See also:
Profile: James Chisholm (University of Western Australia)
  1.  26
    James S. Chisholm, Julie A. Quinlivan, Rodney W. Petersen & David A. Coall (2005). Early Stress Predicts Age at Menarche and First Birth, Adult Attachment, and Expected Lifespan. Human Nature 16 (3):233-265.
  2.  13
    James S. Chisholm (1999). Attachment and Time Preference. Human Nature 10 (1):51-83.
    This paper investigates hypotheses drawn from two sources: (1) Belsky, Steinberg, and Draper’s (1991) attachment theory model of the development of reproductive strategies, and (2) recent life history models and comparative data suggesting that environmental risk and uncertainty may be potent determinants of the optimal tradeoff between current and future reproduction. A retrospective, self-report study of 136 American university women aged 19–25 showed that current recollections of early stress (environmental risk and uncertainty) were related to individual differences in adult time (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   13 citations  
  3.  3
    James S. Chisholm (1991). Whose Reproductive Value? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14 (3):519-520.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  4.  3
    James S. Chisholm & Noel Wescombe (1994). Evolution, Attachment, and Cultural Learning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 17 (4):778.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  5.  3
    Nicole Koehler & James S. Chisholm (2009). Does Early Psychosocial Stress Affect Mate Choice? Human Nature 20 (1):52-66.
    Early psychosocial stress (e.g., parental divorce, abuse) is conjectured to place individuals on a developmental trajectory leading to earlier initiation of sexual activity, earlier reproduction, and having more sex partners than those with less early psychosocial stress. But does it also affect an individual’s mate choice? The present study examined whether early psychosocial stress affects preferences and dislikes for opposite-sex faces varying in masculinity/femininity, a putative indicator of mate quality, in premenopausal women (58 with a natural cycle, 53 pill-users) and (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  6.  3
    James S. Chisholm & David A. Coall (2000). Current Versus Future, Not Genes Versus Parenting. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (4):597-598.
    Gangestad & Simpson's model of the evolution of within-sex differences in reproductive strategies requires a degree of female choice that probably did not exist because of male coercion. We argue as well that the tradeoff between current and future reproduction accounts for more of the within-sex differences in reproductive strategies than the “good-genes-good parenting” tradeoff they propose.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  7. James S. Chisholm (2001). Researching Sexual Behavior: Methodological Issues. Edited by John Bancroft. Pp. 435. (Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1997.) £40.50, ISBN 0-253-33339-3, Paperback. [REVIEW] Journal of Biosocial Science 33 (2):315-320.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  8. James S. Chisholm (2011). Science Enriches Faith… In Our Ancestors. Ethos: Journal of the Society for Psychological Anthropology 39 (2):1-5.
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  9. James S. Chisholm (2011). Science Enriches Faith… In Our Ancestors. Ethos 39 (2):1-5.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  10. Nothing found.