The DOI matches its Crossref record; 653 of the 664 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 37 of the 205 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change
Open accessAbstract
Humans possess great capacity for behavioral and cultural change, but our ability to manage change is still limited. This article has two major objectives: first, to sketch a basic science of intentional change centered on evolution; second, to provide examples of intentional behavioral and cultural change from the applied behavioral sciences, which are largely unknown to the basic scientific community. All species have evolved mechanisms of phenotypic plasticity that enable them to respond adaptively to their environments. Some mechanisms of phenotypic plasticity count as evolutionary processes in their own right. The human capacity for symbolic thought provides an inheritance system with the same kind of combinatorial diversity as genetic recombination and antibody formation. Taking these propositions seriously allows an integration of major traditions within the basic behavioral sciences, such as behaviorism, social constructivism, social psychology, cognitive psychology, and evolutionary psychology, which are often isolated and even conceptualized as opposed to each other. The applied behavioral sciences include well-validated examples of successfully managing behavioral and cultural change at scales ranging from individuals, to small groups, to large populations. However, these examples are largely unknown beyond their disciplinary boundaries, for lack of a unifying theoretical framework. Viewed from an evolutionary perspective, they are examples of managing evolved mechanisms of phenotypic plasticity, including open-ended processes of variation and selection. Once the many branches of the basic and applied behavioral sciences become conceptually unified, we are closer to a science of intentional change than one might think. Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
131 Own interpretation · 75 No basis given · 44 No full text of the sources · 41 Sources not found · 18 Not checked yet · 16 Partly supported · 8 Supported · 3 Supported so far · 1 Mixed support · 1 Not supported · 1 Own result · accuracy not yet measured
At least one cited source doesn’t support this claim or points to a different paper, and none confirmed it — see the verdicts below.
In the paper
“The capacity for cultural transmission also exists in many species – more than one might imagine, as it is a relatively new topic in animal behavior research (Hill 2010; Laland & Galef 2009; Laland & Hoppitt 2003; Page & Ryan 2006).”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 2. Toward a basic science of change > 2.3. Learning from the immune system about evolutionary psychology
What the sources say
- Disputedcites Hill 2010 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Conclusion says that some animals pass behavioral traditions between generations, but “they do not transmit cultural content.” In “Experimental and Statistical Techniques to Detect Social Learning” (page unavailable), Hill argues that animal traditions are building blocks of culture rather than culture itself. This contrasts with the claim that cultural transmission exists in many species. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
- Not matchedcites Laland & Galef 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Laland & Hoppitt 2003 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Disputed
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Only when we depolarize the distinction between EP and the SSSM can a science of change occur (Bolhuis et al. 2011; Buller 2005; Scher & Rauscher 2002; Wilson 2002b).”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Bolhuis et al. 2011 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In “Towards a New Science of the Evolution of the Mind” (page unavailable), the paper calls for methodological and conceptual integration of evolutionary psychology with adjacent fields. Its Conclusions likewise advocate a broader, multidisciplinary approach. It does not say that depolarizing the distinction between EP and the standard social science model is the only way a science of change can occur. (LLM, conf=0.82)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Buller 2005 source
- Not matchedcites Scher & Rauscher 2002
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“For example, taste aversion (Garcia et al. 1966) challenged the idea that immediacy per se is key in stimulus pairings in classical conditioning, as illness could follow by tens of hours and still induce aversion to ecologically sensible food-related cues.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 2. Toward a basic science of change > 2.1. B. F. Skinner: Evolutionary psychologist
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Garcia et al. 1966 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The introduction says that immediate reinforcement is not required for all learning, and the Results and Discussion report taste aversion after delayed drug injections. This supports the challenge to immediacy, but the reported significant effect extends to 75 minutes, not the citing sentence’s “tens of hours.” The discussion mentions other avoidance responses developing hours after ingestion, without establishing that duration for this experiment. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Many human traits can change only by genetic evolution (e.g., the ability to digest lactose in adults; Holden & Mace 2009).”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 2. Toward a basic science of change > 2.4. The human symbolic inheritance system
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Holden & Mace 2009 source
The Abstract identifies adult lactose digestion capacity as an inherited genetic trait. The Selective Pressures for Drinking Milk section describes selection for lactase persistence, supporting its use as an example of a trait that changes through genetic evolution. The broader statement about ‘many human traits’ is the citing authors’ framing. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“When the cognitive revolution dethroned behaviorism in academic psychology during the second half of the 20th century, behaviorism did not disappear. Instead, it developed into a robust set of methods for accomplishing behavioral change in a variety of applied disciplines such as applied behavior analysis (Baer et al. 1968) and behavior therapy (Wolpe 1958).”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.1. Change at the level of individuals
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Baer et al. 1968 source
Baer et al. is cited for applied behavior analysis as an example of a discipline using methods to change behavior, not for the separate claim about the cognitive revolution or for behavior therapy. The paper’s summary of applied behavior analysis describes experimental manipulations, specified procedures, and their effectiveness in producing valuable behavior change. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Wolpe 1958 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“it is possible for the replication of cultural traits to be a systemic process without the need for gene-like replicators (Henrich et al. 2008; Laland & Brown 2011).”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 2. Toward a basic science of change > 2.4. The human symbolic inheritance system
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Henrich et al. 2008 source
The section “Replicators are not necessary for cumulative adaptive cultural evolution” (p. 5) says that cultural transmission can accurately replicate population-level characteristics without discrete, gene-like replicators. The discussion on p. 4 likewise describes a replicator-approximating process arising even when representations are non-discrete and transformed during acquisition. (LLM, conf=0.93)
- Not matchedcites Laland & Brown 2011
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“The ability to derive such relations when they have their bases in arbitrary cues and not physical properties seems to require multiple exemplars of the key relational tasks (Berens & Hayes 2007).”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.1. Change at the level of individuals
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Berens & Hayes 2007 source
The Abstract reports that reinforced multiple-exemplar training facilitated arbitrary comparative relations. The Discussion says the training contingencies were necessary for acquiring generalized comparative relational performance, supporting the citing sentence’s hedged claim. Page numbers are not available in the indexed passages. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“For example, if a person learns in arbitrary matching to sample that three events are related in the order X<Y<Z, and if Y is then paired with a shock, Z will elicit more arousal than Y will, even though there were never any shocks paired with Z and there is no physical relationship between Y and Z (Dougher et al. 2007).”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.1. Change at the level of individuals
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Dougher et al. 2007 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract reports that after arbitrary match-to-sample training and pairing the middle stimulus B with mild shock, the larger-ranked stimulus C produced greater skin-conductance changes than B in 6 of 8 experimental participants. The Results and Discussion also say C was never associated with shock. The claim's unqualified 'will elicit more arousal' overstates a result observed in most, but not all, participants. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Therapies that teach people to respond more flexibly in the presence of emotions increase healthy variation that can help them rise to the challenge of diverse problems such as chronic pain (e.g., Wicksell et al. 2009), substance use (e.g., Witkiewitz & Bowen 2010), tinnitus (e.g., Westin et al. 2011, worksite stress (Flaxman & Bond 2010), or suicidal behavior (Berking et al. 2009).”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.1. Change at the level of individuals
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Wicksell et al. 2009 source
- Supportedcites Witkiewitz & Bowen 2010 source
This citation is attached to substance use, not the other problems listed in the sentence. The Mindfulness-Based Relapse Prevention section describes teaching clients to observe emotional discomfort without automatically reacting, and the Results report that the intervention attenuated the link between depressive symptoms and craving in predicting subsequent substance use. The paper does not measure “healthy variation” by that name, but it supports the substance-use example of responding more flexibly to emotions. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Westin et al. 2011 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Growing evidence indicates that the core ability to relate symbols and objects in this way when relationships are arbitrarily applicable is learned (e.g., Barnes-Holmes et al. 2004), beginning in infancy (e.g., Luciano et al. 2007).”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.1. Change at the level of individuals
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Barnes-Holmes et al. 2004
The Discussion (page unavailable) reports that training established relational responding in young children and that they generalized it to novel objects. This supports the learned-ability claim attributed to Barnes-Holmes et al.; the sentence cites Luciano et al. separately for the infancy claim. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Supportedcites Luciano et al. 2007 source
The Abstract reports that multiple-exemplar training began with a child at 15 months and that derived visual–visual equivalence responding emerged at 19 months. This supports the part of the citing sentence attributed to Luciano et al.: that the ability can develop in infancy. The paper cautions that its findings from one child need replication. (LLM, conf=0.90)
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
- It may state two separate claims as one. 110
- Probably not a substantial claim. 101
Some cited sources support this claim and some don’t — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In a longitudinal study that began in the 1980s in the Baltimore City School District, the GBG was implemented in the first and second grades for some classrooms but not others, in a randomized controlled design. No intervention took place after the second grade.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.2. Change at the level of small groups
What the sources say
- Disputedcites Bradshaw et al. 2009 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Prior Research section dates this Baltimore City trial to the 1993–1994 school year, not the 1980s. Method > Study Design confirms that classrooms were randomized, but says the interventions were implemented only in first grade, not in both first and second grades. It also says the Good Behavior Game was part of the classroom-centered intervention, rather than a stand-alone intervention in this trial. (LLM, conf=0.89)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
- Supportedcites Kellam et al. 2008 source
Methods §2.1 describes a Baltimore trial begun in 1985, with classrooms randomly assigned to GBG or control conditions. It states that children received GBG in first and second grades and that the trial involved two years of exposure, supporting the claim that the study intervention did not continue after second grade. (LLM, conf=0.91)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Disputed
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Behavior therapy was gradually supplemented (not replaced) by cognitive therapy, which in turn has been supplemented (not replaced) by acceptance and mindfulness–based techniques with proven efficacy (Hayes et al. 2011b; Hofmann et al. 2010), in what is sometimes called a “third wave” of cognitive behavioral methods (Hayes 2004).”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.1. Change at the level of individuals
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Hayes et al. 2011b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Partly supportedcites Hofmann et al. 2010 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results report improvements in anxiety and mood symptoms with mindfulness-based therapy, supporting the mindfulness-efficacy part of the cited phrase. The Discussion says the review excluded Acceptance and Commitment Therapy from its analyses, so it does not establish the efficacy of acceptance-based techniques. The historical progression and “third wave” label are attached to other citations in the sentence. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Hayes 2004 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Focusing on chosen values as the selection criteria for action can empower people to confront their anxieties (Roemer et al. 2008), face the challenges of chronic illness (Lundgren et al. 2008), or create lives in the face of chronic pain (Vowles & McCracken 2008).”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.1. Change at the level of individuals
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Roemer et al. 2008 source
The Methods (Treatment; page unavailable) describe helping clients identify valued directions and try valued activities they had previously avoided. The paper also reports reduced GAD symptoms after this acceptance-based treatment (Abstract; page unavailable). Roemer et al. is cited for the anxiety-related clause, not the separate claims about chronic illness or pain. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Lundgren et al. 2008 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Vowles & McCracken 2008 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Research shows that just these cognitive elements alone are helpful, resulting in improved outcomes because of how patients appraise their symptoms (Meuret et al. 2010).”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.1. Change at the level of individuals
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Meuret et al. 2010 source
The Method (Interventions) describes cognitive therapy focused on changing patients’ appraisals without additional therapeutic techniques. The Results (Mediation of Changes in Panic Symptom Severity over Time) find that changes in symptom appraisal mediated reductions in panic severity in the cognitive-therapy condition, though the relationship was bidirectional and was not found for the respiratory-treatment condition. Page numbers are not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Embry and Biglan (2008) compiled a list of more than 50 evidence-based kernels (see Table 1 for a sample)”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.1. Change at the level of individuals
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Embry & Biglan 2008 source
In “Designating Example Kernels for This Paper,” the authors state that Table 1 presents 52 kernels and describe them as examples meeting their evidence-based definition. That directly supports the claim that they compiled more than 50 evidence-based kernels. (LLM, conf=0.95)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Extreme child abuse is the tip of an iceberg of parenting practices that harm not just the short-term but the long-term welfare of children, resulting in depression, academic failure, teenage pregnancy, obesity, substance abuse, and crime—generically called Adverse Childhood Experiences, made famous by the studies of middle-class persons enrolled in Kaiser Permanente (Anda, Brown, Felitti, Dube, &”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.3 Change at the level of large populations
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Anda, Brown, Felitti, Dube, & Giles, 2008 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Background (Table 1; page not available) reports associations between adverse childhood experiences and depression, teen pregnancy, obesity, and alcohol or illicit drug use. The Methods define ACEs to include abuse and household dysfunction, and identify the participants as Kaiser Permanente members. The paper does not report academic failure or crime as outcomes, establish short-term harms, or show that the listed outcomes were caused by parenting practices. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Anda, Butchart, Felitti, & Brown, 2010 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In high school, they scored higher on standardized achievement tests, had a greater chance of graduating and attending college, and had a reduced need for special education services.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.2. Change at the level of small groups
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Bradshaw et al. 2009 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Conclusions and Implications section reports all four outcomes, but for the classroom-centered (CC) intervention, which combined the Good Behavior Game (GBG) with an enhanced academic curriculum. The Discussion says the study cannot determine GBG’s independent contribution. The Results also measure special education service use across Grades 1–12, not specifically in high school. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Partly supportedcites Kellam et al. 2008 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results (section 3.7; page unavailable) report somewhat higher high-school graduation rates among GBG youth, but say the overall difference was not statistically significant. The Methods (sections 2.3.2 and 2.4; pages unavailable) mention college attendance and standardized achievement measures, but the passages do not report higher high-school test scores or greater college attendance for GBG youth. A search for special education found only a description of which first-grade classrooms were eligible for the trial, not a reduction in students’ need for services. (LLM, conf=0.89)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In college, they had a reduced risk for suicidal ideation, lower rates of antisocial personality disorder, and lower rates of violent and criminal behavior.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.2. Change at the level of small groups
