↓ Skip to main content

Testing the Controversy

Overview of attention for article published in Human Nature, October 2007
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
30 X users
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 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
Testing the Controversy
Published in
Human Nature, October 2007
DOI 10.1007/s12110-007-9024-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joshua M. Tybur, Geoffrey F. Miller, Steven W. Gangestad

Abstract

Critics of evolutionary psychology and sociobiology have advanced an adaptationists-as-right-wing-conspirators (ARC) hypothesis, suggesting that adaptationists use their research to support a right-wing political agenda. We report the first quantitative test of the ARC hypothesis based on an online survey of political and scientific attitudes among 168 US psychology Ph.D. students, 31 of whom self-identified as adaptationists and 137 others who identified with another non-adaptationist meta-theory. Results indicate that adaptationists are much less politically conservative than typical US citizens and no more politically conservative than non-adaptationist graduate students. Also, contrary to the "adaptationists-as-pseudo-scientists" stereotype, adaptationists endorse more rigorous, progressive, quantitative scientific methods in the study of human behavior than non-adaptationists.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 30 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 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 3%
United Kingdom 1 3%
Spain 1 3%
United States 1 3%
Luxembourg 1 3%
Unknown 30 86%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 14%
Other 4 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 11%
Lecturer 3 9%
Student > Master 3 9%
Other 9 26%
Unknown 7 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 15 43%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 9%
Social Sciences 3 9%
Computer Science 1 3%
Linguistics 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 10 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. 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 04 January 2023.
All research outputs
#1,188,265
of 25,196,456 outputs
Outputs from Human Nature
#125
of 548 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,104
of 79,502 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Nature
#3
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,196,456 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 548 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 79,502 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.