Beyond the Nuclear Family: an Evolutionary Perspective on Parenting

Home , Heredity, Nuclear family, Paternal care

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

Beyond the nuclear family: an evolutionary perspective

Rebecca Sear

There has been a recent shift in the evolutionary behavioural heavily on social learning, means that the nature of parent-

sciences towards the view that parenting in our species is ing (from mothers and others) varies within and between

cooperative, and that mothers require help from others to raise societies. This article highlights recent research on the

children successfully. This shift is not yet reﬂected in cooperative nature of human parenting, emphasising the

psychological models of parenting, which still emphasise the ﬂexibility of parenting and alloparenting. The theoretical

centrality of the nuclear family. This emphasis is problematic framework underlying this article builds on LeVine and

both because it neglects the importance of alloparents, and colleagues’ [3] model (Figure 1). This assumes parenting/

because it assumes the fathering role is consistent across alloparenting shows some species-wide, universal patterns,

societies. While paternal investment is often substantial in our but also varies, within and between populations, as the

species, it is also shows considerable ecological variability. result of adaptive adjustment of parenting behaviour to

This article highlights recent, cross-cultural research on the particular ecological conditions (phenotypic plasticity

cooperative nature of human ‘parenting’, and illustrates the [4 ,5]), as well as cultural variation in parenting behaviour

ﬂexible nature of both parenting and alloparenting across (which may or may not be adaptive).

human societies.

Address Alloparenting

Department of Population Health, London School of Hygiene and

The mother is the primary caregiver to human newborns,

Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London WC1E 7HT, UK

and throughout the vast majority of human history was

Corresponding author: Sear, Rebecca ([email protected]) vital to the infant’s survival at least until the infant was

capable of surviving without breastmilk [6]. But the

weight of empirical evidence now demonstrates that

Current Opinion in Psychology 2016, 7:98–103 alloparenting, of both infants and older children, is com-

This review comes from a themed issue on Evolutionary psychology mon and has beneﬁcial effects on children [7]. This

suggests that too much emphasis has been placed in

Edited by Steven W Gangestad and Joshua M Tybur

Western psychology on the parenting role of the mother,

For a complete overview see the Issue and the Editorial

in exclusion to other carers. Henrich and colleagues have

Available online 21st August 2015

criticised psychologists for over-emphasising research on

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.08.013 WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich and

criticised psychological models of parenting and child

development for this same shortcoming — in particular,

for developing models of mother–infant attachment that

rely too heavily on cultural norms of parenting as ob-

served in the Western middle classes around the middle

Introduction of the 20th century, the period when inﬂuential theories

Parenting in our species is intensive, cooperative and about parenting were developed [9 ]. Family structures

ﬂexible. Human newborns are altricial (helpless), requiring were rather weird in WEIRD societies at this time:

intensive investment, and childhood is long, probably due an extreme form of the nuclear family was considered

to the development of skills necessary for the complex normative, where family units consisted of mother,

subsistence strategies humans adopt [1]. In recent years, father and children; other family members often lived

the hypothesis that such intensive investment is only some distance away; and there was an unusually rigid

possible through cooperative ‘parenting’ has become division of labour where mothers were considered largely

established in the evolutionary behavioural sciences: help responsible for reproductive labour and fathers for

from allomothers, who may be fathers, grandmothers, productive labour. Evolutionary theories of parenting

siblings and/or other individuals, is required to rear chil- based on a narrow slice of humanity are problematic,

dren [2]. Human psychology is adapted, therefore, to a and the challenges to these theories presented by cross-

system of parenting where mothers are ‘ﬁrst among equals’ cultural research have recently been clearly articulated

in a range of individuals who ‘parent’ the child. Coopera- [10 ,11,12].

tive childrearing may be a human universal, but the beha-

vioural ﬂexibility of our species, including variation in Human family systems are unusually ﬂexible [13]. Some

subsistence, marriage and residence patterns, and relying form of pair-bond is typical, but mothers and fathers may

Current Opinion in Psychology 2016, 7:98–103 www.sciencedirect.com

Parenting is cooperative and flexible in Homo sapiens Sear 99

Figure 1

foster care by kin has been interpreted as ‘dispersed

cooperative breeding’, which allows mothers to strategi-

cally reduce investment in certain children while ensuring

Population- or sub- children are cared for those with a vested interest in raising

Species-specific Population- or

population-specific them ([20] see also [21,22]). universal sub-population- ecological and constraints and specific cultural

socioeconomic

adaptations models

conditions Allomaternal care is a human universal. Grandparenting is

still common in WEIRD societies [23]: across 11 Europe-

an countries 44% of grandparents provided childcare for

their grandchildren, with some variation across countries

(the ﬁgure was 63% in the UK [24]). Some variation in

Parental or alloparental grandparental investment in WEIRD contexts can be

behaviour explained through biological factors: genetic relatedness

Current Opinion in Psychology between grandparents and grandchildren matters [25].