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites Bradshaw et al. 2009 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (page not provided) reports improved educational outcomes through age 19, not reduced suicidal ideation, antisocial personality disorder, or violent and criminal behavior among GBG students in college. Searches for those outcomes found only background and Methods passages about predictors of later antisocial behavior and crime, not intervention effects on the claimed outcomes. (LLM, conf=0.76)
- Partly supportedcites Kellam et al. 2008 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion reports a GBG impact on suicidal ideation and describes reductions in violent and criminal behavior; Table 10 reports lower ASPD rates for GBG participants than controls. But the Methods (§2.3, page unavailable) describe follow-up of young adults aged 19–21, not outcomes specifically among students in college. The overall ASPD comparison in Table 10 is also not statistically significant (p = 0.07), although the comparison for highly aggressive, disruptive participants is (p = 0.02). (LLM, conf=0.89)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Could not verify
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“By the sixth grade, students from the GBG classrooms were less likely to be diagnosed with conduct disorder, to have been suspended from school, or to be judged in need of mental health services.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.2. Change at the level of small groups
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Bradshaw et al. 2009 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Prior Research section reports all three sixth-grade outcomes, but for children assigned to the classroom-centered (CC) intervention, which combined the Good Behavior Game with an enhanced academic curriculum. The Discussion says the study cannot determine the Good Behavior Game’s independent contribution, so attributing those outcomes to GBG alone overstates the source. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Could not verifycites Kellam et al. 2008 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction (§1.1; page unavailable) reports lower antisocial behavior by middle school, but not sixth-grade conduct-disorder diagnoses, suspensions, or judgments of need for mental health services. Searches for those specific outcomes found no passage in our copy that addresses the claim; the paper says its own focus is young-adult outcomes. (LLM, conf=0.74)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Two years after the start of the study, the counties that did not receive the program showed large increases in substantiated child abuse, out-of-home placements due to child abuse problems, and increases in hospital-reported child injuries.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.3 Change at the level of large populations
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Prinz et al. 2009 source
Table 3 (Results, Population Outcomes) shows increases in control counties from pre- to post-intervention for all three indicators: substantiated maltreatment, out-of-home placements, and hospital or emergency-room maltreatment injuries. The Implementation section identifies the intervention period as two years, and the Discussion describes large effects across the three indicators. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“However, the counties that got Triple P performed significantly better on all three measures: Fewer children were abused, as indicated by both substantiated maltreatment and hospital reports of injuries due to abuse, and fewer children went into foster care.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.3 Change at the level of large populations
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Prinz et al. 2009 source
Table 3 (Results, Population Outcomes) reports statistically significant differences favoring Triple P counties on substantiated maltreatment, out-of-home placements, and maltreatment-related hospital or emergency-room injuries. The Discussion clarifies that substantiated maltreatment rose in both groups but rose less in Triple P counties; the other two indicators decreased there. The reported differences are relative to control counties, not reductions from baseline on all three measures. (LLM, conf=0.92)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Prinz, Sanders, and colleagues (2009) tested Triple P in 18 South Carolina counties and showed for the first time that it is possible to prevent child abuse in entire populations.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.3 Change at the level of large populations
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Prinz et al. 2009 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract reports a trial in 18 counties and calls it the first to show a preventive impact on child maltreatment at the population level; the Discussion reports improvements in three population indicators. The Method (Design) identifies the location only as “a southeastern state,” not South Carolina, so our copy does not support that geographic detail. It also specifies that Triple P was implemented in nine counties, with the other nine serving as controls. (LLM, conf=0.88)
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“They randomized 9 counties to receive the intervention and 9 to receive no intervention.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.3 Change at the level of large populations
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Prinz et al. 2009 source
The Method (Design) states that 18 counties were randomly assigned to Triple P dissemination or a control condition, and the Results (Implementation) identifies nine Triple P counties. The control condition received services as usual without Triple P, so “no intervention” is accurate if it means no Triple P intervention, not no services at all. (LLM, conf=0.92)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Prinz et al. (2009) point out that for a community with 100,000 children, the differences translate into 688 fewer cases of child abuse, 240 fewer out-of-home placements, and 60 fewer children needing hospitalization.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.3 Change at the level of large populations
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Prinz et al. 2009 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion gives all three figures, but specifies a community with 100,000 children under age 8, not children of any age. It also describes the 60 as children with injuries requiring hospitalization or emergency-room treatment, rather than hospitalization alone. Page numbers are not provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
In the paper
“The only solution to this problem is to become wise managers of evolutionary processes (Wilson 2011c).”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Wilson 2011c
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All species have evolved mechanisms of phenotypic plasticity that enable them to respond adaptively to their environments.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We begin with the basic suggestion that evolution must be at the center of any science of change.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 1. Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The applied behavioral sciences include well-validated examples of successfully managing behavioral and cultural change at scales ranging from individuals to small groups to large populations.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > Abstract
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“evolution is the study of how organisms change in relation to their environments, not only by genetics but also by mechanisms of phenotypic plasticity that evolved by genetic evolution, including some that count as evolutionary processes in their own right”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“A fully rounded evolutionary perspective requires equal attention to functional design, proximate mechanisms, developmental pathways, and phylogenetic histories (Tinbergen 1963).”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 2. Toward a basic science of change > 2.2. Evolution as a domain-general process
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Tinbergen 1963 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It has many hallmarks of massive modularity, but it also has the open-ended capacity to rapidly evolve new defenses in the form of antibodies.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 2. Toward a basic science of change > 2.3. Learning from the immune system about evolutionary psychology
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These two facts often appear in opposition to each other, as if evolution implies genetic determinism, which in turn implies an incapacity for change over short time intervals.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 2. Toward a basic science of change
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Skinner’s passage leaves no doubt that he regarded the open-ended capacity for behavioral and cultural change as both (1) a product of genetic evolution and (2) an evolutionary process in its own right.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 2. Toward a basic science of change > 2.1. B. F. Skinner: Evolutionary psychologist
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Skinner 1981 source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In our opinion, this is a profound mistake needing correction to achieve an integrated science of change.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 2. Toward a basic science of change > 2.1. B. F. Skinner: Evolutionary psychologist
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These points apply to learning and culture as well as genetic evolution.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 2. Toward a basic science of change > 2.2. Evolution as a domain-general process
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On the other, as with all species, the human brain is an elaborate product of genetic evolution.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 2. Toward a basic science of change
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The human brain is an elaborate product of genetic evolution.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Tooby and Cosmides could be correct about massive modularity and still would be wrong to reject the blank slate assumption for learning and culture – insofar as massive modularity leads to nongenetic mechanisms of inheritance.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 2. Toward a basic science of change > 2.2. Evolution as a domain-general process
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Macrophages can sense and engulf foreign particles, for example, but they have no capacity to change their sensory abilities.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 2. Toward a basic science of change > 2.3. Learning from the immune system about evolutionary psychology
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Evolutionary processes that rely on nongenetic inheritance mechanisms either evolved genetically or were created by humans, as Skinner appreciated in the abstract quotes above.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 2. Toward a basic science of change > 2.2. Evolution as a domain-general process
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Skinner 1981 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Cognitive theorists stressed that the enormous complexity of the mind needed direct study, in contrast to Skinner’s insistence on focusing on the functional relations of environment and behavior (Brewer 1974; Bruner 1973).”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 2. Toward a basic science of change > 2.1. B. F. Skinner: Evolutionary psychologist
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Brewer 1974
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Bruner 1973
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Genetic evolution is a domain-general process, but the mechanisms of genetic inheritance are many and specific in their functions (e.g., error correction mechanisms, transcription mechanisms).”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 2. Toward a basic science of change > 2.2. Evolution as a domain-general process
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The ability to change behavioral and cultural practices in practical terms can profit from a basic scientific understanding of behavioral and cultural change.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 2. Toward a basic science of change
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“core evolutionary theory needs to expand beyond genetics to include other inheritance systems, such as environmentally induced changes in gene expression (epigenetics), mechanisms of social learning found in many species, and the human capacity for symbolic thought that results in an almost unlimited variety of cognitive constructions, each motivating a suite of behaviors subject to selection (Jab”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This integration needs to be a two-way street, involving not only contributions of evolutionary theory to the human-related disciplines but also the reverse.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 1. Introduction
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“Immunologists distinguish between the innate and the adaptive components of the immune system (see Sompayrac 2008 for an excellent tutorial).”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 2. Toward a basic science of change > 2.3. Learning from the immune system about evolutionary psychology
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Sompayrac 2008
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Ironically, although Tooby and Cosmides praised genetic evolution as a domain-general process, capable of adapting organisms to virtually any environment, they failed to generalize this insight to include other evolutionary processes.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 2. Toward a basic science of change > 2.2. Evolution as a domain-general process
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Evolutionists know that heritable variation is not omnipresent and a sufficient number of generations often has not elapsed for species to become fully adapted to their environments.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 2. Toward a basic science of change > 2.2. Evolution as a domain-general process
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this fashion, the concept of elaborate innateness that became associated with EP sat in opposition to the open-ended capacity for change that became associated with what Tooby and Cosmides branded the SSSM.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 2. Toward a basic science of change > 2.1. B. F. Skinner: Evolutionary psychologist
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Once this misformulation is accepted, then the capacity for short-term change becomes conceptualized as outside the orbit of evolutionary theory.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 2. Toward a basic science of change
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Properly understood, these two words reconcile the apparent paradox of genetic innateness and the capacity for open-ended change over the short term.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 2. Toward a basic science of change > 2.2. Evolution as a domain-general process
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As a result, an enormous amount of integration must occur before a science of human behavioral and cultural change can center on evolution.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 1. Introduction
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A mature EP needs to include elements of the SSSM associated with major thinkers such as Emile Durkheim, B. F. Skinner, and Clifford Geertz.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 1. Introduction
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The central metaphor of the cognitive revolution was that the mind is like a computer that we must understand in mechanistic detail to know how it works.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 2. Toward a basic science of change > 2.1. B. F. Skinner: Evolutionary psychologist
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In particular, the polarized distinction between evolutionary psychology and the standard social science model (Pinker 1997; 2002; Tooby & Cosmides 1992) was a wrong turn we must correct.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Pinker 1997; 2002
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Tooby & Cosmides 1992 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Not matched
In the paper
“This is also what Durkheim (tr. 1982) perceived for cultural evolution when he wrote in 1895 that “individual natures are merely the indeterminate material that the social factor molds and transforms” (p. 106).”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 2. Toward a basic science of change > 2.2. Evolution as a domain-general process
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Durkheim (tr. 1982)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nevertheless, blank slate adaptationist reasoning remains one of the most powerful tools in the evolutionary toolkit, and Tooby and Cosmides use it liberally to develop their vision of EP.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 2. Toward a basic science of change > 2.2. Evolution as a domain-general process
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On the one hand, human behavior and culture appear elaborately flexible.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 2. Toward a basic science of change
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Seligman reviewed a body of evidence showing that the parameters of learning processes had to be viewed in light of the evolutionary preparedness of organisms to relate particular events.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 2. Toward a basic science of change > 2.1. B. F. Skinner: Evolutionary psychologist
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Seligman 1970 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This might be because the human capacity requires a degree of teamwork among group members that most other vertebrate species lack.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 2. Toward a basic science of change > 2.3. Learning from the immune system about evolutionary psychology
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These higher-order relations are abstracted from immediate physical properties, becoming somewhat independent of them, and once established are maintained by their utility, coherence, and role in a social community.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 2. Toward a basic science of change > 2.4. The human symbolic inheritance system
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Humans are most distinctive in their capacity for symbolic thought. The rudiments of symbolic thought might exist in other species, but humans possess a full-blown inheritance system with combinatorial possibilities to rival genetic inheritance”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 2. Toward a basic science of change > 2.4. The human symbolic inheritance system
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Deacon 1998
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Jablonka & Lamb 2006 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Pagel 2012
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Evolutionary scientists might be surprised to learn of proven methods for accomplishing positive behavioral and cultural change at all scales, from individuals to large populations.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Evolution requires heritable variation, but the mechanism of inheritance need not be genetic.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 2. Toward a basic science of change > 2.5. The contribution of the human-related disciplines to core evolutionary theory
