Figure 1 - uploaded by Jan Antfolk
Content may be subject to copyright.
The hypothesized relationship between true relatedness, kinship cues, putative relatedness, emotional closeness, and investment. Each arrow denotes a positive association.

The hypothesized relationship between true relatedness, kinship cues, putative relatedness, emotional closeness, and investment. Each arrow denotes a positive association.

Source publication
Article
Full-text available
In general, adults invest more in related children compared to unrelated children. To test whether this pattern reflects variations in psychological kinship estimates (i.e., putative relatedness weighted by certainty in relatedness), willingness to invest in children belonging to different categories (direct offspring, nieces/nephews, stepchildren,...

Context in source publication

Context 1
... evolutionary model (Figure 1) assumes that kinship cues are valid indicators of true relatedness. Putative related- ness follows from the available kinship cues. ...

Citations

... Though kinship has most often referred to ties between immediate family members, the relationship between patient and therapist has often served both as its own relationship and as an intermediary between family members (Blow and Karam 2017). Therapy relationships have often been labeled as "psychological kinship," where emotional intimacy and relatedness become key dimensions of a positive psychotherapy experience (Antfolk et al. 2017;Bailey, Wood, and Nava 1992). Whether patients are working to better understand and gain insight about their families of origins, their romantic and sexual relationships, their friendships, or their coworkers/bosses, or whether patients include their family members in their therapy directly, the therapist's role is often one of understanding, evaluating, treating, and working with kinship relationships while also forming a kinship relationship with patients (Minuchin, Reiter, and Borda 2013). ...
Article
While therapist matching between patient and therapist based on race and gender has received much scholarly attention, and some work has examined fatness in therapy for either the patient or the therapist, little has been written about therapies that involve fat therapists and fat patients. This manuscript explores the psychological kinship of the patient and therapist relationship when both identify as fat, particularly as connected to therapeutic work on self, body, and family relationships. I draw from four case studies from the last two years of my therapeutic practice (shared within the context of an IRB-approved study) in order to make specific and broader speculations about the ways that being a fat therapist working with a fat patient informed the therapeutic work. Specifically, I discuss six areas of focus in working as a fat therapist with fat patients: food struggles, body image, attachment/loss, medical challenges, fat stigma, and family conflict. Solidarities around fat oppression, reimagining fatness in family and couples dynamics, and situating therapists as needing to do fat-affirmative work were all explored.
... relatives (see also Fitzgerald and Whitaker 2009;Stewart-Williams 2007, 2008. In a more recent study (Antfolk et al. 2017), willingness to invest in children belonging to different categories-direct offspring, nieces/nephews, stepchildren, and friends' children-was assessed in a large population of adults. It turned out that they reported more willingness to invest in their own biological children than in other related children (nieces and nephews), or in stepchildren and friends' children in hypothetical scenarios (e.g., willingness to give a kidney, half of a month's salary). ...
Article
Full-text available
The survival processing advantage in memory is the finding that items encoded in survival scenarios are remembered better than words encoded in survival-irrelevant scenarios or in deep encoding situations (e.g., pleasantness). Whether this mnemonic advantage, which is generally found in scenarios involving personal survival, can also be observed in scenarios involving the survival of other people, and in particular, genetically related others, has received little attention. In the present study, we asked nulliparous women to imagine being stranded in the grasslands of a foreign land without any basic survival items and to consider either their personal survival, the survival of their biological child, or the survival of an orphan. Compared to a pleasantness (control) condition, a survival processing advantage was found for the child survival group, which did not differ reliably from personal survival. Both the child and the personal survival conditions yielded better recall than the orphan condition, which did not reliably differ from the pleasantness condition. These findings provide further evidence for the view that memory has been sculpted by evolutionary processes such as inclusive fitness.
... The first is the physiological relationship between the mother and the child due to the kinship (Antfolk et al., 2017). For example, you can be sure that the child you gave birth is a biological child. ...
Article
Full-text available
Scientific research cooperation has become a mainstream trend of social development. It can promote resource sharing, help group members complement each other’s advantages, and improve scientific research efficiency. With the deepening of scientific research cooperation, there have also been problems such as the uneven strength of partners, gender discrimination, and group exclusionary behavior. People often explore the causes of these problems in terms of the process of scientific research cooperation, but doing so fails to solve the substantive problems effectively. We thus seek to trace the psychology of people participating in scientific research cooperation from the perspective of evolutionary psychology so as to analyze the root causes of scientific research cooperation problems. This paper first discusses the importance of scientific research cooperation, then enumerates common problems in scientific research cooperation, analyzes them from the perspective of evolutionary psychology, and proposes solutions to these problems from the perspective of regulating people’s psychology. This article illustrates how the many perspectives and theories of evolutionary psychology can solve problems in other disciplines and fields, and indeed that all human social activities can be explained by evolutionary psychology, which opens up a broader field of research for evolutionary psychology.
