CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 112Evolutionary Psychology and Human BehaviorAttachment and Relationship DynamicsAnimal Behavior and Reproduction

Attachment and time preference: Relations between early stress and sexual behavior in a sample of American university women

Chisholm, James S.·1999·Human Nature
DOI 10.1007/s12110-999-1001-1
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

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 preference and adult sexual behavior, and that individual differences in time preference were related to adult attachment organization and sexual behavior. These results are consistent with the hypothesis that perceptions of early stress index environmental risk and uncertainty and mediate the attachment process and the development of reproductive strategies. On this view individual differences in time preference are considered to be part of the attachment theoretical construct of an internal working model, which itself is conceived as an evolved algorithm for the contingent development of alternative reproductive strategies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s12110-999-1001-1

Cites

134 of 134 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Cues of environmental risk that drive fast LH strategy also prompt higher risk-taking, preference for immediate rewards, and impulsivity.

    “The cues of environmental risk that drive the choice of the strategy will also prompt higher risk-taking in other domains (e.g., exploration, fighting, dangerous sexual displays), preference for immediate over delayed rewards, and impulsivity (Chisholm, 1999; Daly and Wilson, 2005).”

    From The Adaptive Calibration Model of stress responsivity (2011) · cites this paper as Chisholm, 1999

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Chisholm, J. S.
Affiliations
The University of Western Australia (AU)
Corresponding author
Chisholm, James S.
ORCID
Chisholm, James S.
Venue
Human Nature
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
1999-03
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
51-83
ISSN
  • 1045-6767 (ISSN-L)
  • 1936-4776
DOI
10.1007/s12110-999-1001-1
OpenAlex
W2075849004
Cited by
112
References
134
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 6
FWCI
6.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
  • Human Nature (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
Keywords
attachment theory, time preference, internal working models, reproductive strategies, life history theory, early childhood stress, sexual behavior, attachment organization, individual differences, female university students

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review