Grandparenting can also help women balance their pro-

ductive and reproductive demands [26], and can be

Parental or alloparental behaviour is influenced by our species-specific

constraints and adaptations, but is also shaped by adaptive responses substituted for paternal care [27], as in Aka foragers.

to ecological conditions and by cultural norms. These three levels can Some variation may be a response to different cultural

be hard to separate (some cultural models may be the result of

and policy regimes in different parts of Europe, however:

adaptive responses to ecological conditions, for example), and there

grandparents more commonly provide intensive childcare

are feedback loops between all three (both ecology and culture

in regions of Europe where conservative family norms are

influences our genetic make-up).

Modified from LeVine et al. [3]. widespread and formal (state-provided or paid-for) child-

care is less readily available [28 ].

One common carer in non-WEIRD societies is not avail-

be monogamously, polygynously or, occasionally, poly- able to WEIRD mothers: older children. This is partly

andrously partnered, and may or may not live in the same because low fertility means that young children have

household; extended families are common, where fewer older siblings to care for them, but also because

mothers live with, or in close proximity to, grandparents children are expected to devote time to their education

and are embedded in social networks rich in other kin; instead of contributing to household labour [29]. This

and, while divisions of labour exist, they are such that may have signiﬁcant implications for child development,

women are often responsible for substantial subsistence if children no longer gain valuable childcare experience

labour [14]. Such family organisation both requires, and and social skills by caring for their younger siblings.

allows for, substantial allomaternal care of children, so Recent research has turned from investigating the impact

that children may form attachment relationships with of care on children to investigating how carers themselves

several individuals [15]. Family relationships may vary are inﬂuenced by parenting relationships [30,31 ]. The

ﬂexibly within populations, as well as between them, so health consequences of parenting are not always positive,

that parents and alloparents can optimise their invest- but some cognitive beneﬁts have been demonstrated

ment across all dependent children, and in response to the [32,33]. A lack of experience with childrearing may inﬂu-

children’s needs and their own ability to invest [16]. ence subsequent parenting practices in adult life given

our species’ reliance on social learning [34], even, perhaps

A longitudinal study of Aka foragers in central Africa surprisingly, for key parenting practices such as breast-

demonstrates just how ﬂexible parenting can be, even feeding [35,36].

within a homogenous hunter–gatherer society [17]. While

it has been known for some time that even infants are cared Fathering

for by multiple caretakers in hunter–gatherer societies, Allomaternal care may be a human universal, but paternal

research on the Aka shows that the caretaking activities investment is not. Recent modelling of the evolution of

of fathers, grandmothers, siblings and other individuals are human life history suggests cooperative breeding and

responsive both to the mother’s needs and the availability broad cooperative networks may be the most plausible

of other sources of help. The grandmother is the most explanation for our species’ life history strategy [37].

important allocarer, but care from other social network These results contradict earlier models emphasising

members can be substituted in her absence [18 ]. Allo- the importance of monogamy and paternal provisioning.

carers also reduce mother’s allocation of time to childcare Human fathers often invest in their offspring [38], more

and energy expenditure, as predicted by the cooperative so than the fathers of most species, but there are circum-

breeding hypothesis [19]. Part of this repertoire of ﬂexible stances under which fathers invest little or nothing.

parenting may be the ability of parents to delegate respon- Recent work explaining this variation builds on research

sibility to other individuals entirely. Elsewhere in Africa, by evolutionary biologists Kokko and Jennions [39,40 ],

www.sciencedirect.com Current Opinion in Psychology 2016, 7:98–103

100 Evolutionary psychology

Box 1 Why do mothers care more than fathers?

mating by females, perhaps as the result of male reproduc-

tive strategies designed to ensure paternity [47]. However,

Kokko and Jennions [39,40 ] recently re-examined the question of

why mothers, on average, invest more than fathers across the natural low levels of misattributed paternity may alternatively

world. Trivers’ [41] influential work on parental investment suggested indicate high levels of multiple mating by females but

two reasons could explain this phenomenon: firstly, greater initial

correct attribution of paternity (which may sometimes

female investment in gametes means they have more to lose should

mean correctly attributing paternity to be uncertain).

the offspring die; secondly, male-biased sex ratios increase

Cross-cultural research illustrates that sexual exclusivity

competition for mates among males, which leads to greater mating

effort among males and consequently lower parental effort. Kokko within marriages is not a human universal, neither for men

and Jennions challenged these arguments, pointing out that the first

nor women [48 ], and that polyandrous matings are so-

commits the ‘Concorde fallacy’: individuals should base decisions

cially sanctioned in a wider range of societies than previ-

about future investment solely on the costs and benefits of that

ously thought ([49], see [50] for an example). Paternity

future investment, and not take into consideration past investment.