... Because the relatedness of an individual and his or her direct offspring is larger than the relatedness between an individual and more distant relatives, behaviors leading to investment in direct offspring have been selected for more strongly relative to behaviors that lead to investment in more distant kin. Both women and men invest more in their own children relative to their nieces and nephews (Antfolk et al. 2017). Conversely, behaviors that negatively influence a child's fitness (e.g., physical and/or sexual abuse) are more likely to be directed toward nieces and nephews than toward one's own children (Kresanov et al. 2018). ...
Chapter
central tenet of nineteenth-century English naturalist Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution is the inheritance of traits from parent to offspring. These shared traits are—at least in part—the result of shared genetic material. To that end, natural selection favors genes that, when in a parent, are associated with optimizing their overall repro- ductive output. By contrast, genes in offspring have been selected to elicit a maximum amount of investment from their caregivers, even if this comes at a cost to the parents’ overall reproductive output. These unequal selective pres- sures result in the evolution of contrasting strategies in parents and their offspring; a phenomenon known as parent-offspring conflict.
... Notably, there is insufficient evidence to support biologically "essential" differences between mothers and fathers in terms of parenting, and fathers' and the mothers' roles have become increasingly similar (Fagan, Day, Lamb, & Cabrera, 2014). Instead, mothers and fathers report equal preparedness to invest in their children (Antfolk, Karlsson, S€ oderlund, & Szala, 2017) and single parents often take over parenting tasks typically performed by the other gender (Biblarz & Stacey, 2010). Cross-cultural evidence further suggests that mothers are warmer and more accepting in some cultures whereas fathers are warmer in others (Putnick et al., 2012). ...
... Same-sex households also allow us to examine the interactions between parental gender and biological relatedness in parental characteristics and parent-child activities. 1 Lesbianmother households often have one biological mother and one non-biological mother (Lofquist, 2011). Because parents generally invest more in their biological children than nonrelated children (Antfolk et al., 2017) and the absence of a biological link between a mother and child has been indicated to have adverse effects on the parent-child relationship in families formed through reproductive donation (Golombok, Ilioi, Blake, Roman, & Jadva, 2017), biological and non-biological mothers in lesbian families may adopt different roles in the family and, thereby, leave different impressions on their children. Indeed, biological mothers in lesbian households tend to shoulder greater caretaking responsibilities compared to non-biological mothers (Brewaeys et al., 1997;Chan, Brooks, Raboy, & Patterson, 1998). ...
Article
Full-text available
Comparisons of children’s perceptions of lesbian mothers to children’s perceptions of heterosexual parents are limited. To investigate whether children’s descriptions of their parents vary by family type (lesbian versus heterosexual) and biological relatedness, we interviewed 29 Finnish children raised by lesbian mothers or heterosexual parents. Parents also completed surveys about division of childcare responsibilities and on six parenting dimensions. We found no systematic differences between the parent types. A clustering of parents based on the descriptions indicated neither family type, parent gender, or biological relatedness systematically explained the variation in children’s descriptions of parents. Implications of our findings are discussed. Contrary to earlier findings, perceptions were similar across parent types, suggesting that perceptions might be shaped primarily by parents’ actual behavior and not by social categories such as gender and relatedness.
... Studies comparing the rate of stepchildren in familicides to the general population show that step relationships are overrepresented in the familicide samples (Wilson et al., 1995;Wilson & Daly, 1997). This finding is in line with research indicating that parents do not invest in stepchildren to the same degree as in biological children (Antfolk, Karlsson, Söderlund, & Szala, 2017;Henretta, Van Voorhis, & Soldo, 2014;Kalil, Ryan, & Chor, 2014) and that children have a higher risk of becoming physically and sexually abused by a stepparent than by a biological parent (Archer, 2013;Daly & Wilson, 1985Hilton, Harris, & Rice, 2015;Sariola & Uutela, 1996). This "Cinderella effect" can be partially explained by parents being emotionally more close to biological children, and by evolutionary assumptions, stipulating that natural selection has promoted parental investment in biological children, as these, in contrast to stepchildren, share the parent's genetic material Karlsson, Malén, Kaakinen, & Antfolk, 2018;Trivers, 1972). ...
