Learning Resources LSP0339-UK 5-in-1 Outdoor Measure-Mate

Product Information

As you can see above, Syd loved measuring everything from leaves to feet on ours! The Trundle Wheel has cute bird print on the tread (visible in the below photo). So if you’re using it on sand, it’ll leave a little trail to follow! Unfortunately, the bark at the allotment wasn’t suitable for showcasing that. Syd spend ages measuring each of the allotment rows, as well as the patio area and the beds… van Buuren, S., & Groothuis-Oudshoorn, K. (2011). mice: Multivariate imputation by chained equations in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 45(3), 1–67. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v045.i03.

Patch, E. A., & Figueredo, A. J. (2017). Childhood stress, life history, psychopathy, and sociosexuality. Personality and Individual Differences, 115, 108–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.04.023. Kefalas, M. J., Furstenberg, F. F., Carr, P. J., & Napolitano, L. (2011). “Marriage is more than being together”: the meaning of marriage for young adults. Journal of Family Issues, 32(7), 845–875. doi: 10.1177/0192513X10397277.Sugiyama, L. S. (2015). Physical attractiveness: An adaptationist perspective. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 1–68). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(1), 1–49. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X00023992. Brewer C, Smith D. Vision and change in undergraduate biology education: a call to action. Washington, DC: AAAS; 2011. Amir, Y., & Sharon, I. (1990). Replication research: a “must” for the scientific advancement of psychology. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 5(4), 51–59. Gallup G. Evolution, creationism and intelligent design. 2010. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/Evolution-Creationism-Intelligent-Design.aspx. Retrieved 18 Dec 2018.

Stijsma, K. (2009). On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach’s alpha. Psychometrika, 74(1), 107–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11336-008-9101-0. We also find that the two-dimensional parametrization aligns well with the more recent model of Ha et al. ( 2012), which describes evolution acceptance as manifesting through both conscious and unconscious neurological pathways. Our acceptance of truth dimension aligns most closely with the unconscious pathway which is based upon a student’s intuitive feeling of certainty. For example, evolution is a good explanation for how humans first emerged on the earth (from the GAENE) solicits an appraisal based on one’s feeling of certainty built from extracurricular experience, and not necessarily analysis of the credibility of an idea based on logic. On the other hand, the rejection of incredible ideas dimension aligns most closely with the student’s conscious, reflective thinking supported by his/her process of understanding and logical reasoning around conceptual ideas underlying evolutionary theory. For example, expressing disagreement with the statement, species were created to be perfectly suited to their environment, so they do not change (from the I-SEA) requires a student to first consider the specific idea and then decide to reject that idea. Although the decision to reject an idea is affective in nature, it is in itself a comparatively logical and reflective process. Brown, T. A. (2014). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: Guilford Publications.

Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the investment model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16(2), 172–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(80)90007-4. The purpose of this study was to examine the measurement properties of the items contained in three quantitative evolution acceptance instruments, each of which captures evolution acceptance differently in terms of dimensionality and context. The MATE was designed as a unidimensional measure which used macroevolution and human evolution contexts in its items (Rutledge and Warden 1999). The I-SEA was developed to capture these contexts in separate constructs; it was designed to measure acceptance of microevolution, macroevolution, and human evolution as three respectivedimensions (Nadelson and Southerland 2012). The GAENEwas designed to provide a unidimensional measure of evolution acceptance which is independent of knowledge of evolution and religious orientation (Smith et al. 2016). Given the high similarity of wording between many of the items on the three instruments and the fact that they share a common Likert measurement scheme, we hypothesized that these instruments may share more similarities than differences and actually provide similar quantitative information about evolution acceptance. We found that this is the case. Putting the 57 items from the three instruments together to form an instrument-independent scaling results in useful unidimensional and two-dimensional parametrizations of evolution acceptance. Previous literature supports the idea that acceptance of evolution varies depending on context (i.e. Scott 2005; Nadelson and Hardy 2015). Figures 3 and 4 suggest that this comprises a progression of acceptance similar in structure to what we have seen in research applying Rasch models to learning progressions (Romine et al. 2016; Todd et al. 2017; Todd and Romine 2016). From Figs. 3 and 4, it appears that undergraduate students look at evolution acceptance as the act of accepting that evolution is true and rejecting incorrect ideas, and that within these constructs, students tend to progress from accepting evolution on short time scales, then on long time scales, and then ultimately that evolution happens in humans. Our results largely replicated the findings by Sprecher et al. ( 1994) showing that in 9 out of 12 tests, the direction of the effect was the same. On average, women were more likely than men to indicate a preference for marrying someone older. Women also emphasized physical attractiveness less than men did, but valued a high earning potential more so than men did. Men on the other hand were more willing to marry someone younger, unlikely to hold a steady job, and with low earning potential than women did. However, there were some notable contrasts with the original study. For example, the overall magnitude of the sex differences seems smaller in our data than in Sprecher et al.’s (in 9 out of 12 tests, the absolute effect size was stronger in the original study). Sex differences in willingness to marry someone of different race or with less education had narrowed as predicted. However, unlike the 1994 study and against our second hypothesis, we observed a significant sex difference for willingness to marry the previously married, with women indicating a higher willingness to marry someone who had been married before. No other mate preferences displayed a narrowing between the sexes. Finally, our additional question also indicated that in our sample, women found marriage more important in long-term relationships than men did. This variable also moderated the willingness to marry someone older by five or more years, reducing the observed gender difference in willingness to marry someone older by five or more years. Our data suggest that when women indicated that marriage was important to them, they tended to be more willing to marry somebody who was older by 5 years or more. In contrast, for men, the importance of marriage was not significantly related to the willingness to marry someone who was 5 or more years older than themselves. We did not further explore individual differences and preferences, but for further research, it would be interesting to examine the degree to which attitudes towards marriage influence preferences.

Valentova, J. V., Junior, F. P. M., Štěrbová, Z., Varella, M. A. C., & Fisher, M. L. (2020). The association between Dark Triad traits and sociosexuality with mating and parenting efforts: A cross-cultural study. Personality and Individual Differences, 154, 109613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.109613. Cherlin, A. J. (2004). The deinstitutionalization of American marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66(4), 848–861. doi: 10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00058.x.Smith MU, Snyder SW, Devereaux RS. The GAENE—generalized acceptance of evolution evaluation: development of a new measure of evolution acceptance. J Res Sci Teach. 2016;53(9):1289–315. Boxer, C. F., Noonan, M. C., & Whelan, C. B. (2013). Measuring mate preferences: a replication and extension. Journal of Family Issues, 36(2), 163–187. doi: 10.1177/0192513X13490404. Donnelly LA, Kazempour M, Amirshokoohi A. High school students’ perceptions of evolution instruction: acceptance and evolution learning experiences. Res Sci Educ. 2009;39:643–60.

Alters BJ, Alters S. Defending evolution in the classroom: a guide to the creation/evolution controversy. Burlington: Jones & Bartlett Learning; 2001.

Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The development (and deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(1), 101–117. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.1.101.