↓ Skip to main content

What Can Cross-Cultural Correlations Teach Us about Human Nature?

Overview of attention for article published in Human Nature, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
112 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
115 Mendeley
Title
What Can Cross-Cultural Correlations Teach Us about Human Nature?
Published in
Human Nature, August 2014
DOI 10.1007/s12110-014-9206-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas V. Pollet, Joshua M. Tybur, Willem E. Frankenhuis, Ian J. Rickard

Abstract

Many recent evolutionary psychology and human behavioral ecology studies have tested hypotheses by examining correlations between variables measured at a group level (e.g., state, country, continent). In such analyses, variables collected for each aggregation are often taken to be representative of the individuals present within them, and relationships between such variables are presumed to reflect individual-level processes. There are multiple reasons to exercise caution when doing so, including: (1) the ecological fallacy, whereby relationships observed at the aggregate level do not accurately represent individual-level processes; (2) non-independence of data points, which violates assumptions of the inferential techniques used in null hypothesis testing; and (3) cross-cultural non-equivalence of measurement (differences in construct validity between groups). We provide examples of how each of these gives rise to problems in the context of testing evolutionary hypotheses about human behavior, and we offer some suggestions for future research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 3 3%
Hungary 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 108 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 24%
Professor 13 11%
Student > Master 12 10%
Student > Bachelor 8 7%
Researcher 7 6%
Other 29 25%
Unknown 18 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 44 38%
Social Sciences 20 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 8%
Arts and Humanities 5 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 3%
Other 8 7%
Unknown 25 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 April 2022.
All research outputs
#1,977,737
of 23,571,271 outputs
Outputs from Human Nature
#164
of 521 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,738
of 231,321 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Nature
#5
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,571,271 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 521 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 31.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 231,321 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.