Showing papers by "Bruce J. Ellis published in 2002"
TL;DR: The results suggest that the TSDI is a reliable, valid, and unique construct that represents a new trait-specific method of assessing dependence in romantic relationships.
Abstract: Informed by three theoretical frameworks—trait psychology, evolutionary psychology, and interdependence theory—we report four investigations designed to develop and test the reliability and validity of a new construct and accompanying multiscale inventory, the Trait-Specific Dependence Inventory (TSDI). The TSDI assesses comparisons between present and alternative romantic partners on major dimensions of mate value. In Study 1, principal components analyses revealed that the provisional pool of theory-generated TSDI items were represented by six factors: Agreeable/Committed, Resource Accruing Potential, Physical Prowess, Emotional Stability, Surgency, and Physical Attractiveness. In Study 2, confirmatory factor analysis replicated these results on a different sample and tested how well different structural models fit the data. Study 3 provided evidence for the convergent and discriminant validity of the six TSDI scales by correlating each one with a matched personality trait scale that did not explicitly incorporate comparisons between partners. Study 4 provided further validation evidence, revealing that the six TSDI scales successfully predicted three relationship outcome measures—love, time investment, and anger/upset—above and beyond matched sets of traditional personality trait measures. These results suggest that the TSDI is a reliable, valid, and unique construct that represents a new trait-specific method of assessing dependence in romantic relationships. The construct of trait-specific dependence is introduced and linked with other theories of mate value.
42 citations
TL;DR: It is argued that to date, however, only the gene-centered adaptationist program (consistent withinclusive fitness theory) has demonstrated scientific progressivity by generatingacoherent, integrated body of new knowledge and explaining awayseveralapparent anomalies.
Abstract: Department of PsychologyNew Mexico State UniversityLloyd and Feldman’s (this issue) continuing com-mentary on our recent target article and rejoinder (Ellis& Ketelaar, 2000; Ketelaar & Ellis, 2000) focuses ontwooverarchingissues.First,LloydandFeldmanclaimthatourdescriptionofthecoremetatheoreticalassump-tions of modern evolutionary theory overemphasizesthe role of inclusive fitness (i.e., the so-called selfishgeneapproach)attheexpenseofunderemphasizingim-portant alternative approaches (e.g., multilevel selec-tion models, gene–culture coevolution models). Sec-ond, Lloyd and Feldman criticize some of the methodsandassumptionsthatostensiblycharacterizetheevolu-tionarypsychologyresearchprogram.Thesecriticismsconcerntheconceptualizationoforganismsasinclusivefitness maximizers, the soundness of the epistemologyof evolutionary psychology, the modularity of psycho-logicalmechanisms,andtheuniversalityofpsychologi-calmechanisms.Inthefirstpartofthisrejoinder,weac-knowledge that different schools of thought existregarding the plausibility and importance of variousmetatheoretical assumptions in human evolutionarypsychology. We argue that to date, however, only thegene-centered adaptationist program (consistent withinclusive fitness theory) has demonstrated scientificprogressivitybygeneratingacoherent,integratedbodyofnewknowledgeandexplainingawayseveralapparentanomalies. In the second part of this rejoinder, wediscuss several misunderstandings that underlie Lloydand Feldman’s criticisms of human evolutionarypsychology.The Role of Inclusive Fitness Theory inEvolutionary PsychologyLloyd and Feldman (this issue) criticize our refer-ence to inclusive fitness theory as providing the foun-dation of modern evolutionary theory:
19 citations