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A single B-cell in full production mode can produce about 2,000 unattached antibody molecules every second.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 2. Toward a basic science of change > 2.3. Learning from the immune system about evolutionary psychology
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“they show how epigenetics, learned behavior, and symbolic systems also qualify as inheritance systems and how all four systems interact with one another to produce evolutionary change.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 2. Toward a basic science of change > 2.5. The contribution of the human-related disciplines to core evolutionary theory
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Jablonka and Lamb 2006 source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Individuals with immune systems that failed to exhibit teamwork were not among our ancestors.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 2. Toward a basic science of change > 2.3. Learning from the immune system about evolutionary psychology
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Outside the applied academic disciplines, commercial marketers and political strategists also attempt to influence behavioral and cultural change – often very successfully and not necessarily for the common good.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Dozens of specialized cell types coordinate their activities through a chemical signaling system to achieve the common goal of protecting the organism.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 2. Toward a basic science of change > 2.3. Learning from the immune system about evolutionary psychology
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Yet, social constructivists did not converge on the idea of cultural evolution as a Darwin machine comparable to the immune system and explore how that level of analysis interacts with genetic, epigenetic, and learning processes.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 2. Toward a basic science of change > 2.5. The contribution of the human-related disciplines to core evolutionary theory
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The innate component of the immune system protects against most disease organisms but is helpless against those that manage to evade its automated defenses.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 2. Toward a basic science of change > 2.3. Learning from the immune system about evolutionary psychology
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Simultaneously, the B-cells producing the antibody are stimulated to reproduce and to ramp up their production.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 2. Toward a basic science of change > 2.3. Learning from the immune system about evolutionary psychology
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The meaning of the word remains consistent due to its place in a network of symbolic relations, and every set of symbolic relations leads to a suite of behaviors that potentially influences survival and reproduction (Hayes et al. 2001).”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 2. Toward a basic science of change > 2.4. The human symbolic inheritance system
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Hayes et al. 2001 source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Collectively, the 100 million antibodies can grab onto nearly any conceivable organic surface.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 2. Toward a basic science of change > 2.3. Learning from the immune system about evolutionary psychology
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Applied behavioral scientists in any particular discipline might be surprised to learn how much it can benefit from integration with all other basic and applied disciplines, using evolution as the common theoretical framework.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The disciplines, in turn, are largely unknown to modern evolutionary scientists.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This kind of integration is already occurring at a pace that is fast in cultural evolutionary terms – but it can go even faster.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 2. Toward a basic science of change > 2.5. The contribution of the human-related disciplines to core evolutionary theory
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this sense, a network of symbolic relations that regulates behavior is like a genotype that produces a phenotype. We will call it a “symbotype” to stress the comparison.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 2. Toward a basic science of change > 2.4. The human symbolic inheritance system
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Yet, not only does the adaptive component rely upon the innate component, it too is elaborately innate.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 2. Toward a basic science of change > 2.3. Learning from the immune system about evolutionary psychology
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The adaptive component of the immune system includes the ability to create roughly 100 million different antibodies.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 2. Toward a basic science of change > 2.3. Learning from the immune system about evolutionary psychology
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When complete, we will have a proper basic scientific foundation for an applied science of intentional change.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 2. Toward a basic science of change > 2.5. The contribution of the human-related disciplines to core evolutionary theory
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“yet the vast majority of evolutionary research has focused on genetic inheritance mechanisms – so much that for most people “evolution” is nearly synonymous with “genes.””
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 2. Toward a basic science of change > 2.5. The contribution of the human-related disciplines to core evolutionary theory
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When a given antibody grabs onto an invading disease organism, it signals the innate component of the immune system to attack; the antibody itself acts only as a tag.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 2. Toward a basic science of change > 2.3. Learning from the immune system about evolutionary psychology
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At a finer level of detail, the complex but systematic processes that create and select behavioral and cultural traits will differ from those that create and select antibodies.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 2. Toward a basic science of change > 2.3. Learning from the immune system about evolutionary psychology
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Insofar as evolutionists failed to include symbolic inheritance systems in core evolutionary theory, social constructivists were right to point out that something was missing.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 2. Toward a basic science of change > 2.5. The contribution of the human-related disciplines to core evolutionary theory
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The theories behind these methods are highly relevant to the development of core evolutionary theory, and the empirical results can help take evolutionary theorizing beyond the “just-so” storytelling stage.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“A good example is the intellectual tradition of social constructivism, which has long appeared to be opposed to evolutionary accounts of human nature (Segerstrale 2001; Wilson 2005; 2009).”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 2. Toward a basic science of change > 2.5. The contribution of the human-related disciplines to core evolutionary theory
What the sources say
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Like the basic human behavioral sciences and the humanities, the applied human behavioral sciences are a vast archipelago of disciplines that seldom communicate with one another.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Other genetically evolved processes are required for the antibodies that bind to antigens to signal the innate component of the immune system, for the B-cells producing the antibodies to reproduce and ramp up production, to keep the antibody circulating after elimination of the disease organism, and so on.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 2. Toward a basic science of change > 2.3. Learning from the immune system about evolutionary psychology
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The analogy between the immune system and other Darwin machines should not go too far.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 2. Toward a basic science of change > 2.3. Learning from the immune system about evolutionary psychology
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The scientific caliber of any particular applied discipline, in terms of theoretical justification and empirical methods, ranges from exemplary to nonexistent. Explicit or implicit recognition of evolution is highly variable, and hardly any of the disciplines consider recent developments in evolutionary science.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The main analogies that we wish to stress are (1) the reconciliation of elaborate genetic innateness with elaborate open-ended flexibility and (2) the need for some Darwin machines to be multi-agent cooperative systems.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 2. Toward a basic science of change > 2.3. Learning from the immune system about evolutionary psychology
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“CBT and modern acceptance and mindfulness–based therapies are empirically supported therapeutic methods, tested by using the gold standard of evaluation: the randomized controlled trial (RCT).”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.1. Change at the level of individuals
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Increasing retention of new behavior by practicing skills is as applicable to experts in almost any field (Ericsson & Ward 2007) as it is to personality-disordered clients trying to establish a new way of relating to their own distress (Lindenboim et al. 2007).”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.1. Change at the level of individuals
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Therapies that teach people simply to notice their thoughts without automatically having to obey them also induce healthy flexibility that can help people solve panic disorders (Arch et al. 2012a; 2012b), stop smoking (Gifford et al. 2011), stay out of the hospital when suffering psychotic hallucinations (Bach et al. 2012), deal with diabetes (Gregg et al. 2007), or lose weight (Lillis et al. 2009”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.1. Change at the level of individuals
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In both groups, improvements were best accounted for by greater psychological flexibility toward difficult thoughts (Arch et al. 2012b), but ACT improved more on general and thought-specific measures of psychological flexibility (Arch et al. 2012a; 2012b).”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.1. Change at the level of individuals
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Arch et al. 2012a; 2012b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It follows that if learning qualifies as a Darwin machine, so that individuals can be regarded as open-ended evolving systems with their actions selected by consequences, then evolution will sometimes take them where they prefer not to go.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.1. Change at the level of individuals
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“ACT uses acceptance and mindfulness methods to increase healthy flexibility and variability in the person’s actions (emotional, cognitive, and behavioral) and examines values to change the selection criterion for these actions.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.1. Change at the level of individuals
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even better, we have no need to speculate, because CBT and modern acceptance and mindfulness–based therapies are empirically supported therapeutic methods, tested by”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.1. Change at the level of individuals
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Powerful metaphors and exercises help to manage the variation-and-selection process, altering the normal, automatic behavioral impact of difficult emotions and thoughts – in effect, adding symbolic systems that regulate the impact of symbolic events.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.1. Change at the level of individuals
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Through organized examination and testing of beliefs in addition to behavior therapy methods, CBT uses this universal human capacity for therapeutic purposes, and it is one of the best empirically supported therapeutic interventions (INSERM 2004).”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.1. Change at the level of individuals
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites INSERM 2004
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Cascades of these more subtle effects of behaviors can easily outweigh direct effects, such that direct and immediate consequences are not always a reliable selection criterion for long-term adaptation.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.1. Change at the level of individuals
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“That many human phobias have clear links to dangers that existed in the genetic ancestral environment (e.g., spiders, snakes, heights, closed spaces, open spaces, and strangers) can be regarded as part of the innate component of the learning Darwin machine, analogous to the innate component of the immune system (Nesse & Williams 1995).”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.1. Change at the level of individuals
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Nesse & Williams 1995
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Similarly, the generation of greater response variability during extinction of learned avoidance responses appears to be innate, extending across the animal world (Bouton et al. 2001).”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.1. Change at the level of individuals
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Bouton et al. 2001 source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Avoiding these connections and their emotional results is reinforcing over the short term but greatly reduces healthy behavioral variability over the long term.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.1. Change at the level of individuals
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In terms of the learning Darwin machine, the short-term transient benefits are more reinforcing than the long-term diffuse costs.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.1. Change at the level of individuals
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“ACT encourages people to identify their most important life goals and to keep them firmly in mind as criteria for selecting behaviors. At the same time, it promotes a mindful, open, and curious stance toward one’s thoughts, feelings, and experiences, which reduces their automatic dysfunctional interference with the pursuit of important life goals.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.1. Change at the level of individuals
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A laboratory rat would benefit from behavior therapy but not from therapy that employs symbolic language; a human benefits from both because the symbolic Darwin machine was added to the learning Darwin machine over human evolutionary history but did not replace it.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.1. Change at the level of individuals
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We know not only that these methods work. In some cases, we also know why they work, and often the processes of change make sense in light of evolutionary theory.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.1. Change at the level of individuals
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Instead, humans have evolved specialized abilities for relating events (Penn et al. 2008); due to this evolved capacity, humans can learn to create networks of symbolic relations and transfer whole networks across contexts.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.1. Change at the level of individuals
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Penn et al. 2008 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“From week 13 to the end of a 1-year follow-up, however, the ACT group experienced about 25% additional improvement, whereas the other group maintained their original gains but did not continue to improve.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.1. Change at the level of individuals
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Arch et al. 2012a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“RFT derives from the functional contextual wing of behaviorism, but it acknowledges that Skinner failed in his quest to explain language and other forms of symbolic thought in terms of simple operant conditioning.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.1. Change at the level of individuals
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In other words, ACT deliberately manages the variation-and-selection process, which makes it easy to relate to core evolutionary theory.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.1. Change at the level of individuals
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When the elements of behavioral, cognitive, and mindfulness-based therapies are examined in detail, they map impressively onto the elements of learning and symbolic thought as Darwin machines.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.1. Change at the level of individuals
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One of the most basic facts about evolution is that it results in both dysfunctional and functional outcomes. Many products of evolution are not adaptive in any sense.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.1. Change at the level of individuals
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In operant conditioning, behaviors are selected not only by differential survival and reproduction but by reinforcers, which Skinner properly interpreted as genetically evolved adaptations that lead, on average, to the adoption of genetically adaptive behaviors.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.1. Change at the level of individuals
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“An important concept from RFT that ACT uses is cognitive fusion, which we can understand in evolutionary terms as the loss of behavioral flexibility.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.1. Change at the level of individuals
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Billions of dollars go into research showing the effects of genetic variation and the regulation of gene expression on phenotypic variation, or on developing techniques of “gene therapy” that involve changing the genes of an individual person or the expression of their genes.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.1. Change at the level of individuals
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because evolutionists are familiar with the genotype-phenotype relationship, they fully expect that by changing the genotype (e.g., by inducing a mutation in DNA), or by changing the ability of the genotype to be transcribed or translated (e.g., by methylation of DNA), they can change the phenotype.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.1. Change at the level of individuals
