Author
David P. Schmitt
Other affiliations: University of Michigan, Brunel University London
Bio: David P. Schmitt is an academic researcher from Bradley University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Evolutionary psychology & Big Five personality traits. The author has an hindex of 40, co-authored 84 publications receiving 13039 citations. Previous affiliations of David P. Schmitt include University of Michigan & Brunel University London.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
TL;DR: A contextual-evolutionary theory of human mating strategies is proposed, hypothesized to have evolved distinct psychological mechanisms that underlie short-term and long-term strategies between men and women.
Abstract: This article proposes a contextual-evolutionary theory of human mating strategies. Both men and women are hypothesized to have evolved distinct psychological mechanisms that underlie short-term and long-term strategies. Men and women confront different adaptive problems in short-term as opposed to long-term mating contexts. Consequently, different mate preferences become activated from their strategic repertoires. Nine key hypotheses and 22 predictions from Sexual Strategies Theory are outlined and tested empirically. Adaptive problems sensitive to context include sexual accessibility, fertility assessment, commitment seeking and avoidance, immediate and enduring resource procurement, paternity certainty, assessment of mate value, and parental investment. Discussion summarizes 6 additional sources of behavioral data, outlines adaptive problems common to both sexes, and suggests additional contexts likely to cause shifts in mating strategy.
3,660 citations
TL;DR: Although positively and negatively worded items of the RSES were correlated within cultures and were uniformly related to external personality variables, differences between aggregates of positive and negative items were smaller in developed nations.
Abstract: The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES) was translated into 28 languages and administered to 16,998 participants across 53 nations. The RSES factor structure was largely invariant across nations. RSES scores correlated with neuroticism, extraversion, and romantic attachment styles within nearly all nations, providing additional support for cross-cultural equivalence of the RSES. All nations scored above the theoretical midpoint of the RSES, indicating generally positive self-evaluation may be culturally universal. Individual differences in self-esteem were variable across cultures, with a neutral response bias prevalent in more collectivist cultures. Self-competence and self-liking subscales of the RSES varied with cultural individualism. Although positively and negatively worded items of the RSES were correlated within cultures and were uniformly related to external personality variables, differences between aggregates of positive and negative items were smaller in developed nations. Because negatively worded items were interpreted differently across nations, direct cross-cultural comparisons using the RSES may have limited value.
1,308 citations
TL;DR: Overall, higher levels of human development--including long and healthy life, equal access to knowledge and education, and economic wealth--were the main nation-level predictors of larger sex differences in personality.
Abstract: Previous research suggested that sex differences in personality traits are larger in prosperous, healthy, and egalitarian cultures in which women have more opportunities equal with those of men. In this article, the authors report cross-cultural findings in which this unintuitive result was replicated across samples from 55 nations (N 17,637). On responses to the Big Five Inventory, women reported higher levels of neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness than did men across most nations. These findings converge with previous studies in which different Big Five measures and more limited samples of nations were used. Overall, higher levels of human development—including long and healthy life, equal access to knowledge and education, and economic wealth—were the main nation-level predictors of larger sex differences in personality. Changes in men’s personality traits appeared to be the primary cause of sex difference variation across cultures. It is proposed that heightened levels of sexual dimorphism result from personality traits of men and women being less constrained and more able to naturally diverge in developed nations. In less fortunate social and economic conditions, innate personality differences between men and women may be attenuated.