... Studies comparing the rate of stepchildren in familicides to the general population show that step relationships are overrepresented in the familicide samples (Wilson et al., 1995;Wilson & Daly, 1997). This finding is in line with research indicating that parents do not invest in stepchildren to the same degree as in biological children (Antfolk, Karlsson, Söderlund, & Szala, 2017;Henretta, Van Voorhis, & Soldo, 2014;Kalil, Ryan, & Chor, 2014), and that children have a higher risk of becoming physically and sexually abused by a stepparent than by a biological parent (Archer, 2013;Daly & Wilson, 1985Hilton, Harris, & Rice, 2015;Sariola & Uutela, 1996). This "Cinderella effect" can be partially explained by parents being emotionally more close to biological children, and by evolutionary assumptions, stipulating that natural selection has promoted parental investment in biological children, as these, in contrast to stepchildren, share the parent's genetic material Karlsson, Malén, Kaakinen, & Antfolk, 2018;Trivers, 1972). ...
Article
Familicides have received relatively little attention and are mostly discussed in studies with broader aims. Here, we reviewed 67 studies from 18 countries on familicides, in which an offender killed or attempted to kill their current or former spouse/intimate partner and one or more of their biological or stepchildren. We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar. Eight studies investigated familicide specifically, while the remaining reported on familicide cases as a subsample. We retrieved data on offenders’ gender, age, and background, as well as on victims and their relationship to the offender. We also retrieved data on contextual factors and offense characteristics (i.e., modus operandi, offense location, premeditation, and whether or not the offender had committed suicide). We also coded methodological aspects of the studies. Familicides were almost exclusively committed by men and about half of the familicide cases led to the suicide of the offender. Mental health problems, relationship problems, and financial difficulties were prevalent. Because few studies reported population base rates of the investigated characteristics, it is difficult to draw conclusions about specific risk factors. Future research should further investigate typologies of familicide and examine risk factors for different types of familicides.
... Several studies have indicated that males, due to paternity uncertainty, should rely more heavily on resemblance to children, as a cue of genetic relatedness, for investment decisions than females (Daly & Wilson, 1982;Apicella & Marlowe, 2004;Platek et al., 2002;Burch & Gallup, 2000;McLain et al., 2000;Heijkoop, Dubas & Van Aken, 2009), but few have extended and investigated this prediction regarding grandparental investment (see, however, Euler & Weitzel, 1996;Schlee & Kirchengast, 2015;Pashos & McBurney, 2008). Also, putative relatedness weighted by certainty in relatedness, better predict willingness to invest in kin than putative relatedness alone (Antfolk et al., 2017), and kin selection theory is also supported by studies comparing investments by grandparents and step-grandparents (Pashos, Schwarz & Bjorklund, 2016;Gray & Brogdon, 2017). In fitness terms, grandparental investments can be viewed as an extension of parental investment, or as Euler & Weitzel (1996) points out, as a "differentiated subset of parental effort." ...
Article
Full-text available
Paternity uncertainty has proven to be a robust ultimate hypothesis for predicting the higher investment in grandchildren observed among maternal grandparents compared to that of the paternal grandparents. Yet the proximate mechanisms for generating such preferred biases in grandparental investment remain unclear. Here we address two different questions for better understanding the proximate mechanisms leading to the observed bias in grandparental investments: (i) is there a larger emphasis on resemblance descriptions (between grandchildren and grandparent) among daughters than among sons, and (ii) do mothers really believe that their offspring more resemble their parents, that is, the children’s grandparents, than fathers do? From questioning grandparents, we find that daughters more often and more intensely than sons express opinions about grandchild–grandparent resemblance. Moreover, daughters also seem to believe that their children more resemble their grandmother than sons do. The latter is, however, not the case for beliefs about children’s resemblance to grandfathers. In sum, our results suggest that even in a population of Norwegians, strongly influenced by ideas concerning gender equality, there exist a sexual bias among parents in opinions and descriptions about grandchild–grandparent resemblance. This resemblance bias, which echoes that of mothers biasing resemblance descriptions of newborns to putative fathers, does not seem to represent a conscious manipulation. Yet it could be instrumental for influencing grandparental investments. We believe that a “manipulative mother hypothesis” might parsimoniously account for many of the results relating to biased alloparenting hitherto not entirely explained by “the paternity uncertainty hypothesis.”