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“We will describe a particular kind of mindfulness-based therapy called “acceptance and commitment therapy” (ACT, pronounced as one word), in part because it is well-validated and in part because it rests on a strong theoretical foundation called “relational frame theory” (RFT), which can profitably be related to core evolutionary theory (Hayes et al. 2001).”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.1. Change at the level of individuals
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Hayes et al. 2001 source
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The essence of metaphorical thinking is that a network of relations formed in one context (e.g., a rose) can transfer to another context (e.g., my love).”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.1. Change at the level of individuals
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Ostrom shared the 2009 Nobel in economics for showing that groups of people are capable of managing their common resources on their own, but only when certain conditions are met.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.2. Change at the level of small groups
What the sources say
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The conflict between individual self-interest and behaving “for the good of the group” has occupied center stage in evolutionary biology since the 1960s (Williams 1966).”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.2. Change at the level of small groups
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Williams 1966
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The one-to-many relationship between a design principle and its implementations can be demonstrated in the laboratory. In one classic experiment, the same phenotypic trait of wing vein length was selected for in a number of isolated laboratory populations of drosophila (Cohan 1984). There was a phenotypic response to selection in each population, but the specific genes that evolved differed among”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.2. Change at the level of small groups
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Cohan 1984 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The fact that elements of ACT and other acceptance and mindfulness–based methods are often found in spiritual and religious practices suggests that some of these practices evolved by cultural evolution as strategies that help people transcend immediate consequences in order to achieve longer term success.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.1. Change at the level of individuals
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Local autonomy. When a group is nested within a larger society, such as a farmer’s association dealing with the state government, the group must have enough authority to create its own social organization and make its own decisions, as outlined in 1–6.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.2. Change at the level of small groups
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ostrom 1990 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We will focus on the field of education, where a number of programs have converged on the core design principles and appear to work exceptionally well, compared with the conventional American classroom environment.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.2. Change at the level of small groups
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“These core design principles, which were originally informed by political science and empirically derived from the performance of contemporary groups, are consilient with the basic evolutionary dynamics of cooperation in all species and the specific factors that caused humans to become such a highly cooperative species (Wilson et al., in press; see also Boehm 2011; Gintis 2007a; 2007b; 2009; Gint”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.2. Change at the level of small groups
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Wilson et al., in press
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Boehm 2011
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Gintis 2007a; 2007b; 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The core design principles that enable groups to function as adaptive units are so general that they have been independently derived on other “islands” of the applied behavioral science “archipelago,” without any awareness of Ostrom or core evolutionary theory.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.2. Change at the level of small groups
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“An alternative school called the Sudbury Valley School (preK–12; www.sudval.org) embodies most of Ostrom’s design principles and functions exceptionally well.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.2. Change at the level of small groups
What the sources say
boostedSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A second body of information is our own particular evolutionary history, resulting in our unique ability to cooperate in groups that need not be genetically related, to think symbolically, and so on, as recounted in previous sections of this article.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.2. Change at the level of small groups
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Monitoring. Even when most members of a group mean well, the temptation to receive more than one’s share of the benefits and to contribute less than one’s share of the costs always exists. In addition, at least some members might try to game the system actively. If lapses and transgressions are undetectable, the group enterprise is unlikely to succeed.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.2. Change at the level of small groups
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ostrom 1990 source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Proportional costs and benefits. Having some members do all the work whereas others receive the benefits cannot continue over a long term. In the most successful groups, the expectation is that everyone does his or her fair share and those who go beyond the call of duty receive appropriate recognition. When leaders receive special privileges, it is because they have special responsibilities for”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.2. Change at the level of small groups
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ostrom 1990 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Fast and fair conflict resolution. When conflicts arise, they must be resolved quickly and in a manner that the parties consider fair. This typically involves a hearing in which respected members of the group, who can be expected to be impartial, make an equitable decision.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.2. Change at the level of small groups
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ostrom 1990 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Once we appreciate that all evolutionary processes result in both dysfunctional and functional outcomes, and that even functional outcomes from an evolutionary perspective can be dysfunctional from the perspective of long-term human welfare, the need to manage the variation-and-selection processes taking place all around us to prevent the development of human problems becomes manifest.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.1. Change at the level of individuals
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The unified academic study of human sociality can then help to improve the efficacy of real-world groups.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.2. Change at the level of small groups
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Graduated sanctions. Friendly, gentle reminders are usually sufficient to keep people in solid citizen mode, but there must also be the capacity to apply stronger sanctions, such as punishment or exclusion, if transgressions continue.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.2. Change at the level of small groups
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ostrom 1990 source
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Neighborhoods seldom have a strong sense of group identity (a violation of design principle #1). Groups frequently consist of a few beleaguered volunteers who do most of the work (a violation of design principle #2). Discipline in schools is frequently neither fast nor based on a procedure that the students perceive as fair (a violation of design principle #6).”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.2. Change at the level of small groups
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These two bodies of information provide a framework for integrating human-related academic disciplines such as sociology, social psychology, biological and cultural anthropology, history, religious studies, economics, and political science.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.2. Change at the level of small groups
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Reading, writing, and mathematics were invented only a few thousand years ago and might not be learnable with the same ease as hunting, gathering, and warfare (Geary 2004; 2011).”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.2. Change at the level of small groups
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Geary 2004; 2011
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The same one-to-many relationship exists for the cultural evolution of symbotypes. Ostrom’s database of attempts to manage common-pool resources contains groups that were faced with an identical problem—attempts to manage irrigation systems by different Nepalese farmer associations, for example (Ostrom 1990). The groups arrived at different implementations of the various design principles (e.g.,”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.2. Change at the level of small groups
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ostrom 1990 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Gray (2009; 2013 notes that in hunter-gatherer societies and many traditional cultures, learning and teaching take place largely without explicit instruction. Instead, children spend most of their time in mixed-age groups. The older children are strongly motivated to become adult, and the younger children are strongly motivated to become like the older children. Learning the skills and roles of”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.2. Change at the level of small groups
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Gray 2009; 2013
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this way, applied disciplines largely unknown to evolutionists can expand core evolutionary theory, and core evolutionary theory can provide a general theoretical foundation for the applied disciplines.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.1. Change at the level of individuals
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Some interventions involve change at the individual level, using principles similar to behavioral, cognitive, and mindfulness-based therapies. Others involve change at the level of small groups and large populations, as described in sections 3.2 and 3.3 below.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.1. Change at the level of individuals
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The one-to-many relationship also exists for antibody formation: People evolve different antibodies in response to the same disease because more than one antibody can successfully bind to a given antigen; which one becomes amplified is largely a matter of chance.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.2. Change at the level of small groups
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Natural selection is based on relative fitness; and the traits that maximize the fitness of individuals, relative to members of their own group, are typically different from the traits that maximize the fitness of the group as a whole.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.2. Change at the level of small groups
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Williams 1966
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Group identity. Members of the most successful groups have a strong sense of group identity and know the rights and obligations of membership, along with the boundaries of the resource they are managing.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.2. Change at the level of small groups
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ostrom 1990 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The evolutionary dynamics of cooperation in all social species provides one body of information that can be brought to bear on real-world human groups.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.2. Change at the level of small groups
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The need for local groups to discover the implementations that work best for them is one reason why cookie-cutter policy solutions do not work and groups need local autonomy (design principle #7).”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.2. Change at the level of small groups
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, an additional set of considerations are required for groups to function as “corporate units” in this sense.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.1. Change at the level of individuals
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Consensus decision making. People hate being bossed around but will work hard to implement a consensus decision – to do what we want, not what they want. In addition, the best decisions often require knowledge of local circumstances that we have and they lack, making consensus decision making doubly important.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.2. Change at the level of small groups
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ostrom 1990 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Genetic evolution and the immune system are understood in rich mechanistic detail. Learning and symbolic thought are much more poorly understood, in part because they have only recently been envisioned as evolutionary processes comparable to genetic evolution and the immune system.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.1. Change at the level of individuals
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In short, prevention scientists have developed the same ability to manage behavioral and cultural change in everyday settings that clinical scientists are generating in therapeutic settings – and they can prove it.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.1. Change at the level of individuals
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites National Research Council & Institute of Medicine 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The principles that we have outlined for individuals are equally relevant to groups of all sizes. Groups can benefit by increasing their behavioral flexibility and reflecting on their values in selecting their practices no less than individuals can.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.1. Change at the level of individuals
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The evolutionary principles used to design the Regents Academy include the core design principles, the need for learning to occur in a safe and secure social environment, and the need for long-term learning goals to be rewarding also over the short term.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.2. Change at the level of small groups
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Wilson et al. 2011b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Competing as groups is highly motivating and causes peer pressure within each group to reward good rather than deviant behavior.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.2. Change at the level of small groups
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Conventional schools can also implement the design principles more than they customarily do.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.2. Change at the level of small groups
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There will be no between-planet selection, so addressing these problems will require another kind of selection – the intentional selection of policies with large-scale and long-term human welfare in mind.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.3 Change at the level of large populations
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our discussion of small groups also highlights the value of selecting outcomes at the group level – the cultural equivalent of group selection in genetic evolution.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.2. Change at the level of small groups
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Changing behavioral and cultural practices at a large spatial and temporal scale is inherently more challenging than for individuals and small groups – but still possible with a sufficiently clear vision of what needs to be done.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.3 Change at the level of large populations
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The most cooperative expand into empires, but then cultural evolution within the empires favors practices that eventually lead to their collapse.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.3 Change at the level of large populations
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Turchin (2003; 2005)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The Juniper Gardens projects in Kansas City, Kansas, show robust longitudinal academic results using peer-to-peer tutoring within classrooms (Greenwood 1991a; 1991b), which also embraces the core principles of Ostrom’s key findings.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.2. Change at the level of small groups
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Greenwood 1991a; 1991b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Children raised in cooperative social environments have multiple assets, and those raised in uncooperative environments have multiple liabilities.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.2. Change at the level of small groups
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The Promise Academy, a school associated with the highly publicized Harlem Children’s Zone, started in 2004 with a first-grade and a sixth-grade class (Tough 2008). Intensive efforts to improve academic performance, based on the same educational principles in both grades, succeeded for the first-graders but failed for the sixth-graders.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.2. Change at the level of small groups
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Tough 2008
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Humans evolved to maximize their lifetime reproductive success, which can involve parents withholding support from particular children (Trivers 1972).”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.3 Change at the level of large populations
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Trivers 1972
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, adolescents might have become more difficult to change as groups, as peer groups play a larger role in their lives than in young children’s lives. The latter interpretation implies that at-risk adolescents might be capable of transformational change given an appropriately designed social environment that the adolescent peer group accepts.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.2. Change at the level of small groups
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Once we appreciate that people of all ages are adapting to their immediate environments, it becomes clear that the wrong environmental intervention will make change appear difficult or impossible, whereas the right one will make change appear effortless.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.2. Change at the level of small groups
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: People of all ages adapt to their immediate environments.
