differential parental investment in families with both adopted and genetic children
DESCRIPTION
Differential Parental Investment in Families with Both Adopted and Genetic Children. TAYLOR BUSER AND CINDY UNG. Introduction: Background. Hamilton (1963): Kin selection theory means altruism correlates with shared genes - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Differential Parental Investment in Families with Both Adopted and Genetic Children](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022081604/56816976550346895de15fdd/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
TAYLOR BUSER AND CINDY UNG
Differential Parental Investment in Families with Both Adopted
and Genetic Children
![Page 2: Differential Parental Investment in Families with Both Adopted and Genetic Children](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022081604/56816976550346895de15fdd/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Introduction: Background
Hamilton (1963): Kin selection theory means altruism correlates with shared genes
Daly & Wilson (1980): Stepchildren threaten resources of genetic children to stepparent
Daly & Wilson (1985, 2001): Children with stepparents are more likely to be abused
![Page 3: Differential Parental Investment in Families with Both Adopted and Genetic Children](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022081604/56816976550346895de15fdd/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Introduction: Background
Daly & Wilson (1980): Adoption occurs between kin, fitness benefits outweigh cost
Callan (1985): In the West, adoption brings adaptive social benefits Childless: “materialistic, selfish” With children: “loving, hardworking”
Contrary evidence Hamilton et al. (2007): Adoptive households give
more investment than genetic households
![Page 4: Differential Parental Investment in Families with Both Adopted and Genetic Children](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022081604/56816976550346895de15fdd/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Introduction: Hypothesis
Limitations of background research Between vs. within
Given that no genes are shared with household members No selective drive to invest Higher probability of negative outcomes
Hypothesis: parents of at least one adopted and one genetic child bias investment toward genetic offspring
![Page 5: Differential Parental Investment in Families with Both Adopted and Genetic Children](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022081604/56816976550346895de15fdd/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Methods – Participant Selection
Adoption agency in MidwestRandomly chosen families with at least one
genetic and one adopted child over 22 years old at time of study
Sample sizes vary because some families had children younger than 22
![Page 6: Differential Parental Investment in Families with Both Adopted and Genetic Children](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022081604/56816976550346895de15fdd/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Methods - Survey
Children referred to by birth or adoption order
Asked which investments were given and how much time was invested in each child
Asked about outcomes of each child in four categories: Health, Education, Personal, and Time
![Page 7: Differential Parental Investment in Families with Both Adopted and Genetic Children](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022081604/56816976550346895de15fdd/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Methods – Statistical Methods
SPSS Controls for investment were combinations
of: age, birthorder, gender, education, marital status, and parents’ income
Sample sizes vary because investments did not apply to all children
![Page 8: Differential Parental Investment in Families with Both Adopted and Genetic Children](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022081604/56816976550346895de15fdd/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Results – Adoptive Parents
126/3oo surveys returned75.6% of respondents were womenAverage age: 57.6 Average spouse age: 57.33Median income: $50,000 to $74,9995.9% divorced57.6% adopting because unable to
biologically conceive children
![Page 9: Differential Parental Investment in Families with Both Adopted and Genetic Children](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022081604/56816976550346895de15fdd/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Results – Adopted and Biological Children
Average age: 26.950.3% Male45.2% AdoptedAdopted and genetic children didn’t differ in birthorder
or gender Incomes did not differ when controlled for several factors
![Page 10: Differential Parental Investment in Families with Both Adopted and Genetic Children](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022081604/56816976550346895de15fdd/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Results: Comparisons in investment
![Page 11: Differential Parental Investment in Families with Both Adopted and Genetic Children](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022081604/56816976550346895de15fdd/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Results: Comparisons in investment
Differential investment in education Preschool, tutoring, summer school
Personal investments Cars, rent, personal loans
Cultural activities Sports?
Promote intrinsic motivation Find new skills
![Page 12: Differential Parental Investment in Families with Both Adopted and Genetic Children](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022081604/56816976550346895de15fdd/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Outcomes of adopted and genetic children
![Page 13: Differential Parental Investment in Families with Both Adopted and Genetic Children](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022081604/56816976550346895de15fdd/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Discussion
Hypothesis is not supported, investment was not biased towards genetic children
Positive investments associated with negative outcomes
Most adoptees did not need any treatment or extra investment from parents
Other research shows that adoptees are prone to other difficulties as well
![Page 14: Differential Parental Investment in Families with Both Adopted and Genetic Children](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022081604/56816976550346895de15fdd/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Discussion: The “Squeaky Wheel”
Summer school and private tutoring can be remedial Same can be said for rent, treatment, public
assistance Parents don’t invest more in adoptees
because they are favored, but because they need more help
![Page 15: Differential Parental Investment in Families with Both Adopted and Genetic Children](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022081604/56816976550346895de15fdd/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Discussion: Adoptees genetically predisposed?
Adoptees could be genetically predisposed to negative outcomes at higher rates
Alcohol and drug addiction, mental disorders are influenced by genetic factors As are nonviolent criminality, educational performance
Birthmother information rare because of confidentiality issues One study: mothers gave up their children for adoption
because of personal difficulties Another study: birth parents gave their children up
because of substance abuse, physical abuse, and mental illness
![Page 16: Differential Parental Investment in Families with Both Adopted and Genetic Children](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022081604/56816976550346895de15fdd/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Discussion: Why adopt?
Our psychology is product of strategies that paid off in the past
Other cultures need optimal family size, not usual for U.S. families
Adaptive: Social acceptance, “the American ideal”
Maladaptive: Instinct fulfillment Industry of child adoption very new Takes time for a mechanism to be extinguished,
maladaptive or not
![Page 17: Differential Parental Investment in Families with Both Adopted and Genetic Children](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022081604/56816976550346895de15fdd/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Discussion: Limitations and beyoooond
Limitations: Systematic ascertainment bias Parents want to prove they don’t favor genetic
children Age children were adopted, where they were adopted
fromFurther research:
Foster homes: If “the squeaky wheel gets the grease”, foster homes = more investment
Genetic similarity and prejudice: one white / one foreign adopted children, which one is favored?