... Indeed, studies generally support this hypothesis. Both women and men invest more in own children compared to their nieces and nephews (e.g., Antfolk et al. 2017), and behaviors that negatively affect a child (e.g., sexual abuse) are less likely to be directed towards own children compared to nieces and nephews (e.g., Kresanov et al. 2018). Although the lack of biological relatedness is reflected in relatively decreased positive investment and increased risk of abuse, investment in stepchildren, adoptive children, and foster childrenwho in the majority of cases are not biologically related to their caregiveris in most cases considerably higher than investment in unrelated children outside the family (e.g., Antfolk et al. 2017). ...
... Both women and men invest more in own children compared to their nieces and nephews (e.g., Antfolk et al. 2017), and behaviors that negatively affect a child (e.g., sexual abuse) are less likely to be directed towards own children compared to nieces and nephews (e.g., Kresanov et al. 2018). Although the lack of biological relatedness is reflected in relatively decreased positive investment and increased risk of abuse, investment in stepchildren, adoptive children, and foster childrenwho in the majority of cases are not biologically related to their caregiveris in most cases considerably higher than investment in unrelated children outside the family (e.g., Antfolk et al. 2017). In this context, it is important to note that regardless of whether a child is the biological descendant of the parent or not, a particular parental behavior is likely to have similar effects on the well-being of the child in question. ...
Chapter
Good parenting qualities are commonly defined as parental behavior that increases a child’s chances of good health, happiness, and success. Such parental behaviors can include everything from the provision of fundamental resources, such as nutrition and shelter, to modeling good relationship skills and encouraging a healthy lifestyle. Depending on cultural context and values, parental behaviors can also include different forms of education, spiritual guidance, and informing children about expectations and norms that will help them navigate society later in life. Understandably, what is seen as being good parenting is often determined by the effects parental behavior have on the child’s personal development – the evaluation of which is, at least partly, defined by cultural norms and subject to variation over time.
... Several studies have indicated that males, due to paternity uncertainty, should rely more heavily on resemblance to children, as a cue of genetic relatedness, for investment decisions than females (Daly & Wilson, 1982;Apicella & Marlowe, 2004;Platek et al., 2002;Burch & Gallup, 2000;McLain et al., 2000;Heijkoop, Dubas & Van Aken, 2009), but few have extended and investigated this prediction regarding grandparental investment (see, however, Euler & Weitzel, 1996;Schlee & Kirchengast, 2015;Pashos & McBurney, 2008). Also, putative relatedness weighted by certainty in relatedness, better predict willingness to invest in kin than putative relatedness alone (Antfolk et al., 2017), and kin selection theory is also supported by studies comparing investments by grandparents and step-grandparents (Pashos, Schwarz & Bjorklund, 2016;Gray & Brogdon, 2017). In fitness terms, grandparental investments can be viewed as an extension of parental investment, or as Euler & Weitzel (1996) points out, as a "differentiated subset of parental effort." ...
Preprint
Full-text available
Paternity uncertainty has proven to be a robust ultimate hypothesis for predicting the higher investment in grandchildren observed among maternal grandparents compared to that of the paternal grandparents. Yet, the proximate mechanisms for generating such preferred biases in grandparental investment remain unclear. Here we address two different questions for better understanding the proximate mechanisms leading to the observed bias in grandparental investments: ( i ) is there a larger emphasis on resemblance descriptions (between grandchildren and grandparent) among daughters than among sons, and ( ii ) do mothers really believe that their offspring more resemble their parents, i.e., the children’s grandparents, than fathers do? From questioning grandparents, we find that daughters more often and more intensely than sons express opinions about resemblance between their children and their parents, i.e., about grandchild-grandparent resemblance. Moreover, daughters also seem to believe that their children more resemble their grandmother than sons do. The latter is however not the case for beliefs about children’s resemblance to grandfathers. In sum, our results suggest that even in a population of Norwegians, strongly influenced by ideas concerning gender equality, there exist a sexual bias among parents in opinions and descriptions about grandparent-grandchild resemblance. This resemblance bias, which echoes that of mothers biasing resemblance descriptions of newborns to putative fathers, does not seem to represent a conscious manipulation. Yet, it could be instrumental for influencing grandparental investments. We believe that a “manipulative mother hypothesis” might parsimoniously account for many of the results relating to biased alloparenting hitherto not entirely explained by “the paternity uncertainty hypothesis”.