In the paper
“The core design principles that Ostrom derived for common-pool resource groups can be generalized from an evolutionary perspective and are equally relevant to other kinds of groups (Wilson et al., in press).”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.2. Change at the level of small groups
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Wilson et al., in press
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, it is possible that at-risk adolescents have become difficult to change as individuals, because of developmental mechanisms that are less flexible later in life than in early childhood.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.2. Change at the level of small groups
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The challenges will be daunting, but at least in principle, the right kind of environmental intervention could cause the difficult to become easy, as is already beginning at the level of individuals and small groups.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.3 Change at the level of large populations
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One example is increased taxation on alcohol, a policy that has been shown to reduce alcohol consumption, alcohol-related morbidity and mortality, traffic accident deaths, sexually transmitted disease, violence, and crime.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.3 Change at the level of large populations
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Indeed, the importance of consensus decision making for groups to function as cooperative units accentuates the need for democratic processes to formulate benign social policies.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 4. General discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If improving the human condition is our goal, there is no alternative to becoming wise managers of evolutionary processes.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 4. General discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Variation, selection, and heredity comprise an open-ended process capable of adapting organisms to their current environments according to the selection criteria.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 4. General discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The concept of human symbolic thought as a Darwin machine is especially new for nearly all disciplines.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 4. General discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“For decades, evolution has been marginalized in the human behavioral sciences as a process that can explain the rest of life, our physical bodies, and a few basic urges, but has little to say about our rich behavioral and cultural diversity. Evolutionists, in turn, have concentrated almost entirely on genetic evolution, which includes the concept of phenotypic plasticity, but which did not”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 4. General discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Jablonka & Lamb 2006 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Just as evolutionary biologists are accustomed to studying all traits in all species, a science of intentional change centered on evolution can be applied to any real-world behavioral or cultural issue.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 4. General discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Triple P is now being implemented in more than 20 nations worldwide, using a dissemination strategy as novel as its implementation strategy.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 3. Toward an applied science of change > 3.3 Change at the level of large populations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Rather, the interventions created conditions that favored the selection of behaviors or cultural practices that were desired by individuals and communities.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 4. General discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Much progress was made, but a particular configuration of ideas that became associated with evolutionary psychology (EP) set itself apart from the so-called standard social science model (SSSM), which includes the very disciplines that have been successful in developing the beginnings of a science of intentional behavior change.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 4. General discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A step in this direction is to achieve a consensus that the paradox of elaborate genetic innateness and an elaborate capacity for open-ended change can be reconciled through the concept of Darwin machines.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 4. General discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Despite its success during the first year, staff turnover threatened its continuity. New staff had to be oriented to the program, requiring procedures that were different from the program itself.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 4. General discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The fact that symbolic systems, like genotypes and antibodies, exist in nearly infinite variety and that a symbotype-phenotype relationship exists that is similar to the genotype-phenotype relationship is profound in its implications for a science of intentional change.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 4. General discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Evolutionists therefore have much to learn from branches of the human behavioral sciences where learning as a variation-and-selection process has occupied center stage for decades.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 4. General discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A science of intentional change need not compromise norms of respect for the rights of individuals.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 4. General discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“The Regents Academy for at-risk high school students (Wilson et al. 2011a; 2011b), which was explicitly designed from an evolutionary perspective, is an encouraging sign. It represents an integration of disciplines such as political science, education, and clinical psychology that had not taken place in the past but came together easily from an evolutionary perspective.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 4. General discussion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Wilson et al. 2011a; 2011b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Accomplishing the first goal requires resolving the paradox of elaborate genetic innateness and elaborate open-ended flexibility.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 4. General discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The policies are winnowed by selection to a degree – it is not as if we are doing everything wrong – but there is tremendous room for improvement by using an expanded evolutionary theory to organize our perception and the most rigorous experimental methods to evaluate the consequences of our actions.”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 4. General discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
Current ability to change behavioral and cultural practices lags far behind the ability to manipulate the physical environment.
“Despite some notable successes, some of which we highlight in this article, our ability to change our behavioral and cultural practices lags far behind our ability to manipulate the physical environment.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Applied behavioral science examples are largely unknown beyond their disciplinary boundaries because there is no unifying theoretical framework.
“However, these examples are largely unknown beyond their disciplinary boundaries, for lack of a unifying theoretical framework.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The human behavioral sciences are currently in disarray on the subject of change.
“The human behavioral sciences are currently in disarray on the subject of change.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Every human-related discipline has its own configuration of ideas that seldom relate to other disciplines or to modern evolutionary science.
“Every discipline has its own configuration of ideas that seldom relate to other disciplines or to modern evolutionary science.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The human brain is an elaborate product of genetic evolution.
“On the other, as with all species, the human brain is an elaborate product of genetic evolution.”
The paper relies on this without support.
No examples of scientifically guided social change compare to putting a man on the moon.
“No examples of scientifically guided social change can compare to putting a man on the moon.”
The paper relies on this without support.
People of all ages adapt to their immediate environments.
“Once we appreciate that people of all ages are adapting to their immediate environments, it becomes clear that the wrong environmental intervention will make change appear difficult or impossible, whereas the right one will make change appear effortless.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Human genetically evolved adaptations for cooperation, including cultural transmission of learned behavior, evolved in small face-to-face groups and may not work well in larger groups.
“An important point to keep in mind is that our genetically evolved adaptations for cooperation, including the cultural transmission of learned behavior, evolved in the context of small face-to-face groups and might not necessarily work well in the context of larger groups.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Men are especially likely to invest in mating effort rather than parental effort.
“Men are especially likely to invest in mating effort rather than parental effort.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Most successful interventions work for single families or small groups.
“Most successful interventions work for single families or small groups.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 1. Introduction
“Indeed, the randomized control trials and other high-quality real-world experiments described in section 2 can be regarded as a refined variation-and-selection process”
§ Evolving the future: Toward a science of intentional change > 1. Introduction
“In section 3 we will review examples of scientifically based and validated programs that accomplish change on three scales: individuals, small groups, and large populations.”
Citations
Cites
Items 201–400 of 653
Mental health: A report of the Surgeon General--Executive summary.
Satcher, D. S. (2000) · Professional Psychology Research and Practice · doi:10.1037/0735-7028.31.1.5 · Cited by 687
Gat, A. (2006) · Cited by 684
Domain-specific knowledge and conceptual change
Carey, S. E., & Spelke, E. S. (1994) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511752902.008 · Cited by 675
Ennett, S. T., Tobler, N. S., Ringwalt, C. L., & Flewelling, R. L. (1994) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.84.9.1394 · Cited by 655
The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life: A Study in Religious Sociology.
Goldenweiser, A., Durkheim, É., & Swain, J. W. (1916) · The Journal of Philosophy Psychology and Scientific Methods · doi:10.2307/2012786 · Cited by 648
Angell, J. R., & Baldwin, J. M. (1903) · The Philosophical Review · doi:10.2307/2176746 · Cited by 641
Wilson, E. O. (2002) · Cited by 639
A Multicommunity Trial for Primary Prevention of Adolescent Drug Abuse
Pentz, M. A. (1989) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.261.22.3259 · Cited by 629
The cortical column: a structure without a function
Horton, J. C., & Adams, D. L. (2005) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2005.1623 · Cited by 628
SuperCooperators: altruism, evolution, and why we need each other to succeed
(2011) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.49-2054 · Cited by 627
Behavioral treatment of panic disorder
Barlow, D. H., Craske, M. G., Cerny, J. A., & Klosko, J. S. (1989) · Behavior Therapy · doi:10.1016/s0005-7894(89)80073-5 · Cited by 627
Nowak, C., & Heinrichs, N. (2008) · Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10567-008-0033-0 · Cited by 621
A Universe of Consciousness: How Matter Becomes Imagination
Brakel, L. (2001) · Neuropsychoanalysis · doi:10.1080/15294145.2001.10773360 · Cited by 617
Willpower: rediscovering the greatest human strength
(2012) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.49-3547 · Cited by 616
The cognitive niche: Coevolution of intelligence, sociality, and language
Pinker, S. A. (2010) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0914630107 · Cited by 609
Mediators of change in emotion-focused and problem-focused worksite stress management interventions
Bond, F. W., & Bunce, D. (2000) · Journal of Occupational Health Psychology · doi:10.1037/1076-8998.5.1.156 · Cited by 607
Multistability and metastability: understanding dynamic coordination in the brain
Kelso, J. A. S. (2012) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2011.0351 · Cited by 604
Sense and nonsense: evolutionary perspectives on human behaviour
Laland, K., & Brown, G. (2003) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.40-3388 · Cited by 601
Bruner, J. S. (2025) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/15707.003.0011 · Cited by 586
Moral Sentiments and Material Interests: The Foundations of Cooperation in Economic Life
Gintis, H., Bowles, S., Boyd, R., & Fehr, E. (2006) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/4771.001.0001 · Cited by 583
Evolutionary Social Psychology
Kenrick, D. T., Maner, J. K., & Li, N. P. (2015) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9780470939376.ch28 · Cited by 579
Campbell, C. A., Hahn, R. A., Elder, R. W., Brewer, R. D., Chattopadhyay, S. K., Fielding, J. E., Naimi, T. S., Toomey, T. L., Lawrence, B. M., & Middleton, J. C. (2009) · American Journal of Preventive Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2009.09.028 · Cited by 577
Effects of Alcohol Tax and Price Policies on Morbidity and Mortality: A Systematic Review
Wagenaar, A. C., Tobler, A. L., & Komro, K. A. (2010) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.2009.186007 · Cited by 570
Tolstoy, L. N. (1865) · Cited by 569
Why Does It Take a Village? The Mediation of Neighborhood Effects on Educational Achievement
Ainsworth, J. W. (2002) · Social Forces · doi:10.1353/sof.2002.0038 · Cited by 566
The automatic component of habit in health behavior: Habit as cue-contingent automaticity.
