Participants answered sociodemographic questions including sex, age, U.S. citizenship, U.S. state residency, relationship status, religious affiliation, ethnicity, education level, and sexual orientation (categorical). Mate Preferences Questionnaire Schmitt, D. P., & Buss, D. M. (2001). Human mate poaching: Tactics and temptations for infiltrating existing mateships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(6), 894–917. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.6.894. Short SD, Hawley PH. Evolutionary attitudes and literacy survey (EALS): development and validation of a short form. Evolution. 2012;5(3):419–28. Alters BJ, Alters S. Defending evolution in the classroom: a guide to the creation/evolution controversy. Burlington: Jones & Bartlett Learning; 2001. After making a reflective and informed decision on the number of factors to retain, and observing the specific items loading onto particular factors, our attention turned to construct validity of the individual items towards measurement of each dimension, which we call an acceptance sub- construct from here on. Given that a student’s appraisal of each item was rated on a Likert scale, we utilized the Rasch rating scale model (Andrich 1982) as a criterion for validity. Rasch models differ in philosophy from other models like IRT and classical test theory (CTT) in that Rasch provides a philosophical criterion for validity of the data as opposed to letting the model define the data. This practice of evaluating the quality of the data through a standard model is different from the statistical practice of fitting the model to the data, which the goal of IRT and CTT. Whether to use Rasch or IRT modeling for validation of tests and surveys has been debated contentiously for many years (Andrich 2004). This said, it is straightforward to argue that the Rasch approach better aligns with the laboratory practice of calibrating machines based on a fixed standard before their use. Further, use of a fixed standard better aligns with the scientific practice of falsification (Popper 1957; Lakatos 1976) than use of statistical data-fitting approaches. Beyond these epistemological advantages, the Rasch approach facilitates generation of item-independent estimates of acceptance and person-independent estimates of item difficulty (also true with IRT), generation of linear estimates, and the ability to map student and item measures along a common scale (Boone and Scantlebury 2006).

Rasch analysis gives compelling evidence for the usefulness of these items as a unidimensional measure, but as with the EFA, also suggests that a two-dimensional construction may increase the usefulness of the measure. When the 57 items are treated as measuring a single factor, acceptanceof evolution, they yield measures with a reliability of 0.98 (separation = 6.71). Further, 46 out of the 57 items (81%)fit the Rasch model well, indicating that most of the items provide useful measures for acceptance of evolution as a single dimension. Five of these items displayed at least one fit index (mean squares infit or outfit) above 1.50, while the other six items displayed a fit index above 1.30. Hogan K. Exploring a process view of students’ knowledge about the nature of science. Sci Educ. 2000;84(1):51–70. Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: an evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100(2), 204–232. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204. Henson RK, Roberts JK. Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research: common errors and some comment on improved practice. Educ Psychol Measur. 2006;66(3):393–416.Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The development (and deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(1), 101–117. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.1.101. 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 Nehm RH, Schonfeld IS. Does increasing biology teacher knowledge of evolution and the nature of science lead to greater preference for the teaching of evolution in schools? J Sci Teacher Educ. 2007;18:699–723. This versatile tool is the perfect way to introduce the concept of measurement to young learners in an outdoor setting.

Romine WL, Todd AN, Clark TB. How do undergraduate students conceptualize acid–base chemistry? Measurement of a concept progression. Sci Educ. 2016;100(6):1150–83. Schmitt N, Stuits DM. Factors defined by negatively keyed items: the result of careless respondents? Appl Psychol Meas. 1985;9(4):367–73. Donnelly LA, Kazempour M, Amirshokoohi A. High school students’ perceptions of evolution instruction: acceptance and evolution learning experiences. Res Sci Educ. 2009;39:643–60. Figueredo, A. J., Vásquez, G., Brumbach, B. H., Schneider, S. M., Sefcek, J. A., Tal, I. R., … Jacobs, W. J. (2006). Consilience and life history theory: From genes to brain to reproductive strategy. Developmental Review, 26(2), 243–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2006.02.002. Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100(2), 204–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.2.204.

Rosengren KS, Brem SK, Evans EM, Sinatra GM, editors. Evolution challenges: Integrating research and practice in teaching and learning about evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012. Steiger JH. Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment in structural equation modeling. Person Individ Differ. 2007;42(5):893–8. Romine WL, Walter EM, Bosse E, Todd AN. Understanding patterns of evolution acceptance—a new implementation of the Measure of Acceptance of the Theory of Evolution (MATE) with Midwestern university students. J Res Sci Teach. 2017;54(5):642–71. Qian, Z. (2005). Breaking the last taboo: interracial marriage in America. Contexts. doi: 10.1525/ctx.2005.4.4.33.

Patch, E. A., & Figueredo, A. J. (2017). Childhood stress, life history, psychopathy, and sociosexuality. Personality and Individual Differences, 115, 108–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.04.023. Deniz H, Donnelly LA, Yilmaz I. Exploring the factors related to acceptance of evolutionary theory among Turkish preservice biology teachers: toward a more informative conceptual ecology for biological evolution. J Res Sci Teach. 2008;45:420–43. Nadelson LS, Southerland S. A more fine-grained measure of students’ acceptance of evolution: development of the Inventory of Student Evolution Acceptance—I-SEA. Int J Sci Educ. 2012;34(11):1637–66. Nadelson 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. Costello AB, Osborne JW. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Pract Assess Res Eval. 2005;10(7):1–9.Jonason, P. K., & Buss, D. M. (2012). Avoiding entangling commitments: Tactics for implementing a short-term mating strategy. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(5), 606–610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.12.015. Webster, G. D., Jonason, P. K., & Schember, T. O. (2009). Hot topics and popular papers in evolutionary psychology: analyses of title words and citation counts in evolution and human behavior, 1979–2008. Evolutionary Psychology, 7(3), 348–362.