1,121 citations
Bradley University1, University of Tartu2, National Institutes of Health3, University of California4, Pontifical Catholic University of Chile5, University of Louisville6, University of Latvia7, Pennsylvania State University8, Slovak Academy of Sciences9, University of San Carlos10, University of Malta11, Ghent University12, Clemson University13, Laval University14, University of Buenos Aires15, Osaka University16, Illinois State University17, National Autonomous University of Mexico18, University of Brasília19, University of Western Australia20, University of Lima21, Boğaziçi University22, University of Kassel23, York University24, University of Queensland25, Åbo Akademi University26, Al Akhawayn University27, University of Hawaii at Manoa28, University of Catania29, University of Otago30, University of Dhaka31, Chemnitz University of Technology32, Knox College33, Comenius University in Bratislava34, University of Rijeka35, University of Malaya36, Vilnius University37, American University of Beirut38, Kwangju Health College39, University of Salzburg40, Utrecht University41, National Computerization Agency42, City University of Hong Kong43, University of Idaho44, University of Zimbabwe45, University of Lisbon46, University of Central Lancashire47, Loyola Marymount University48, University of KwaZulu-Natal49, University of Granada50, University of Botswana51, Babeș-Bolyai University52, University of Cyprus53, University of Belgrade54, KPMG55, University of Montpellier56, University of Zurich57, University of Alabama58, Baylor University59, Queen's University Belfast60, University of Ljubljana61, University of Haifa62, University of La Serena63, Florida Atlantic University64, University of California, Davis65, University of Dar es Salaam66, Ramapo College67, Cyprus College68, Middle East Technical University69, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń70, University of the South Pacific71, Vrije Universiteit Brussel72, University at Albany, SUNY73, University of the Aegean74, University of Lethbridge75, University of Vienna76, University of Hong Kong77, Yuan Ze University78, Charles University in Prague79, Chonnam National University80, Indian Institutes of Technology81
TL;DR: The Big Five Inventory (BFI) is a self-report measure designed to assess the high-order personality traits of Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: The Big Five Inventory (BFI) is a self-report measure designed to assess the high-order personality traits of Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness. As part of the International Sexuality Description Project, the BFI was translated from English into 28 languages and administered to 17,837 individuals from 56 nations. The resulting cross-cultural data set was used to address three main questions: Does the factor structure of the English BFI fully replicate across cultures? How valid are the BFI trait profiles of individual nations? And how are personality traits distributed throughout the world? The five-dimensional structure was robust across major regions of the world. Trait levels were related in predictable ways to self-esteem, sociosexuality, and national personality profiles. People from the geographic regions of South America and East Asia were significantly different in openness from those inhabiting other world regions. The discussion focuses on limitations of t...
876 citations
TL;DR: Sex differences in sociosexuality were generally large and demonstrated cross-cultural universality across the 48 nations of the ISDP, confirming several evolutionary theories of human mating.
Abstract: The Sociosexual Orientation Inventory (SOI; Simpson & Gangestad 1991) is a self-report measure of individual differences in human mating strategies. Low SOI scores signify that a person is sociosexually restricted, or follows a more monogamous mating strat- egy. High SOI scores indicate that an individual is unrestricted, or has a more promiscuous mating strategy. As part of the International Sexuality Description Project (ISDP), the SOI was translated from English into 25 additional languages and administered to a total sam- ple of 14,059 people across 48 nations. Responses to the SOI were used to address four main issues. First, the psychometric properties of the SOI were examined in cross-cultural perspective. The SOI possessed adequate reliability and validity both within and across a di- verse range of modern cultures. Second, theories concerning the systematic distribution of sociosexuality across cultures were evaluated. Both operational sex ratios and reproductively demanding environments related in evolutionary-predicted ways to national levels of so- ciosexuality. Third, sex differences in sociosexuality were generally large and demonstrated cross-cultural universality across the 48 na- tions of the ISDP, confirming several evolutionary theories of human mating. Fourth, sex differences in sociosexuality were significantly larger when reproductive environments were demanding but were reduced to more moderate levels in cultures with more political and economic gender equality. Implications for evolutionary and social role theories of human sexuality are discussed.
761 citations
Cited by
More filters
Journal Article•
TL;DR: For the next few weeks the course is going to be exploring a field that’s actually older than classical population genetics, although the approach it’ll be taking to it involves the use of population genetic machinery.
Abstract: So far in this course we have dealt entirely with the evolution of characters that are controlled by simple Mendelian inheritance at a single locus. There are notes on the course website about gametic disequilibrium and how allele frequencies change at two loci simultaneously, but we didn’t discuss them. In every example we’ve considered we’ve imagined that we could understand something about evolution by examining the evolution of a single gene. That’s the domain of classical population genetics. For the next few weeks we’re going to be exploring a field that’s actually older than classical population genetics, although the approach we’ll be taking to it involves the use of population genetic machinery. If you know a little about the history of evolutionary biology, you may know that after the rediscovery of Mendel’s work in 1900 there was a heated debate between the “biometricians” (e.g., Galton and Pearson) and the “Mendelians” (e.g., de Vries, Correns, Bateson, and Morgan). Biometricians asserted that the really important variation in evolution didn’t follow Mendelian rules. Height, weight, skin color, and similar traits seemed to
9,847 citations
Book•
08 Sep 2020TL;DR: A review of the comparative database from across the behavioral sciences suggests both that there is substantial variability in experimental results across populations and that WEIRD subjects are particularly unusual compared with the rest of the species – frequent outliers.
