Education•Lancaster, Pennsylvania, United States•
About: Franklin & Marshall College is a education organization based out in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Pulsar & Population. The organization has 1773 authors who have published 2981 publications receiving 89813 citations.
Papers published on a yearly basis
University of California, Santa Barbara1, University of Texas at Austin2, University of Wrocław3, Dresden University of Technology4, University of Tartu5, Gulu University6, Middle East University7, Stockholm University8, University of the Punjab9, University of Nigeria, Nsukka10, Istanbul University11, Franklin & Marshall College12, Norwegian University of Science and Technology13, University of Algiers14, Australian National University15, Russian State University for the Humanities16, Russian Academy of Sciences17, İzmir University of Economics18, University of Social Sciences and Humanities19, Université catholique de Louvain20, Ankara University21, Pontifical Catholic University of Peru22, Cumhuriyet University23, University of the Republic24, ISCTE – University Institute of Lisbon25, The Chinese University of Hong Kong26, National Autonomous University of Mexico27, University of Pécs28, University of Constantine the Philosopher29, University of Maribor30, University of Zagreb31, University of Malaya32, Central University of Finance and Economics33, University of Crete34, University of Primorska35, Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology36, University of Amsterdam37, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart38, VU University Amsterdam39, University of Granada40, University of Delhi41, University of Havana42, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro43, University of Vienna44, Universiti Utara Malaysia45, Vilnius University46, University of British Columbia47, University of Sussex48, Romanian Academy49, Comenius University in Bratislava50, Slovak Academy of Sciences51, University of Monterrey52, SAS Institute53, DHA Suffa University54, Pontifical Catholic University of Chile55, South-West University "Neofit Rilski"56, University of São Paulo57, Kyung Hee University58, University of Ljubljana59
TL;DR: This work combines this large cross-cultural sample with agent-based models to compare eight hypothesized models of human mating markets and finds that this cross-culturally universal pattern of mate choice is most consistent with a Euclidean model of mate preference integration.
Abstract: Humans express a wide array of ideal mate preferences. Around the world, people desire romantic partners who are intelligent, healthy, kind, physically attractive, wealthy, and more. In order for these ideal preferences to guide the choice of actual romantic partners, human mating psychology must possess a means to integrate information across these many preference dimensions into summaries of the overall mate value of their potential mates. Here we explore the computational design of this mate preference integration process using a large sample of n = 14,487 people from 45 countries around the world. We combine this large cross-cultural sample with agent-based models to compare eight hypothesized models of human mating markets. Across cultures, people higher in mate value appear to experience greater power of choice on the mating market in that they set higher ideal standards, better fulfill their preferences in choice, and pair with higher mate value partners. Furthermore, we find that this cross-culturally universal pattern of mate choice is most consistent with a Euclidean model of mate preference integration.
21 Aug 2009
TL;DR: Chemero as mentioned in this paper argues that cognition should be described in terms of agent-environment dynamics rather than in computational and representation, and proposes a methodology: dynamical systems theory, which would explain things dynamically and without reference to representation.
Abstract: While philosophers of mind have been arguing over the status of mental representations in cognitive science, cognitive scientists have been quietly engaged in studying perception, action, and cognition without explaining them in terms of mental representation. In this book, Anthony Chemero describes this nonrepresentational approach (which he terms radical embodied cognitive science), puts it in historical and conceptual context, and applies it to traditional problems in the philosophy of mind. Radical embodied cognitive science is a direct descendant of the American naturalist psychology of William James and John Dewey, and follows them in viewing perception and cognition to be understandable only in terms of action in the environment. Chemero argues that cognition should be described in terms of agent-environment dynamics rather than in terms of computation and representation. After outlining this orientation to cognition, Chemero proposes a methodology: dynamical systems theory, which would explain things dynamically and without reference to representation. He also advances a background theory: Gibsonian ecological psychology, "shored up" and clarified. Chemero then looks at some traditional philosophical problems (reductionism, epistemological skepticism, metaphysical realism, consciousness) through the lens of radical embodied cognitive science and concludes that the comparative ease with which it resolves these problems, combined with its empirical promise, makes this approach to cognitive science a rewarding one. "Jerry Fodor is my favorite philosopher," Chemero writes in his preface, adding, "I think that Jerry Fodor is wrong about nearly everything." With this book, Chemero explains nonrepresentational, dynamical, ecological cognitive science as clearly and as rigorously as Jerry Fodor explained computational cognitive science in his classic work The Language of Thought.
TL;DR: It is concluded that for some behavioral tests, online recruitment and testing can be a valid-and sometimes even superior-partner to in-person data collection.
Abstract: Recent and emerging technology permits psychologists today to recruit and test participants in more ways than ever before. But to what extent can behavioral scientists trust these varied methods to yield reasonably equivalent results? Here, we took a behavioral, face-to-face task and converted it to an online test. We compared the online responses of participants recruited via Amazon's Mechanical Turk (MTurk) and via social media postings on Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit. We also recruited a standard sample of students on a college campus and tested them in person, not via computer interface. The demographics of the three samples differed, with MTurk participants being significantly more socio-economically and ethnically diverse, yet the test results across the three samples were almost indistinguishable. We conclude that for some behavioral tests, online recruitment and testing can be a valid-and sometimes even superior-partner to in-person data collection.
TL;DR: Two experiments with adult subjects investigated the effects of a person's positive affective state on his or her subsequent helpfulness to others and predicted that subjects who were made to "feel good" would be more helpful than control subjects.
Abstract: Two experiments with adult subjects investigated the effects of a person's positive affective state on his or her subsequent helpfulness to others. \"Feeling good\" was induced by having received cookies while studying in a library (Study I) and by having found a dime in the coin return of a public telephone while making a call (Study II). In Study I, where the dependent measure involved volunteering in reply to a student's request, a distinction was made between specific willingness to help and general willingness to engage in any subsequent activity. In Study II, the dependent measure was whether subjects spontaneously helped to pick up papers that were dropped in front of them. On the basis of previous research, it was predicted that subjects who were thus made to \"feel good\" would be more helpful than control subjects. Results support the predictions.
TL;DR: In this article, a theory of affordances is outlined according to which affordances are relations between the abilities of animals and features of the environment, which are both real and perceivable but are not properties of either the environment or the animal.
Abstract: A theory of affordances is outlined according to which affordances are relations between the abilities of animals and features of the environment. As relations, affordances are both real and perceivable but are not properties of either the environment or the animal. I argue that this theory has advantages over extant theories of affordances and briefly discuss the relations among affordances and niches, perceivers, and events.
Showing all 1773 results
|Lewis A. Lipsitz||105||414||43975|
|Michael W. Anderson||101||808||63603|
|Steven G. Boxer||86||359||23927|
|Michael T. Turvey||78||339||22993|
|Nitish V. Thakor||77||961||25636|
|James A. Ibers||74||900||39860|
|Caryl E. Rusbult||60||110||21906|
|Fakhri A. Bazzaz||60||125||17467|
|Alice M. Isen||58||91||25094|
|James B. Gill||56||141||11499|
Related Institutions (5)
University of Oregon
40.8K papers, 2.1M citations
University of St Andrews
43.3K papers, 1.6M citations
University of New Hampshire
24K papers, 1M citations
University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee
28K papers, 936.4K citations
University of Delaware
54.8K papers, 2M citations