Estate division: equal sharing, exchange motives, and Cinderella effects

Abstract

This study contributes to the empirical literature testing bequest motives by using a population-wide administrative dataset, covering data on inherited amounts for complete families matched with an extensive set of economic and demographic variables, to estimate the influence of child characteristics on differences in inherited amounts among siblings. Our main findings are, first, children who are more likely to have provided services to the parent receive more than their siblings, as predicted by the exchange model. Second, daughters with children receive more than sons with children. This is consistent with the prediction of the evolutionary model that larger investments should go to offspring who are certain to be genetically related. There are also Cinderella effects-that is, adopted stepchildren receive less than siblings who are biological or children who are adopted by both parents. Third, we do not find support for the prediction of the altruism model that bequests are compensatory.

“Cinderella effects” in lethal child abuse are genuine and large: A comment on Nobes et al. (2019).

“…Although homicides are the focus of the Nobes et al (2019) article and of this riposte, it warrants repeating that Cinderella effects are manifest in positive investments as well, ranging from childcare and vigilance (e.g., Case & Paxson, 2001;Marlowe, 1999;Tooley et al, 2006) to financial support (e.g., Erixson & Ohlsson, 2019;Henretta et al, 2014;Zvoch, 1999) and various sorts of helping (e.g., Anderson et al, 1999;Daly & Perry, 2021). Daly and Wilson (1994) and Nobes et al's (2019) "Replication" Thereof…”

Sexual Selection and the Treatment of Predecessors’ Progeny by Replacement Mates

“…There is abundant evidence that the feelings and behavior of human stepparents differ from those of birth parents in ways that are consistent with the view that stepparents are more restrained in their willingness to invest (reviews by Daly and Wilson, 1988 , 1994b , 1996 , 1998 , 2008 ). Examples include differential expressed affection (e.g., Duberman, 1975 ), the greater prominence of child support as a source of marital strife in stepfamilies than in birth families (e.g., Messinger, 1976 ), and differential treatment in domains ranging from hostile interactions (e.g., Flinn, 1988 ) and vigilance (e.g., Tooley et al, 2006 ) through ensuring children’s medical and dental health ( Case and Paxson, 2001 ) to financial support (e.g., Zvoch, 1999 ), bequests (e.g., Erixson and Ohlsson, 2019 ), and various sorts of helping out (e.g., Anderson et al, 1999 ; Daly and Perry, 2021 ).…”

The last will: Estate divisions as a testament of to whom altruism is directed

“…is difficult to assess the importance of this concern. However, the fact that every heir had a unique relationship with the decedent but that children almost always receive equal shares of the estate (see, for example, [60][61][62]) suggests that estate divisions are not only repayments for outstanding debts.…”

“…Our interpretation is thus that the limited amounts bequeathed to charities are not due to social norms prescribing that all of the estate should be transferred to the children. There is, however, evidence of strong social norms prescribing that all children should inherit equal amounts (see, for example, [62]).…”