Abstract: Behavioral scientists routinely publish broad claims about human psychology and behavior in the world's top journals based on samples drawn entirely from Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) societies. Researchers - often implicitly - assume that either there is little variation across human populations, or that these "standard subjects" are as representative of the species as any other population. Are these assumptions justified? Here, our review of the comparative database from across the behavioral sciences suggests both that there is substantial variability in experimental results across populations and that WEIRD subjects are particularly unusual compared with the rest of the species - frequent outliers. The domains reviewed include visual perception, fairness, cooperation, spatial reasoning, categorization and inferential induction, moral reasoning, reasoning styles, self-concepts and related motivations, and the heritability of IQ. The findings suggest that members of WEIRD societies, including young children, are among the least representative populations one could find for generalizing about humans. Many of these findings involve domains that are associated with fundamental aspects of psychology, motivation, and behavior - hence, there are no obvious a priori grounds for claiming that a particular behavioral phenomenon is universal based on sampling from a single subpopulation. Overall, these empirical patterns suggests that we need to be less cavalier in addressing questions of human nature on the basis of data drawn from this particularly thin, and rather unusual, slice of humanity. We close by proposing ways to structurally re-organize the behavioral sciences to best tackle these challenges.
6,370 citations
Journal Article•
5,680 citations
Book•
05 Jun 1992
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present a taxonomy of the Big Five Trait Taxonomy of personality traits and its relationship with the human brain. But the taxonomy does not consider the relationship between the brain and the human personality.
Abstract: Part 1. Introduction. N.B. Barenbaum, D.G. Winter, History of Modern Personality Theory and Research. Part 2. Theoretical Perspectives. D.M. Buss, Human Nature and Individual Differences: Evolution of Human Personality. D. Westen, G.O. Gabbard, K.M. Ortigo, Psychoanalytic Approaches to Personality. O.P. John, L.P. Naumann, C.J. Soto, Paradigm Shift to the Integrative Big Five Trait Taxonomy: History, Measurement, and Conceptual Issues. R.R. McCrae, P.T. Costa, Jr., The Five-Factor Theory of Personality. E.T. Higgins, A.A. Scholer, When Is Personality Revealed? A Motivated Cognition Approach. W. Mischel, Y. Shoda, Toward a Unifying Theory of Personality: Integrating Dispositions and Processing Dynamics within the Cognitive-Affective Processing System. D.P. McAdams, Personal Narratives and the Life Story. Part 3. Biological Bases. L.A. Clark, D. Watson, Temperament: An Organizing Paradigm for Trait Psychology. R.F. Krueger, W. Johnson, Behavioral Genetics and Personality: A New Look at the Integration of Nature and Nurture. T. Canli, Toward a "Molecular Psychology" of Personality. T.A.R. Weinstein, J.P. Capitanio, S.D. Gosling, Personality in Animals. Part 4. Developmental Approaches. E.M. Pomerantz, R.A. Thompson, Parents' Role in Children's Personality Development: The Psychological Resource Principle. B.W. Roberts, D. Wood, A. Caspi, The Development of Personality Traits in Adulthood. C.D. Ryff, Challenges and Opportunities at the Interface of Aging, Personality, and Well-Being. Part 5. Self and Social Processes. R.W. Robins, J.L. Tracy, K.H. Trzesniewski, Naturalizing the Self. W.B. Swann, Jr., J.K. Bosson, Identity Negotiation: A Theory of Self and Social Interaction. M.T. Gailliot, N.L. Mead, R.F. Baumeister, Self-Regulation. D.L. Paulhus, P.D. Trapnell, Self-Presentation of Personality: An Agency-Communion Framework. R.C. Fraley, P.R. Shaver, Attachment Theory and Its Place in Contemporary Personality Theory and Research. V. Benet-Martinez, S. Oishi, Culture and Personality. D.C. Funder, Personality, Situations, and Person-Situation Interactions. Part 6. Cognitive and Motivational Processes. J.F. Kihlstrom, The Psychological Unconscious. O.C. Schultheiss, Implicit Motives. R.A. Emmons, J.L. Barrett, S.A. Schnitker, Personality and the Capacity for Religious and Spiritual Experience. R.M. Ryan, E.L. Deci, Self-Determination Theory and the Role of Basic Psychological Needs in Personality and the Organization of Behavior. D.K. Simonton, Creativity and Genius. Part 7. Emotion, Adjustment, and Health. J.J. Gross, Emotion and Emotion Regulation: Personality Processes and Individual Differences. C.S. Carver, M.F. Scheier, D. Fulford, Self-regulatory Processes, Stress, and Coping. T.A. Widiger, G.T. Smith, Personality and Psychopathology. S.E. Hampson, H.S. Friedman, Personality and Health: A Lifespan Perspective. R.E. Lucas, E. Diener, Personality and Subjective Well-Being.
5,061 citations
4,204 citations