Contents - Konrad Lorenz Institute

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Steven M. Platek Accounting for Genetically Unrelated Children: Step- and Adopted Children A slight modification of this model can also be used to account for how a male might invest resources in children to whom he is certain to be genetically unrelated, such as step-children, foster and adopted children. If a child is unrelated to the male, then there is no need to take into account the denominator term (C) of the equation presented in equations (3) and (6) above. In other words, if resemblance affects males as we predict it does, then investment in unrelated children ought to be directly related to the degree to which unrelated children also resemble the male. Therefore, PatI (UnRel) = P 1/i /1 (7) This equation takes into account only the effects that resemblance has on the male’s reactions toward the child, which may translate into investment strategies as we have shown in our behavioral studies (e.g., PLATEK et al. 2002), because he will be 100% certain that the children he is caring for share no genes in common with him. This modification of the model may be less important for understanding human evolution than it might be for understanding how males react to non-genetically related children and may provide insight for social welfare practice in placing children with foster or adoptive parents. Accounting for Suspicion of Cuckoldry for Any One Child If a male suspects that any one of his children are the result of his partner having cuckolded him, then this ought to raise uncertainties about the paternity of his other children; i.e., his partners general faithfulness toward him. Thus, the degree of genetic relatedness term (G), but not C k , is affected by the number of children he has if he is concerned that one of those children were the product of an EPC, which will increase the theoretical threshold for investing resources in any of his other children, affected by an increased or reinstatement of a generalized skepticism about paternity. Such a male may need to re-assess resemblance to all of his children, something that he would have otherwise not had to do. PatI (Sus 1) = P/G 1/i C k (8) Thus, the probability of paternal investment when the male suspects one child is the byproduct of cuckoldry (PatI (Sus 1) ) = P/C' or P'/C' (9) where C' is equal to the denominator term of equation (8). Equation (9) increases the threshold with which the level of paternal investment needed to reach a level equivalent to that if there was no suspicion of cuckoldry about any one of his children. Kin Selection and the Social Mirror Effect The effects of the social mirror may be mediated in part or in whole by the individual(s) who provide the information to the male (e.g., is this person a genetic relative or not). In other words, kin selection may play a role in the way males react toward social mirror information. With this in mind, the model may be modified to account for this by altering P rs. P rs becomes the mean proportion of time that someone says a child resemble the putative father coded for the degree of genetic relatedness of the person providing the information. People who share 50% or more of their genes in common with the male are coded as 1. Those sharing 25% of their genes in common with the male are coded as .5. Those sharing .25% of their genes in common with the male are coded as .125, and so on. Thus the less someone is genetically related to the male, the less credence their social mirror information should have on influencing the male’s decisions about whether to invest or not. This mean or proportion codes becomes P rs in equations (3, 6, 7, or 9). According to this modification, when someone shares no genes in common with the male, but attempts to assure resemblance using the social mirror the degree of paternal investment should drop to zero, which is similar to the deception model (equation 6) presented above. Concluding Comments Clearly, it is over-simplistic to think that paternal resemblance and the probability of cuckoldry are the only forces that affect paternal investment. As well, it is likely that there are as intricate dimensions to the amount of maternal investment allocated that have yet to be elucidated clearly. However, paternal certainty clearly plays an important role in the in- Evolution and Cognition ❘ 196 ❘ 2003, Vol. 9, No. 2
An Evolutionary Model of the Effects of Human Paternal Resemblance on Paternal Investment vestment of children and, therefore, models that help clarify the mechanisms involved in a male making a determination about paternity and investment strategy will aid in understanding investment decisions and paternal abuse. This is a theoretical paper, a working hypothesis of the ways in which these phenomena might be having effects on human offspring viability and in no way suggest these Author’s address Steven M. Platek, Department of Psychology, Drexel University, 245 N. 15th St., Mail Stop 626, 10th Floor Bellet Bldg., Philadelphia, PA 19102 Email: steven.m.platek@drexel.edu are the only mechanisms that are responsible in this process. However, each of the hypotheses is presented in clearly testable, empirically falsifiable ways. Acknowledgements The author thanks Gordon GALLUP and Todd SHACK- ELFORD for comments on an earlier version of this manuscript. References Bressan P./Dal Martello M. F. (2002) Talis pater, talis filius: Perceived resemblance and the belief in genetic relatedness. Psychol Sci. 13: 213–218. Burch, R. L./Gallup, G. G. Jr. (2000) Perceptions of paternal resemblance predict domestic violence. Evolution and Human Behavior 21: 429–435. Burch, R. L./Gallup, G. G. Jr. (under review) Domestic violence as a stimulus for pregnancy. Journal of Family Violence. Buss, D. M. (2000) The Dangerous Passion: Why Jealousy Is as Necessary as Sex and Love. Free Press: New York. Cerda-Flores, R. M./Barton, S. A./Marty-Gonzales, L. F./Rivas, F./ Chakraborty, R. (1999) Estimation of nonpaternity in the Mexican population of Nuevo Leon: A validation study with blood group markers. