Kin Relationships and the Caregiving Biases of Grandparents, Aunts, and Uncles

Pashos, Alexander; McBurney, Donald H.

doi:10.1007/s12110-008-9046-0

Cited by 63 publications

(69 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On average, maternal grandmothers (GMs) provide the most care and paternal grandfathers (GFs) provide the least care for grandchildren. This is paralleled by ratings of closeness by the grandchildren: Grandchildren feel most close to maternal GMs and least close to paternal GFs (Eisenberg, 1988;Hoffman, 1980;Michalski & Shackelford, 2005;Pashos & McBurney, 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 84%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Kin Investment by Step-Grandparents—More Than Expected

2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Asymmetric grandparental caregiving is usually explained by the paternity certainty hypothesis. Accordingly, the lower investment by grandfathers (GFs) and paternal grandparents, as compared to grandmothers (GMs) and maternal grandparents, is based on differential kinship certainty to grandchildren. Hence, differential caregiving by grandparents is equated with their on-average different genetic relatedness to a grandchild. But what about nonbiological grandparents? All else being equal, step-grandparents should not invest highly in step-grandchildren and their investment should not be asymmetric because no differences in kinship certainty exist. However, coresidence with a biological grandparent might enhance step-grandparents' investment. From a total of 508 respondents from Germany and the USA, 108 were step-grandchildren who reported kin caregiving from 151 stepgrandparents. Further, we analyzed data of 45 stepparents, 1,005 biological parents, and 1,585 biological grandparents. We identified different types of step-grandparents. Subjects reported step-grandparents who were spouses of biological grandparents (Type I) much more often than step-grandparents who were parents of stepparents (Type II). Investment and emotional closeness ratings for step-grandparents were relatively high, however, on average somewhat lower than that of biological grandparents.Step-GFs provided more caregiving than step-GMs for step-grandchildren. More detailed analyses, however, revealed that this applied only for later partners of biological GMs (Type Ib) who were not already stepparents of the parents (Type Ia). Type Ib step-grandparents generally invested less in step-grandchildren than Type Ia; however, Type Ib maternal step-GFs, by contrast, invested more. Similar to step-GFs, stepfathers also invested more than stepmothers. However, this could be explained by the stepfathers' household connection with their stepchildren. We conclude that mating effort best describes the differential stepGFs' step-grandchild investment.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…The respondents were asked to rate their (step-)grandparents and (step)parents in the questionnaire along three main measurements, which were used in an earlier study (Pashos & McBurney, 2008). …”

Section: Measurementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Kin Investment by Step-Grandparents—More Than Expected

2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Among the Dogon, paternity certainty is as high as that found in contemporary populations that practice contraception see Anderson 2006). Previous studies have also found the confidence of paternity hypothesis to be insufficient, on its own, for explaining differences in nepotism by grandparent type (Euler and Weitzel 1996;Pashos 2000;Pashos and McBurney 2008; but see Gibson and Mace 2005).…”

Section: Confidence Of Paternity Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Alternatives to the Grandmother Hypothesis

Strassmann

Garrard

2011

Hum Nat

115

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We conducted a meta-analysis of 17 studies that tested for an association between grandparental survival and grandchild survival in patrilineal populations. Using two different methodologies, we found that the survival of the maternal grandmother and grandfather, but not the paternal grandmother and grandfather, was associated with decreased grandoffspring mortality. These results are consistent with the findings of psychological studies in developed countries (Coall and Hertwig Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33:1-59, 2010). When tested against the predictions of five hypotheses (confidence of paternity; grandmothering, kin proximity, grandparental senescence, and local resource competition), our meta-analysis results are most in line with the local resource competition hypothesis. In patrilineal and predominantly patrilocal societies, the grandparents who are most likely to live with the grandchildren have a less beneficial association than those who do not. We consider the extent to which these results may be influenced by the methodological limitations of the source studies, including the use of retrospective designs and inadequate controls for confounding variables such as wealth.

show abstract

“…Even before Smith, researchers with no evolutionary overview had reported that American children feel closer, on average, to their MGMs than to their PGMs (e.g., Kahana and Kahana, 1970;Hoffman, 1980;Hartshorne and Manaster, 1982), and after Smith, studies in several countries have replicated his frequency of contact results (e.g., Eisenberg, 1988;Uhlenberg and Hammill, 1998;Laham et al, 2005), and/or demonstrated other sorts of biased engagement and investment favoring the maternal side (e.g., Eisenberg, 1988;Tyszkowa, 1991;Boon and Brussoni, 1996;Euler and Weitzel, 1996;Salmon, 1999;Dubas, 2001;Chrastil et al, 2006;Pashos and McBurney, 2008;Bishop et al, 2009;Kirchengast and Putz, 2016).…”

Section: Grandmothering In Modern Democraciesmentioning

confidence: 99%