1980
DOI: 10.1163/156853980x00087
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Interpretation of Individual Differences in Rhesus Monkey Infants

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

1995
1995
2005
2005

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 35 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Moreover, for some arguments a luck of effect is relevant. Because of our need to work with a number of variables, we consider how they could be correlated using correlations identified by Simpson and Howe (1980) and, for the present study, a cluster analysis to find linked measures correlated for scores for saline (control) treatment in each age group (Pearson correlation linkage in a Ward (centroid) minimum variance method: SYSTAT, 1992). We have excluded measures that were redundant.…”
Section: Datamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, for some arguments a luck of effect is relevant. Because of our need to work with a number of variables, we consider how they could be correlated using correlations identified by Simpson and Howe (1980) and, for the present study, a cluster analysis to find linked measures correlated for scores for saline (control) treatment in each age group (Pearson correlation linkage in a Ward (centroid) minimum variance method: SYSTAT, 1992). We have excluded measures that were redundant.…”
Section: Datamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Studies employing multivariate techniques have demonstrated that monkey mother±infant relationships vary along a limited number of independent dimensions. Among these are always found maternal protectiveness and maternal rejection, two dimensions of maternal style that vary independently from one another (Fairbanks & McGuire, 1987;Simpson & Howe 1980;Tanaka, 1989).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The devisers of the original indices clearly stated the limitations of using a single index to describe mother-infant relationships [4,10]. Such indices are most useful when presented in conjunction with other data, including the frequency of restraining, beckoning and rejecting behaviour exhibited by the mother [10,[14][15][16][17]. These indices deserve continued, careful use by researchers investigating dyadic relationships.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%