AuthorSefcek, Jon Adam
Fitness Indicator Theory
AdvisorKing, James E.
Committee ChairKing, James E.
MetadataShow full item record
PublisherThe University of Arizona.
RightsCopyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.
AbstractRecent adaptationist accounts of human mental and physical health have reinvigorated the debate over the evolution of human intelligence. In the tradition of strong inference the current study was developed to determine which hypothesis; Rushton’s (2000) differential K theory, or Miller’s (2000a) fitness indicator model (F), better accounts for general intelligence ('g') in an undergraduate university population (N = 194). Due to the lengthy administration time of the test materials a newly developed 18-item short form of the Ravens Advanced Progressive Matrices (APM-18; Sefcek, Miller, & Figueredo, 2007) was used. There was a significant positive relationship between K and F (r = .31, p < .001), however no significant relationships were found between 'g' and either K or F (for each, r = -.06, p ≥ .05). While contrary to both hypotheses, these results may be explained in relation to antagonistic pleiotropy and a potential failure to derive within species comparisons directly from between species comparisons.