↓ Skip to main content

Evolutionary and differential psychology: conceptual conflicts and the path to integration

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Evolutionary and differential psychology: conceptual conflicts and the path to integration
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00655
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tim Marsh, Simon Boag

Abstract

Evolutionary psychology has seen the majority of its success exploring adaptive features of the mind believed to be ubiquitous across our species. This has given rise to the belief that the adaptationist approach has little to offer the field of differential psychology, which concerns itself exclusively with the ways in which individuals systematically differ. By framing the historical origins of both disciplines, and exploring the means through which they each address the unique challenges of psychological description and explanation, the present article identifies the conceptual and theoretical problems that have kept differential psychology isolated not only from evolutionary psychology, but from explanatory approaches in general. Paying special attention to these conceptual problems, the authors review how these difficulties are being overcome by contemporary evolutionary research, and offer instructive suggestions concerning how differential researchers (and others) can best build upon these innovations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 3%
Germany 1 3%
Canada 1 3%
Unknown 33 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 19%
Student > Master 6 17%
Researcher 5 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 6 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 21 58%
Social Sciences 3 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Computer Science 1 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 6 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 13 October 2018.
All research outputs
#15,280,625
of 22,723,682 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#18,508
of 29,531 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#181,557
of 280,761 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#721
of 969 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,723,682 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,531 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 280,761 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 969 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.