Buunk, A. P., & Fisher, M. (2009). Individual differences in intrasexual competition. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 7(1), 37–48. https://doi.org/10.1556/JEP.7.2009.1.5. Significant work has been done towards exploring the relationship between knowledge of evolution and acceptance of evolutionary theory (Nadelson and Southerland 2010; Romine et al. 2017). However, it is currently difficult to tease out how much of this relationship is due to the fact that evolution acceptance as it is currently being measured reflects knowledge of evolution. The MATE has been criticized on the grounds that it possibly conflates knowledge of evolution with acceptance of evolutionary theory (Hogan 2000; Smith 2010; Wagler and Wagler 2013), and both the MATE and the I-SEA are criticized on the grounds that they are not tied to a theoretical foundation for evolution acceptance (Smith et al. 2016). Purpose of the Research Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (1990). Toward an evolutionary history of female sociosexual variation. Journal of Personality, 58(1), 69–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1990.tb00908.x.

Gangestad, S. W., & Simpson, J. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(04), 573–587. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0000337X. Millsap, R. E. (2012). Statistical approaches to measurement invariance. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203821961.We also find that the two-dimensional parametrization aligns well with the more recent model of Ha et al. ( 2012), which describes evolution acceptance as manifesting through both conscious and unconscious neurological pathways. Our acceptance of truth dimension aligns most closely with the unconscious pathway which is based upon a student’s intuitive feeling of certainty. For example, evolution is a good explanation for how humans first emerged on the earth (from the GAENE) solicits an appraisal based on one’s feeling of certainty built from extracurricular experience, and not necessarily analysis of the credibility of an idea based on logic. On the other hand, the rejection of incredible ideas dimension aligns most closely with the student’s conscious, reflective thinking supported by his/her process of understanding and logical reasoning around conceptual ideas underlying evolutionary theory. For example, expressing disagreement with the statement, species were created to be perfectly suited to their environment, so they do not change (from the I-SEA) requires a student to first consider the specific idea and then decide to reject that idea. Although the decision to reject an idea is affective in nature, it is in itself a comparatively logical and reflective process.

Bentler PM, Bonnet DC. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychol Bull. 1980;88(3):588–606. Johnson RL, Peeples EE. The role of scientific understanding in college: student acceptance of evolution. Am Biol Teacher. 1987;49:93–6. Factor analysis using exploratory and confirmatory methods, and Rasch analyses, suggested that a two-dimensional factor structure best describes the corpus of items. Whether the item was positively or negatively worded was the key delimiter in its factor assignment. Examination of the highest loading items on the respective factors indicates that the first factor measures acceptance of the truth of evolution and the second factor measures rejection of incredible ideas about evolution. The correlation of these two factors is 0.73, indicating that they share 53% of their variance with each other. When treated unidimensionally, eleven items exhibited potential misfit with the Rasch model. This number dropped to nine items when the two factors were considered. These items, and implications for future use of the MATE, GAENE, and I-SEA together, are discussed in detail. ConclusionsNadelson LS, Southerland SA. Examining the interaction of acceptance and understanding: how does the relationship change with a focus on macroevolution. Evolution. 2010;4:82–8. Brown, T. A. (2003). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire: Multiple factors or method effects? Behaviour Research and Therapy, 41(12), 1411–1426. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(03)00059-7. Figueredo, A. J., Cuthbertson, A. M., Kauffman, I. A., Weil, E., & Gladden, P. R. (2012). The interplay of behavioral dispositions and cognitive abilities: Sociosexual orientation, emotional intelligence, executive functions and life history strategy. Temas em Psicologia, 20(1), 87–100.