Orbell, S., & Verplanken, B. (2010) · Health Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0019596 · Cited by 563
Wilson, E. O. (2012) · Dominican Scholar (Dominican University of California) · Cited by 561
Roemer, L., Orsillo, S. M., & Salters-Pedneault, K. (2008) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0012720 · Cited by 554
ENERGY AND THE EVOLUTION OF CULTURE
White, L. A. (1943) · American Anthropologist · doi:10.1525/aa.1943.45.3.02a00010 · Cited by 554
The origin of mind: Evolution of brain, cognition, and general intelligence.
Geary, D. C. (2005) · doi:10.1037/10871-000 · Cited by 551
Signalers and Receivers in Animal Communication
Seyfarth, R. M., & Cheney, D. L. (2002) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145121 · Cited by 547
War before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage
Cohen, E. A., & Keeley, L. H. (1996) · Foreign Affairs · doi:10.2307/20047849 · Cited by 543
The architecture of the mind: massive modularity and the flexibility of thought
(2007) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.44-6775 · Cited by 542
Asymmetric Paternalism to Improve Health Behaviors
Loewenstein, G., Brennan, T., & Volpp, K. G. (2007) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.298.20.2415 · Cited by 533
Reciprocity: Weak or strong? What punishment experiments do (and do not) demonstrate
Guala, F. (2012) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x11000069 · Cited by 526
Where good ideas come from: the natural history of innovation
Johnson, S. (2011) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.48-5785 · Cited by 524
Predictive accuracy of the Framingham coronary risk score in British men:prospective cohort study
Brindle, P. M., Emberson, J., Lampe, F. C., Walker, M., Whincup, P. H., Fahey, T. P., & Ebrahim, S. B. J. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7426.1267 · Cited by 524
Mesoudi, A. (2012) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.49-4527 · Cited by 520
Acceptance and Values-Based Action in Chronic Pain: A Study of Treatment Effectiveness and Process
Vowles, K. E., & McCracken, L. M. (2008) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-006x.76.3.397 · Cited by 500
Effectiveness of a Violence Prevention Curriculum Among Children in Elementary School
Grossman, D. C. (1997) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.277.20.1605 · Cited by 499
Acceptance-based treatment for smoking cessation
Gifford, E. V., Kohlenberg, B. S., Hayes, S. C., Antonuccio, D. O., Piasecki, M. M., Rasmussen-Hall, M. L., & Palm, K. M. (2004) · Behavior Therapy · doi:10.1016/s0005-7894(04)80015-7 · Cited by 499
Self-citationPopova, S., Giesbrecht, N., Bekmuradov, D., et al. (2009) · Alcohol and Alcoholism · doi:10.1093/alcalc/agp054 · Cited by 497
Solving Bernstein's Problem: A Proposal for the Development of Coordinated Movement by Selection
Sporns, O., & Edelman, G. M. (1993) · Child Development · doi:10.2307/1131321 · Cited by 496
The computational neurobiology of learning and reward
Daw, N. D., & Doya, K. (2006) · Current Opinion in Neurobiology · doi:10.1016/j.conb.2006.03.006 · Cited by 492
Antisocial Behavior, Academic Failure, and School Climate
McEvoy, A. W., & Welker, R. (2000) · Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders · doi:10.1177/106342660000800301 · Cited by 490
Planned, motivated and habitual hygiene behaviour: an eleven country review
Curtis, V. A., Danquah, L. O., & Aunger, R. V. (2009) · Health Education Research · doi:10.1093/her/cyp002 · Cited by 482
Generalizing the core design principles for the efficacy of groups
Wilson, D. S., Elinor Ostrom, B., & Cox, M. E. (2012) · Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization · doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2012.12.010 · Cited by 471
Self-citationAnalysis of exploratory, manipulatory, and curiosity behaviors.
Dember, W. N., & Earl, R. W. (1957) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0046861 · Cited by 469
Perry, C. L., Williams, C. L., Veblen‐Mortenson, S., Toomey, T. L., Komro, K. A., Anstine, P. S., McGovern, P. G., Finnegan, J. R., Forster, J. L., Wagenaar, A. C., et al. (1996) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.86.7.956 · Cited by 469
Hierarchy and Scaling: Extrapolating Information along a Scaling Ladder
Wu, J. (1999) · Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing · doi:10.1080/07038992.1999.10874736 · Cited by 464
Niche Construction Theory: A Practical Guide for Ecologists
Odling‐Smee, J., Erwin, D. H., Palkovacs, E. P., Feldman, M. W., & Laland, K. N. (2013) · The Quarterly Review of Biology · doi:10.1086/669266 · Cited by 460
Lillis, J., Hayes, S. C., Bunting, K., & Masuda, A. (2009) · Annals of Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1007/s12160-009-9083-x · Cited by 459
Self-citationKelso, J. A. S., & Engstrøm, D. A. (2006) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/1988.001.0001 · Cited by 454
Witkiewitz, K., & Bowen, S. (2010) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0019172 · Cited by 453
Dahl, J., Wilson, K. G., & Nilsson, A. (2004) · Behavior Therapy · doi:10.1016/s0005-7894(04)80020-0 · Cited by 448
Arch, J. J., Eifert, G. H., Davies, C., Vilardaga, J. C. P., Rose, R. D., & Craske, M. G. (2012) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0028310 · Cited by 443
Reducing underage drinking: a collective responsibility
(2004) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.42-1601 · Cited by 439
Phylogenetic Analysis of the Evolution of Lactose Digestion in Adults
Holden, C., & Mace, R. (2009) · Human Biology · doi:10.3378/027.081.0609 · Cited by 437
Gaudiano, B. A., & Herbert, J. D. (2006) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.brat.2005.02.007 · Cited by 435
The Effects of Tobacco Control Policies on Smoking Rates
Levy, D. T., Chaloupka, F. J., & Gitchell, J. G. (2004) · Journal of Public Health Management and Practice · doi:10.1097/00124784-200407000-00011 · Cited by 432
Kellam, S. G., Brown, C. H., Poduska, J. M., Ialongo, N. S., Wang, W., Toyinbo, P., Petras, H., Ford, C., Windham, A., & Wilcox, H. C. (2008) · Drug and Alcohol Dependence · doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2008.01.004 · Cited by 431
Segal, Z. V., Bieling, P., Young, T., MacQueen, G., Cooke, R., Martin, L., Bloch, R., & Levitan, R. D. (2010) · Archives of General Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2010.168 · Cited by 429
Knowledge Maps as Scaffolds for Cognitive Processing
O’Donnell, A. M., Dansereau, D. F., & Hall, R. H. (2002) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1023/a:1013132527007 · Cited by 427
Neacsiu, A. D., Rizvi, S. L., & Linehan, M. M. (2010) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.brat.2010.05.017 · Cited by 426
Ialongo, N. S., Werthamer, L., Kellam, S. G., Brown, C. H., Wang, S., & Lin, Y. (1999) · American Journal of Community Psychology · doi:10.1023/a:1022137920532 · Cited by 425
A framework for the unification of the behavioral sciences
Gintis, H. M. (2007) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x07000581 · Cited by 423
Sewall Wright and Evolutionary Biology
Simmons, M. J., & Provine, W. B. (1988) · The Journal of Higher Education · doi:10.2307/1981923 · Cited by 421
Physical exercise habit: on the conceptualization and formation of habitual health behaviours
Aarts, H., Paulussen, T., & Schaalma, H. (1997) · Health Education Research · doi:10.1093/her/12.3.363 · Cited by 417
Laland, K. N., & Hoppitt, W. (2003) · Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews · doi:10.1002/evan.10111 · Cited by 416
(2011) · Cited by 412
Simpson, G. G. (1953) · Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.1953.tb00069.x · Cited by 410
Darwin machines and the nature of knowledge
(1994) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.32-2092 · Cited by 409
Individual behavior, culture, and social change
Glenn, S. S. (2004) · The Behavior Analyst · doi:10.1007/bf03393175 · Cited by 407
Aggression and Antisocial Behavior in Children and Adolescents: Research and Treatment
Connor, D. F. (2002) · Cited by 405
Contrasting approaches to a theory of learning
Johnston, T. D. (1981) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00007950 · Cited by 400
Evidence-based Kernels: Fundamental Units of Behavioral Influence
Embry, D. D., & Biglan, A. (2008) · Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10567-008-0036-x · Cited by 396
Self-citationAdapting minds: evolutionary psychology and the persistent quest for human nature
(2005) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.43-1249 · Cited by 393
Gene-culture coevolution in the age of genomics
Richerson, P. J., Boyd, R., & Henrich, J. (2010) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0914631107 · Cited by 393
Wicksell, R. K., Melin, L., Lekander, M., & Olsson, G. L. (2009) · Pain · doi:10.1016/j.pain.2008.11.006 · Cited by 393
The Role of Learning in the Operation of Motivational Systems
Dickinson, A., & Balleine, B. W. (2002) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/0471214426.pas0312 · Cited by 387
Cultures of peace: the hidden side of history
(2000) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.38-1810 · Cited by 385
Sarkar, S. (1998) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139173216 · Cited by 384
Cognition and the symbolic processes
Watts, F. (1977) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/0005-7967(77)90058-4 · Cited by 381
Intrinsically Motivated Learning in Natural and Artificial Systems
Baldassarre, G., & Mirolli, M. (2012) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-32375-1 · Cited by 380
Evolutionary psychology: A Primer
Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1997) · Cited by 376
Intrinsically Motivated Learning of Hierarchical Collections of Skills
Barto, A. G., Singh, S. P., & Chentanez, N. (2004) · Cited by 376
Petry, N. M., Peirce, J. M., Stitzer, M. L., BLAINE, J. D., Roll, J. M., Cohen, A. J., Obert, J. L., Killeen, T. K., Saladin, M. E., Cowell, M., et al. (2005) · Archives of General Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/archpsyc.62.10.1148 · Cited by 373
Effects of 2 Prevention Programs on High-Risk Behaviors Among African American Youth
Flay, B. R., Graumlich, S., Segawa, E., Burns, J. L., & Holliday, M. Y. (2004) · Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine · doi:10.1001/archpedi.158.4.377 · Cited by 372
Self-organizing systems and infant motor development
Thelen, E., Kelso, J. A. S., & Fogel, A. (1987) · Developmental Review · doi:10.1016/0273-2297(87)90004-9 · Cited by 370
Historical Dynamics: Why States Rise and Fall
Turchin, P. (2004) · Princeton University Press eBooks · doi:10.1515/9781400889310 · Cited by 368
The Good Behavior Game: A Best Practice Candidate as a Universal Behavioral Vaccine
Embry, D. D. (2002) · Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review · doi:10.1023/a:1020977107086 · Cited by 365
Self-citationThe Question of Animal Culture
(2009) · Harvard University Press eBooks · doi:10.2307/j.ctv322v4wf · Cited by 365
Toward a Transdisciplinary Model of Evidence-Based Practice
Satterfield, J. M., Spring, B., Brownson, R., Mullen, E., Newhouse, R., Walker, B. B., & Whitlock, E. (2009) · Milbank Quarterly · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0009.2009.00561.x · Cited by 361
Five Misunderstandings About Cultural Evolution
Henrich, J., Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (2008) · Human Nature · doi:10.1007/s12110-008-9037-1 · Cited by 360
Smith, C. S. (2003) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195162028.001.0001 · Cited by 359
From Replicators to Reproducers: the First Major Transitions Leading to Life
Szathmáry, E., & Maynard Smith, J. (1997) · Journal of Theoretical Biology · doi:10.1006/jtbi.1996.0389 · Cited by 357
The 10,000 year explosion: how civilization accelerated human evolution
Cochran, G. M., & Harpending, H. C. (2009) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.47-2078 · Cited by 355
Amminger, G. P., Berger, G. E., Schäfer, M. R., Klier, C., Friedrich, M. H., & Feucht, M. (2007) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2006.05.007 · Cited by 355
Attribution versus persuasion as a means for modifying behavior.
