Abstract
Within evolutionary biology, life-history theory is used to explain cross-species differences in allocation strategies regarding reproduction, maturation, and survival. Behavioral scientists have recently begun to conceptualize such strategies as a within-species individual characteristic that is predictive of behavior. Although life history theory provides an important framework for behavioral scientists, the psychometric approach to life-history strategy measurement—as operationalized by K-factors—involves conceptual entanglements. We argue that current psychometric approaches attempting to identify K-factors are based on an unwarranted conflation of functional descriptions and proximate mechanisms—a conceptual mix-up that may generate unviable hypotheses and invites misinterpretation of empirical findings. The assumptions underlying generic psychometric methodology do not allow measurement of functionally defined variables; rather these methods are confined to Mayr’s proximate causal realm. We therefore conclude that K-factor scales lack validity, and that life history strategy cannot be identified with psychometrics as usual. To align theory with methodology, suggestions for alternative methods and new avenues are proposed.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 33-44 |
| Number of pages | 12 |
| Journal | Human Nature-An Interdisciplinary Biosocial Perspective |
| Volume | 29 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Mar 2018 |
Keywords
- BIOLOGY
- CAUSAL INDICATORS
- COVITALITY
- EVOLUTIONARY-THEORY
- FORMATIVE MEASUREMENT
- Formative models
- INDIVIDUAL-DIFFERENCES
- K-FACTOR
- LATENT-VARIABLES
- Latent variables
- Life history strategy
- MEASUREMENT MODELS
- MODELS
- MULTIDIMENSIONAL CONSTRUCTS
- Measurement models
- PERSONALITY
- PROXIMATE
- PSYCHOLOGY
- Psychometrics
- REPRODUCTIVE STRATEGY
- TRADE-OFFS
- Ultimate-proximate distinction
- Validity