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 109: 281–293. Christenfeld, N. J. S./Hill, E. A. (1995) Whose baby are you Nature 378: 669. Daly, M./Wilson, M. (1983) Sex, Evolution, and Behavior. Second Edition. Willard Grant: Boston. Daly, M./Wilson, M. (1982) Whom are new born babies said to resemble Ethology and Sociobiology 3: 69–78. Daly, M./Wilson, M./Weghorst, S. (1983) Male sexual jealousy. Ethology and Sociobiology 3: 11–27. Davis, J. N./Todd, P. M. (1999) Parental investment by simple decision rules, In: Gigerenzer, G./Todd, P. M. (eds) Simple Heuristics that Make Us Smart. Oxford University Press: New York. Geary, D. C. (2000) Evolution and proximate expression of human paternal investment. Psychological Bulletin 126: 55–77. Gigerenzer, G./Todd, P. M. (1999) Simple Heuristics that Make Us Smart. Oxford University Press: New York. Hauber, M. E./Sherman, P. W. (2001) Self-referent phenotype matching: Theoretical considerations and empirical evidence. Trends in Neuroscience 24: 609–616. MacIntyre, S./Sooman, A. (1991) Non-paternity and prenatal genetic screening. Lancet 338: 869–871. Macaluso, E./Frith, C. D./Driver, J. (2000) Modulation of Human visual cortex by cross modal spatial attention. Science 289: 1206–1208. Mealey, L. (2003) Paper presented at annual meeting of the Human Behavior and Evolution Society, Lincoln NE. Nesse, R./Silverman, A./Bortz, A. (1990) Sex differences in ability to recognize family resemblance. Ethology and Sociobiology 11: 11–21. Platek, S. M. (2002) Unconscious reaction to children’s faces: The effect of resemblance. Evolution and Cognition 8: 207–214. Platek, S. M./Burch, R. L./Panyavin, I. S./Wasserman, B. H./ Gallup, G. G. Jr. (2002) Reaction to children’s faces: Resemblance matters more for males than for females. Evolution and Human Behavior 23 :159–166. Platek, S. M./Critton, S. R./Burch, R. L./Frederick, D. A./Myers, T. E./Gallup, G. G. Jr. (2003) How much resemblance is enough Sex differences in reactions toward children’s faces, but not in detection of resemblance. Evolution and Human Behavior 24: 81–87. Platek, S. M./Davis, J. A./Mohamed, F. B./Gallup, G. G. Jr. (under review) Children on the mind: Sex differences in neural correlates of facial resemblance. Evolution and Human Behavior. Regalski, J. M./Gaulin, S. J. C. (1993) Whom are Mexican newborns said to resemble Monitoring and fostering paternal confidence in the Yucatan. Ethology and Sociobiology 14: 97–113. Sasse, G./Muller, H./Chakraborty, R./Ott, J. (1994) Estimating the frequency of non-paternity in Switzerland. Human Heredity 44: 337–343. Schact, L. E./Gershowitz, H. (1963) Frequency of extra-marital children as determined by bloodgroups. In: Proceedings of the Second International Congress in Human Genetics, pp. 894–897. Sherman, P. W./Morton, M. L. (1988) Extra-pair fertilizations in mountain white-crowned sparrows. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 22: 413–420. Sykes, B./Irven, C. (2000) Surnames and the Y chromosome. American Journal of Human Genetics 66: 1417–1419. Westneat, D. F./Sherman, P. W. (1997) Density and extrapair fertilizations in birds: A comparative analysis. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 41: 205–215. Wilson, E. O. (2000) Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. 25th Anniversary Edition. Presidents and Fellows of Harvard College. Harvard University Press: Cambridge. Evolution and Cognition ❘ 197 ❘ 2003, Vol. 9, No. 2
Page 1 and 2:
Contents Arthur S. Reber 102 Some P
Page 3 and 4:
Some Perhaps Surprising Consequence
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
The Effect of Fertility Risk on Rel
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Steve Stewart-Williams Darwin and D
Page 25 and 26:
Darwin and Descartes’ Demon task
Page 27 and 28:
Darwin and Descartes’ Demon exter
Page 29 and 30:
Darwin and Descartes’ Demon tive
Page 31 and 32:
Sanjida O’Connell/R. I. M. Dunbar
Page 33 and 34:
A Test for Comprehension of False B
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Fredric J. Heeren Was the First Cra
Page 43 and 44:
Was the First Craniate on the Road
Page 45 and 46: Was the First Craniate on the Road
Page 57 and 58: Ingo Brigandt Gestalt Experiments a
Page 59 and 60: Gestalt Experiments and Inductive O
Page 71 and 72: Theresa S. S. Schilhab Vertical and
Page 73 and 74: Vertical and Horizontal Learning mi
Page 75 and 76: Vertical and Horizontal Learning as
Page 77 and 78: Vertical and Horizontal Learning Co
Page 79 and 80: Of Brains and Minds does not detrac
Page 81 and 82: Of Brains and Minds brates. Instead
Page 83 and 84: Of Brains and Minds urges, while ne
Page 85 and 86: Of Brains and Minds signs of locali
Page 87 and 88: Of Brains and Minds References Ayal
Page 89 and 90: Steven M. Platek An Evolutionary Mo
Page 91 and 92: An Evolutionary Model of the Effect
Page 93 and 94: An Evolutionary Model of the Effect
Page 95: An Evolutionary Model of the Effect
Page 99 and 100: Zusammenfassungen der Artikel in de
show all

Contents - Konrad Lorenz Institute

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?