Miller, R. L., Brickman, P., & Bolen, D. (1975) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0076539 · Cited by 348
Adapting Minds: Evolutionary Psychology and the Persistent Quest for Human Nature
Barrett, H. C. (2006) · American Journal of Human Biology · doi:10.1002/ajhb.20484 · Cited by 339
Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for depression: A new approach for preventing relapse
Barnhofer, T. (2002) · Zeitschrift für Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie · doi:10.1026//1616-3443.31.4.298 · Cited by 338
de Graaf, I., Speetjens, P., Smit, F., de Wolff, M., & Tavecchio, L. (2008) · Behavior Modification · doi:10.1177/0145445508317134 · Cited by 338
Luoma, J. B., Kohlenberg, B. S., Hayes, S. C., & Fletcher, L. (2012) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0026070 · Cited by 336
Self-citationComputer Mediated Transactions
Varian, H. R. (2010) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.100.2.1 · Cited by 323
Historical dynamics: why states rise and fall
(2004) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.41-5964 · Cited by 323
The Use and Abuse of Biology: An Anthropological Critique of Sociobiology.
Wilson, P. J., & Sahlins, M. (1978) · Man · doi:10.2307/2801117 · Cited by 322
Wider than the sky : the phenomenal gift of consciousness
Edelman, G. M. (2004) · Cited by 322
The Robot's Rebellion: Finding Meaning in the Age of Darwin
Stanovich, K. E. (2004) · Cited by 316
Niche Construction Theory and Archaeology
Laland, K. N., & O’Brien, M. J. (2010) · Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory · doi:10.1007/s10816-010-9096-6 · Cited by 316
Behavioral Couples Therapy for Alcoholism and Drug Abuse
O’Farrell, T. J., & Fals-Stewart, W. S. (2000) · PsycEXTRA Dataset · doi:10.1037/e388172004-011 · Cited by 311
Skinner, B. F. (1984) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x0002673x · Cited by 310
Coordination dynamics of learning and transfer: Collective and component levels.
Zanone, P., & Kelso, J. A. S. (1997) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · doi:10.1037//0096-1523.23.5.1454 · Cited by 306
The Origin of Mind: Evolution of Brain, Cognition, and General Intelligence
Ross, D. A., & Martín, A. (2006) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/ajp.2006.163.9.1652 · Cited by 303
Sanders, M. R., Turner, K. M. T., & Markie-Dadds, C. (2002) · Prevention Science · doi:10.1023/a:1019942516231 · Cited by 296
Effect of hydrogen bond cooperativity on the behavior of water
Stokely, K., Mazza, M. G., Stanley, H. E., et al. (2010) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0912756107 · Cited by 295
Swain, J. E., Kim, P., Spicer, J., Ho, S. S., Dayton, C. J., Elmadih, A., & Abel, K. M. (2014) · Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2014.03.007 · Cited by 290
Wollenberg, E. K., Edmunds, D. S., & Buck, L. (2000) · Landscape and Urban Planning · doi:10.1016/s0169-2046(99)00071-7 · Cited by 286
Evolutionary Foundations of Economics
Dopfer, K., & Potts, J. (2004) · Edward Elgar Publishing eBooks · doi:10.4337/9781845423506.00007 · Cited by 284
Biran, A., Schmidt, W., Varadharajan, K. S., Rajaraman, D., Kumar, R., Greenland, K., Gopalan, B., Aunger, R. V., & Curtis, V. (2014) · The Lancet Global Health · doi:10.1016/s2214-109x(13)70160-8 · Cited by 284
The Good Behavior Game: 1969-2002
Tingstrom, D. H., Sterling‐Turner, H. E., & Wilczynski, S. (2006) · Behavior Modification · doi:10.1177/0145445503261165 · Cited by 283
Hayes, S. C., Wilson, K. G., Gifford, E. V., Bissett, R., Piasecki, M., Batten, S. V., Byrd, M., & Gregg, J. (2004) · Behavior Therapy · doi:10.1016/s0005-7894(04)80014-5 · Cited by 283
Self-citationPrice, Tobacco Control Policies and Youth Smoking
Chaloupka, F. J., & Grossman, M. B. (1996) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/w5740 · Cited by 281
Forming a flossing habit: An exploratory study of the psychological determinants of habit formation
Judah, G., Gardner, B., & Aunger, R. V. (2012) · British Journal of Health Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.2044-8287.2012.02086.x · Cited by 281
Dolan, L. J., Kellam, S. G., Brown, C. H., Werthamer‐Larsson, L., Rebok, G. W., Mayer, L. S., Laudolff, J., Turkkan, J. S., Ford, C., & Wheeler, L. (1993) · Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/0193-3973(93)90013-l · Cited by 280
Do Workplace Smoking Bans Reduce Smoking?
Evans, W. N., Farrelly, M. C., & Montgomery, E. E., IV (1999) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.89.4.728 · Cited by 279
Sewall Wright and Evolutionary Biology
Cravens, H., & Provine, W. B. (1987) · Journal of American History · doi:10.2307/1900109 · Cited by 278
(2013) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.50-6461 · Cited by 277
Biodiversity and Environmental Philosophy
Sarkar, S. (2005) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511498558 · Cited by 277
Behavioral Environments and Evolutionary Change
Wcislo, W. T. (1989) · Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.es.20.110189.001033 · Cited by 276
Omega-3 fatty acids in ADHD and related neurodevelopmental disorders
Richardson, A. J. (2006) · International Review of Psychiatry · doi:10.1080/09540260600583031 · Cited by 274
There is no Convincing Evidence for Operant or Classical Conditioning in adult Humans
Brewer, W. F. (2024) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781003482833-1 · Cited by 271
Drake, E. K., Aos, S., & Miller, M. G. (2009) · Victims & Offenders · doi:10.1080/15564880802612615 · Cited by 271
Costanza, R., Wainger, L., Folke, C., & Mäler, K.-G. (1993) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-4018-1_15 · Cited by 269
The Bounds of Reason: Game Theory and the Unification of the Behavioral SciencesPreprint
Gintis, H. M. (2014) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 269
Ericsson, K. A., & Ward, P. (2007) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00533.x · Cited by 268
Web-Based Smoking-Cessation Programs
Strecher, V. J., McClure, J. B., Alexander, G. L., Chakraborty, B., Nair, V. N., Konkel, J. M., Greene, S. M., Collins, L. M., Carlier, C. C., Wiese, C. J., et al. (2008) · American Journal of Preventive Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2007.12.024 · Cited by 266
Ontological uncertainty and innovation
Lane, D. A., & Maxfield, R. R. (2005) · Journal of Evolutionary Economics · doi:10.1007/s00191-004-0227-7 · Cited by 266
Multiple Scales and the Maintenance of Biodiversity
Levin, S. A. (2000) · Ecosystems · doi:10.1007/s100210000044 · Cited by 265
Wicksell, R. K., Olsson, G. L., & Hayes, S. C. (2010) · European Journal of Pain · doi:10.1016/j.ejpain.2010.05.001 · Cited by 259
Self-citationBhaskar, R., & Ehrenfeld, D. W. (1981) · Leonardo · doi:10.2307/1574631 · Cited by 254
Five roles for using theory and evidence in the design and testing of behavior change interventions
Bartholomew, L. K., & Mullen, P. D. (2011) · Journal of Public Health Dentistry · doi:10.1111/j.1752-7325.2011.00223.x · Cited by 253
Male Chimpanzees Prefer Mating with Old Females
Muller, M. N., Thompson, M. E., & Wrangham, R. W. (2006) · Current Biology · doi:10.1016/j.cub.2006.09.042 · Cited by 251
Healthy habits: efficacy of simple advice on weight control based on a habit-formation model
Lally, P., Chipperfield, A., & Wardle, J. (2008) · International Journal of Obesity · doi:10.1038/sj.ijo.0803771 · Cited by 250
Longitudinal Analysis of Time, Engagement, and Achievement in At-Risk versus Non-Risk Students
Greenwood, C. R. (1991) · Exceptional Children · doi:10.1177/001440299105700606 · Cited by 248
Balikci, A. (1970) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 247
Mindfulness and acceptance approaches in sport performance
Bernier, M., Thienot, E., Codron, R., & Fournier, J. F. (2009) · Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology · doi:10.1123/jcsp.3.4.320 · Cited by 246
Testing the Oregon delinquency model with 9-year follow-up of the Oregon Divorce Study
Forgatch, M. S., Patterson, G. R., DeGarmo, D. S., & Beldavs, Z. G. (2009) · Development and Psychopathology · doi:10.1017/s0954579409000340 · Cited by 246
Intrinsic Motivation and Reinforcement Learning
Barto, A. G. (2012) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-32375-1_2 · Cited by 243
Hawkins, J. D., Brown, E. C., Oesterle, S., Arthur, M. W., Abbott, R. D., & Catalano, R. F. (2008) · Journal of Adolescent Health · doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2008.01.022 · Cited by 243
Darwin in Mind: New Opportunities for Evolutionary Psychology
Bolhuis, J. J., Brown, G. R., Richardson, R. C., & Laland, K. N. (2011) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001109 · Cited by 242
Contingency Management for Treatment of Substance Abuse
Stitzer, M. L., & Petry, N. M. (2006) · Annual Review of Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.2.022305.095219 · Cited by 241
Antisocial behavior in children and adolescents: a developmental analysis and model for intervention
Reid, J. B., Patterson, G. R., & Snyder, J. J. (2003) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.40-4298 · Cited by 241
Sompayrac, L. (1999) · Cited by 239
Menenti (2011) · doi:10.1177/0956797611418347 · Cited by 238
Effortful control, explicit processing, and the regulation of human evolved predispositions.
