical/conceptual concerns regarding the critique, addressing the broader issues raised by the critique regarding the latent and hierarchical structure of LH strategy; (3) our statistical/methodological concerns regarding the critique, examining the validity and persuasiveness of the empirical case made specifically against the HKSS; and (4) our recommendations for future research that we think might be helpful in closing the gap between the psychometric and biometric approaches to measurement in this area. Clearly stating our theoretical positions, describing our existing body of work, and acknowledging Reply to Copping, Campbell, and Muncer (2014) Evolutionary Psychology -ISSN 1474-7049 -Volume 13(2). 2015.-300-their limitations should assist future researchers in planning and implementing more informed and prudent empirical research that will synthesize the psychometric approach to the assessment of LH strategy with complementary methods.

The Reproductive Ecology of Industrial Societies, Part I

“…Although the outright dismissal of the “counting babies” approach is much less common today, the idea that modern human behavior is necessarily mismatched to the environment is a regular feature of much work in evolutionary psychology (e.g., Confer et al 2010; Deaner and Winegard 2013; Geher 2013; Tooby and Cosmides 2015; Van Vugt et al 2008), and consequently, people’s fertility behavior is rarely measured. There are also more recent (and on-going) discussions about whether psychometric measures are more informative than biometric measures, which tend to mirror these earlier debates (e.g., Copping et al 2014; Dunkel et al 2015; Figueredo et al 2015). Claims therefore continue to be made that measuring fertility should be foregone in favor of studying other, allegedly more informative traits (for instance: “In modern times, mating success must be used as a proxy for [reproductive success]” [Camargo et al 2013:138], a statement that contains the implicit, and wholly untested, assumption that current mating success is a better proxy for ancestral fitness than current fitness).…”

Are extraversion and openness indicators of a slow life history strategy?

“…One limitation of this study is that the Study 1 participants did not provide any data on biometric LH variables such as age at puberty (Copping, Campbell, & Muncer, 2014; but see Figueredo et al, 2015). A second limitation is that, although the CAQ has been adapted (Dunkel et al, 2015;Sherman et al, 2013) to measure an evolutionary construct, Life History strategy, the instrument itself originated in psychodynamically oriented psychiatry (Block, 1978).…”

“…More generally, additional research is needed to determine both the broader and the narrower personality dimensions, as well as individual differences outside the realm of personality, that fit within the nomological network surrounding psychometric assessments of human LHS (Figueredo et al, 2014).…”

Implications of life-history strategies for obesity

“…Psychometric indicators reveal the psychological processes underlying life-history strategies, whereas biometric indicators reveal life-history outcomes, and thus the two types of measures complement one another in important ways (32).…”