Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science

Living Edition
| Editors: Todd K. Shackelford, Viviana A. Weekes-Shackelford

Act Nomination Method

  • David M. BussEmail author
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_1862-1

Synonyms

Definition

The act nomination method is a means by which evolutionary scientists can identify the behavioral manifestations of psychological adaptations.

Introduction

All adaptations, decision rules, cognitive procedures, personality traits, and mating strategies must be manifested in actual behavior, broadly conceived. The act nomination procedure is simply one method for identifying those behavioral manifestations (Buss and Craik 1983).

Early research using this method identified manifestations of personality traits such dominance, submissiveness, aggression, and cooperation. During the first phase of a study, participants would be asked: “Think of the most dominant individual you know or have observed. In the spaces below, list 10 acts this person has performed that reflect or exemplify their dominance.” The instructions typically had participants nominate dominant acts that a man might perform and separately...

Keywords

Personality Trait Social Exchange Committee Meeting Behavioral Manifestation Psychological Adaptation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Buss, D. M. (1981). Sex differences in the evaluation and performance of dominant acts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(1), 147–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Buss, D. M. (1988a). The evolution of human intrasexual competition: Tactics of mate attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(4), 616–628.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Buss, D. M. (1988b). From vigilance to violence: Tactics of mate retention in American undergraduates. Ethology and Sociobiology, 9(5), 291–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buss, D. M., & Craik, K. H. (1983). The act frequency approach to personality. Psychological Review, 90(2), 105–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). From vigilance to violence: Mate retention tactics in married couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(2), 346–363.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1992). Cognitive adaptations for social exchange. The adapted mind, 163–228.Google Scholar
  7. Kyl-Heku, L. M., & Buss, D. M. (1996). Tactics as units of analysis in personality psychology: An illustration using tactics of hierarchy negotiation. Personality and Individual Differences, 21(4), 497–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lund, O. C. H., Tamnes, C. K., Moestue, C., Buss, D. M., & Vollrath, M. (2007). Tactics of hierarchy negotiation. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(1), 25–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Schmitt, D. P., & Buss, D. M. (1996). Mate attraction and competitor derogation: Context effects on perceived effectiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1185–1204.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Schmitt, D. P., & Buss, D. M. (2001). Human mate poaching: Tactics and temptations for infiltrating existing mateships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(6), 894–917.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Tooke, W., & Camire, L. (1991). Patterns of deception in intersexual and intrasexual mating strategies. Ethology and Sociobiology, 12(5), 345–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The University of Texas at AustinAustinUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • Gary L Brase
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Psychological SciencesKansas State UniversityManhattanUSA