MacDonald, K. B. (2008) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/a0013327 · Cited by 238
(2009) · Cited by 237
French, S. A., & Stables, G. (2003) · Preventive Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2003.09.007 · Cited by 236
Petry, N., Tedford, J., Austin, M., Nich, C., Carroll, K., & Rounsaville, B. (2004) · Addiction · doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2003.00642.x · Cited by 236
Wicksell, R. K., Ahlqvist, J., Bring, A., Melin, L., & Olsson, G. L. (2008) · Cognitive Behaviour Therapy · doi:10.1080/16506070802078970 · Cited by 235
Brinkborg, H., Michanek, J., Hesser, H., & Berglund, G. (2011) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.brat.2011.03.009 · Cited by 235
Bohlmeijer, E. T., Fledderus, M., Rokx, T. A. J. J., & Pieterse, M. E. (2011) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.brat.2010.10.003 · Cited by 232
Mastery of Your Anxiety and Panic: Workbook
Barlow, D. H., & Craske, M. G. (2006) · doi:10.1093/med:psych/9780195311358.001.0001 · Cited by 230
A model for the emergence of cooperation, interdependence, and structure in evolving networks
Jain, S., & Krishna, S. (2001) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.98.2.543 · Cited by 225
Takahashi, T. (1968) · PubMed · Cited by 221
The cultural wealth of nations
Pagel, M., & Mace, R. (2004) · Nature · doi:10.1038/428275a · Cited by 217
A randomised controlled trial of a community intervention to prevent adolescent tobacco use
Biglan, A. (2000) · Tobacco Control · doi:10.1136/tc.9.1.24 · Cited by 213
Self-citationInitial behavior outcomes for the PeaceBuilders universal school-based violence prevention program.
Flannery, D. J., Vazsonyi, A. T., Liau, A. K., Guo, S., Powell, K. E., Atha, H., Vesterdal, W., & Embry, D. D. (2003) · Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1037/0012-1649.39.2.292 · Cited by 213
Self-citationLundgren, T., Dahl, J., Melin, L., & Kies, B. (2006) · Epilepsia · doi:10.1111/j.1528-1167.2006.00892.x · Cited by 211
Substance-Use Outcomes at 18 Months Past Baseline
Spoth, R. L., Redmond, C. R., Shin, C., Greenberg, M. T., Clair, S., & Feinberg, M. E. (2007) · American Journal of Preventive Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2007.01.014 · Cited by 203
Gifford, E. V., Kohlenberg, B. S., Hayes, S. C., Pierson, H. M., Piasecki, M. P., Antonuccio, D. O., & Palm, K. M. (2011) · Behavior Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.beth.2011.03.002 · Cited by 200
Self-citationPrice, public policy and smoking in young people
Lewit, E. M., Hyland, A. J., Kerrebrock, N., & Cummings, K. M. (1997) · Tobacco Control · doi:10.1136/tc.6.suppl_2.s17 · Cited by 200
Kellam, S. G., Werthamer‐Larsson, L., Dolan, L. J., Brown, C. H., Mayer, L. S., Rebok, G. W., Anthony, J. C., Laudolff, J., Edelsohn, G. A., & Wheeler, L. (1991) · American Journal of Community Psychology · doi:10.1007/bf00937992 · Cited by 200
Lundgren, T., Dahl, J., & Hayes, S. C. (2008) · Journal of Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1007/s10865-008-9151-x · Cited by 199
Self-citationHelping Adolescents at Risk: Prevention of Multiple Problem Behaviors
Biglan, A., Brennan, P. A., Foster, S., Hd, H., Cunningham, P. B., Derzon, J. H., Embry, D. D., Fishbein, D. H., Flay, B. R., Goeders, N., et al. (2003) · Cited by 198
Self-citationNiche-constructing phenotypes.
Odling-Smee, F. J. (1988) · Cited by 197
Analogy as a Source of Knowledge
Lorenz, K. Z. (1974) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.185.4147.229 · Cited by 194
Arch, J. J., Wolitzky-Taylor, K. B., Eifert, G. H., & Craske, M. G. (2012) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.brat.2012.04.007 · Cited by 194
Visions of Alternative (Unpredictable) Futures and Their Use in Policy Analysis
Costanza, R. (2000) · Conservation Ecology · doi:10.5751/es-00171-040105 · Cited by 193
Dynamical models of movement coordination
Beek, P. J., Peper, C. E., & Stegeman, D. F. (1995) · Human Movement Science · doi:10.1016/0167-9457(95)00028-5 · Cited by 192
Complexity Perspectives in Innovation and Social Change
Courgeau, D., West, G. B., Pumain, D., Franck, R., Lane, D. A., & Leeuw, S. E. (2009) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-9663-1 · Cited by 190
The good behavior game and the future of prevention and treatment.
Kellam, S. G., Mackenzie, A. C. L., Brown, C. H., PODUSKA, J. M., Wang, W., Petras, H., & Wilcox, H. C. (2011) · Europe PMC (PubMed Central) · Cited by 190
Project Northland: long-term outcomes of community action to reduce adolescent alcohol use
Perry, C. L. (2002) · Health Education Research · doi:10.1093/her/17.1.117 · Cited by 188
The Evolution of Ethnic Markers
Boyd, R. T., & Richerson, P. J. (1987) · Cultural Anthropology · doi:10.1525/can.1987.2.1.02a00070 · Cited by 188
Animal behavior: An evolutionary approach, 4th ed.
Alcock, J. (1989) · Cited by 187
Great Transition: The Promise and Lure of the Times Ahead
Gallopín, G. C., & Banuri, T. (2002) · Cited by 187
Pentz, M. A., Dwyer, J. H., MacKinnon, D. P., Flay, B. R., Hansen, W. B., Wang, E. Y. I., & Johnson, C. A. (1989) · PubMed · Cited by 187
Wolitzky-Taylor, K. B., Arch, J. J., Rosenfield, D., & Craske, M. G. (2012) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0029418 · Cited by 185
Wagenaar, A. C., Murray, D. M., & Toomey, T. L. (2000) · Addiction · doi:10.1046/j.1360-0443.2000.9522097.x · Cited by 185
Reputation is valuable within and outside one?s own social group
Semmann, D., Krambeck, H.-J., & Milinski, M. (2005) · Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology · doi:10.1007/s00265-004-0885-3 · Cited by 185
Masuda, A., Hayes, S. C., Fletcher, L. B., Seignourel, P. J., Bunting, K., Herbst, S. A., Twohig, M. P., & Lillis, J. (2007) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.brat.2007.05.008 · Cited by 185
Self-citationShahar, B., Britton, W. B., Sbarra, D. A., Figueredo, A. J., & Bootzin, R. R. (2010) · International Journal of Cognitive Therapy · doi:10.1521/ijct.2010.3.4.402 · Cited by 185
The evolution of associative learning: A factor in the Cambrian explosion
Ginsburg, S., & Jablonka, E. (2010) · Journal of Theoretical Biology · doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2010.06.017 · Cited by 184
Volcheck, G. W. (2001) · Annals of Allergy Asthma & Immunology · doi:10.1016/s1081-1206(10)63314-5 · Cited by 181
Pigliucci, M., & Kaplan, J. M. (2006) · University of Chicago Press eBooks · doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226668352.001.0001 · Cited by 179
Zettle, R. D., Rains, J. C., & Hayes, S. C. (2011) · Behavior Modification · doi:10.1177/0145445511398344 · Cited by 177
Self-citationSocial Traps and Environmental Policy
Costanza, R. (1987) · BioScience · doi:10.2307/1310564 · Cited by 176
The evolution of information in the major transitions
Jablonka, E., & Lamb, M. J. (2006) · Journal of Theoretical Biology · doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2005.08.038 · Cited by 176
Westin, V. Z., Schulin, M., Hesser, H., Karlsson, M., Noe, R. Z., Olofsson, U., Stalby, M., Wisung, G., & Andersson, G. (2011) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.brat.2011.08.001 · Cited by 175
From Neurons to Neighborhoods: Old and New Challenges for Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics
SHONKOFF, J. P. (2003) · Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics · doi:10.1097/00004703-200302000-00014 · Cited by 175
Research works printed but not linked: 18
- Ehrenreich, 1997, The new creationism: Biology under attack, The Nation, 264, 11
- Plotkin, 2003, The imagined world made real: Toward a natural science of culture
- Maus M. B. (2007) Independent group contingencies for reducing disruptive behavior in preschoolers with PDD-NOS. Doctoral dissertation, Hofstra University, 2006. No. 3247981. ProQuest. Available at: http://www.proquest.com.
- Daly, 1988, Homicide
- Hofstadter, 1959, Social Darwinism in American thought
- 2004, Psychotherapy: Three approaches evaluated
- Bennett M. M. (2007) An interdependent group contingency with mystery motivators to increase spelling performance. Doctoral dissertation, No. 3239791. ProQuest. Available at: http://www.proquest.com.
- Maynard Smith, 1995, The major transitions of life
- Stokes, 1978, Promoting participation in a community-based educational program, Journal of Personalized Instruction, 3, 29
- 10.3386/w15740 · DOI
- Aunger, 2002, The electric meme
- Chatwin, 1988, The songlines
- Gross, 1981, Public posting of photographs: A new classroom reinforcer, Child Behavior Therapy, 3, 81
- Wilson, 2012, Clash of paradigms: Why proponents of multilevel selection theory and inclusive fitness theory sometimes (but not always) misunderstand each other, Social Evolution Forum
- Kashdan, 2009, Curious: Discovering the missing ingredient to a fulfilling life
- Daly, 2001, An assessment of some proposed exceptions to the phenomenon of nepotistic discrimination against stepchildren, Annales Zoologici Fennici, 38, 287
- Wilson, 2011a, Evolution of selfless behaviour, New Scientist, 211, i
- Turchin, 2005, War and peace and war
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The natural selection of bad science
Smaldino, P. E., & McElreath, R. (2016) · Royal Society Open Science · doi:10.1098/rsos.160384 · Cited by 860
Ecology in an anthropogenic biosphere
Ellis, E. C. (2015) · Ecological Monographs · doi:10.1890/14-2274.1 · Cited by 641
Fonagy, P., Luyten, P., & Allison, E. (2015) · Journal of Personality Disorders · doi:10.1521/pedi.2015.29.5.575 · Cited by 572
Hayes, S. C., Barnes-Holmes, D., & Wilson, K. G. (2012) · Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science · doi:10.1016/j.jcbs.2012.09.004 · Cited by 409
Self-citationThe role of the individual in the coming era of process-based therapy
Hayes, S. C., Hofmann, S. G., Stanton, C. E., Carpenter, J. K., Sanford, B. T., Curtiss, J. E., & Ciarrochi, J. (2019) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.brat.2018.10.005 · Cited by 295
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Wilson, D. S., Hayes, S. C., Biglan, A., & Embry, D. D.
- Affiliations
- Binghamton University (US)
- University of Nevada, Reno (US)
- Oregon Research Institute (US)
- Venue
- Behavioral and Brain Sciences
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2014-05-15
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 395-416
- ISSN
- 0140-525X (ISSN-L)
- 1469-1825
- PMC
- PMC4331065
- OpenAlex
- W2044880034
- Cited by
- 255
- References
- 664
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 28 · 2015: 27 · 2014: 8
- FWCI
- 19.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Behavioral and Brain Sciences (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (RC2DA028946)
- Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD060922, HD60922)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Cultural Studies › Language and cultural evolution
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy of Biology and Scientific Explanation
- Keywords
- intentional change, behavior change, cultural change, phenotypic plasticity, evolution, symbolic thinking, evolutionary psychology, social constructivism, behaviorism, social psychology, cognitive psychology, applied behavioral science, variation and selection
- MeSH terms
- Behavioral Sciences, Behaviorism, Cultural Evolution, Humans
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
