A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of The
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Alloparenting and Child Health Outcomes among the Comca'ac Item Type text; Electronic Dissertation Authors Hohman, Zachary J. Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 28/09/2021 17:07:38 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/625896 ALLOPARENTING AND CHILD HEALTH OUTCOMES AMONG THE COMCA’AC by Zachary J. Hohman __________________________ Copyright © Zachary J. Hohman 2017 A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 2017 2 THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA GRADUATE COLLEGE As members of the Dissertation Committee, we certify that we have read the dissertation prepared by Zachary Hohman, titled Alloparenting and Child Health Outcomes among the Comca’ac and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. _______________________________________________________________________ Date: (1/27/2017) Aurelio J Figueredo _______________________________________________________________________ Date: (1/27/2017) William J Jacobs _______________________________________________________________________ Date: (1/27/2017) Horst D Steklis _______________________________________________________________________ Date: (1/27/2017) Joanna Monti-Masel Final approval and acceptance of this dissertation is contingent upon the candidate’s submission of the final copies of the dissertation to the Graduate College. I hereby certify that I have read this dissertation prepared under my direction and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement. ________________________________________________ Date: (1/27/2017) Dissertation Director: Aurelio J Figueredo 3 STATEMENT BY AUTHOR This dissertation has been submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this dissertation are allowable without special permission, provided that an accurate acknowledgement of the source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his or her judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author. SIGNED: Zachary J. Hohman 4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The scale of this project was massive, and my hope is that it will only continue to grow. Even this pilot study alone could not have been accomplished with such success without the contributions of everyone on our team. First and foremost I thank my mentor A.J. Figuredo, who conceived of the idea for this project and had a hand in every aspect of its formation and development, offering invaluable guidance to me and all of our colleagues. The initial ethogram development and field data collection teams, consisting of veteran ethologists A.J., Dieter Steklis, and Netzin Steklis, as well as Tomás Cabeza de Baca and Marcela Sotomayor-Peterson got this project off the ground and running, and it would never have existed without them. My subsequent field teams, consisting of my right-hand man and translator Ernesto Gomez, as well as Amber Perry, Aubrey Wadman-Goetsch, Beatriz Alvarado, and Natalia Chapovalova, all of whom spent fourteen hours a day training and then meticulously recording behavioral data under the desert sun, are nothing less than warriors. And making sense of it all required the invaluable intellectual contributions, from instrument development and technical expertise to hypothesis refinement and data analysis, from all those above as well as Richard Wahl, Alfredo Figueredo, Jake Jacobs, Joanna Masel, Otila Caballero-Quevedo, Candace Black, Bruce Ellis, Emily Patch, Filippo Rossi, Taylor Edwards and Barbara Fransway. From expert and fledgling ethologists, to psychologists, geneticists, anthropologists and pediatricians, this project brought together an impressively diverse set of scientific minds. 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................... 7 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 8 Study Population ....................................................................................................................... 16 Goals of the Project ................................................................................................................... 18 METHODS ................................................................................................................................... 20 Genealogical Distance: “Emic” Family Relatedness ................................................................ 20 Spatial Distribution: Geographical Proximity ........................................................................... 20 Molecular Genetic Distance: “Etic” Family Relatedness ......................................................... 21 Anthropometric Health Assessment .......................................................................................... 23 Behavioral Observations ........................................................................................................... 24 One-Zero Focal Animal Sampling. ....................................................................................... 24 Instantaneous Sampling. ........................................................................................................ 25 Quantitative Ethogram Development. ................................................................................... 25 Instrument Revision. .............................................................................................................. 26 Summary of Ethological Data Collection .............................................................................. 27 ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................... 28 Psychometric Evaluations of Quantitative Ethograms .............................................................. 28 Training and Inter-Rater Reliability. ..................................................................................... 28 Convergent Validity .............................................................................................................. 30 Computation of Genetic Relatedness ........................................................................................ 35 Categorization ........................................................................................................................... 38 Statistical Methods .................................................................................................................... 40 6 MODEL & HYPOTHESES .......................................................................................................... 42 Measurement Models ................................................................................................................ 42 Differential Alloparenting Hypotheses ..................................................................................... 44 WHO Child Health Outcomes ................................................................................................... 45 RESULTS ..................................................................................................................................... 47 Descriptive statistics .................................................................................................................. 47 Dyadic-Level Hypothesis 1 ....................................................................................................... 47 Dyadic-Level Hypothesis 2 ....................................................................................................... 47 Dyadic-Level Common Alloparenting Factor ........................................................................... 48 Dyadic-Level Hypotheses 3 & 4 ............................................................................................... 48 Dyadic-Level Hypothesis 4a ..................................................................................................... 49 Individual-Level Common Child Health Factor ....................................................................... 49 Individual-Level Hypotheses 5 & 6 .......................................................................................... 50 DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................... 51 Limitations and Future Directions for Research ....................................................................... 58 TABLES ....................................................................................................................................... 64 APPENDIX A – Satellite