{"title":"给邓特利、沙克尔福德和小特尔的回信","authors":"L. Ellis","doi":"10.1080/19485565.2004.9989094","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"I am grateful to Drs. Tittle, Duntley, and Shackelford for their comments and I will make my responses to their ideas brief. Let me begin by reiterating three major themes contained in the target article. First, an inverse relationship between serious persistent victimful forms of criminality and social status is now well established (especially regarding individual, as opposed to parental, social status), and needs to be theoretically explained","PeriodicalId":76544,"journal":{"name":"Social biology","volume":"51 1","pages":"171 - 173"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2004-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/19485565.2004.9989094","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A reply to Duntley, Shackelford, and Tittle\",\"authors\":\"L. Ellis\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/19485565.2004.9989094\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"I am grateful to Drs. Tittle, Duntley, and Shackelford for their comments and I will make my responses to their ideas brief. Let me begin by reiterating three major themes contained in the target article. First, an inverse relationship between serious persistent victimful forms of criminality and social status is now well established (especially regarding individual, as opposed to parental, social status), and needs to be theoretically explained\",\"PeriodicalId\":76544,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social biology\",\"volume\":\"51 1\",\"pages\":\"171 - 173\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2004-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/19485565.2004.9989094\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social biology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/19485565.2004.9989094\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social biology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19485565.2004.9989094","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
I am grateful to Drs. Tittle, Duntley, and Shackelford for their comments and I will make my responses to their ideas brief. Let me begin by reiterating three major themes contained in the target article. First, an inverse relationship between serious persistent victimful forms of criminality and social status is now well established (especially regarding individual, as opposed to parental, social status), and needs to be theoretically explained
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