In contrast to Trivers’ second argument, they argue that male-biased uncertainty may be somewhat higher in such polyandrous

sex ratios may lead to increased investment in parenting effort, as populations than in populations where husbands expect

the odds of winning the competition for a mate are slim, and so the

exclusive sexual access to their wives, but rates of misat-

relative value of caring for offspring versus competing for mates

tributed paternity (i.e. men wrongly believing a child is

increases. Kokko and Jennions suggest the explanation for wide-

their biological offspring) may still be low: men know that

spread female-biased care is more complicated than Trivers’ original

arguments, and may vary between (and within) species, depending their paternity is uncertain if they do not have exclusive

on adult sex ratios (which may depend on the impact of parental care sexual access to their partners, and may also be able to

on mortality rates), paternity certainty, variance in male reproductive

assign a rough estimate of paternity certainty. For example,

success and the consequences of parental care for offspring

outcomes. ‘partible paternity’ societies are common in South America,

where children are believed to have several ‘fathers’ if their

mothers had multiple sexual partners around the time of

pregnancy [51]. But often ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ fathers

who have developed theoretical models of why parental are recognised, with the former being more likely to be the

care by both mothers and fathers varies (Box 1). For biological father of the child. Overall, this new research

example, this research has stimulated interest in the suggests that men’s reproductive strategies do not always

inﬂuence of sex ratios on men’s allocation of effort focus on gaining exclusive sexual access to one (or more)

between mating and parenting. A study within a single mates and investing heavily in her children, but it may

ethnic group (the Makushi) in south America used varia- sometimes be in men’s interests to accept paternity uncer-

tion in sex ratios due to employment patterns to show that tainty.

men were less interested in uncommitted sex where sex

ratios were male-biased [42]. This suggests a bias towards Note that though paternity uncertainty may inﬂuence

parenting rather than mating effort where men are abun- paternal investment, the relationship between paternity

dant, in line with Kokko and Jennions’ predictions. uncertainty and paternal investment is complex, because

many other factors also inﬂuence paternal investment.

Paternity certainty is another variable which may explain While a simplistic assumption might be that men reduce

variation in paternal effort, and has previously received investment in children in societies where paternity is

considerable attention in the evolutionary sciences. Some relatively uncertain, this is not necessarily the case.

of this work has made the same error as research on Perhaps counter-intuitively, partible paternity societies

parenting, by assuming that the nuclear family is the may be found where the ecology requires particularly

universal family form. Such research typically assumes high levels of investment from men to provision children:

that paternal investment is heavy and universal, but partible paternity may be a strategy by which women gain

focused exclusively on the man’s own children, so that investment for their children from multiple males [52 ].

male reproductive strategies are designed to reduce the In this case, alloparents are men other than the child’s

possibility of cuckoldry. Recent research suggests the biological father [53] and ‘paternal’ investment may be

need to re-examine some of these assumptions. directed at children not fathered by the man investing in

them. A perspective on parenting that looks beyond the

By contrast to early evolutionary studies, which often nuclear family therefore reveals examples where men

assumed that misattributed paternity is relatively common invest little in their children, and where they invest in

(probably based on apocryphal stories: [43]), empirical children other than their own, as well as many examples

evidence suggests that misattributed paternity may not where men do invest substantially in their offspring

be such a great threat to male reproductive success. Ander- despite not living in a nuclear family [54,55 ].

son’s cross-cultural survey, which found a worldwide aver-

age of only 2% misattributed paternity [44], has now been Mothering

backed up by recent genetic studies, which estimate rates Comparative cross-cultural research can also help explain

of misattributed paternity to be 1–2% [45,46]. Low levels of variation in mothering. A vignette-study has just been

misattributed paternity may indicate low rates of multiple published which was used to explicitly contrast maternal

Current Opinion in Psychology 2016, 7:98–103 www.sciencedirect.com

Parenting is cooperative and flexible in Homo sapiens Sear 101

Figure 2

Caretaking environment:

Higher Fertility rate Lower Higher Infant mortality rate Lower Less Expenditures on health Greater Less Oil consumption Greater responsiveness to: Selection for Selection for responsiveness to:

Small-scale Industrialized • Food security • Severity for mother • Severity for child • Mother’s age • Child’s age • Food security

Graphical Kushnick G, Hanowell B, Kim J, Lanstieh B, Magnano V, Oláh K (2015) Experimental evidence for convergent evolution of maternal care heuristics in industrialized and small-scale abstract for: societies. Royal Society Open Science, 2, 140518. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsos.140518

Current Opinion in Psychology

Graphical abstract for Kushnick et al. [56 ], which shows the factors which influence hypothetical maternal care decisions in small-scale (non-

WEIRD) versus industrialised (WEIRD) societies (in the large boxes), as well as environmental factors which characterise each type of society.

care across WEIRD and non-WEIRD contexts [56]. Clear Conclusion

differences were found between these contexts (Figure 2). Parenting is an emotive topic, and it is of great interest not

In line with evolutionary predictions, hypothetical mater- just to academics but also to policy-makers, the health

nal care decisions were found to be responsive to the professions and the general public. An evolutionary,

mother’s reproductive value (her future possible reproduc- cross-cultural perspective clearly demonstrates consider-

tive output), the consequences of the situation for mother able variation in parenting behaviour, around some spe-

and child, and resource access in WEIRD contexts. In non- cies-typical universals. This should lead to caution when

WEIRD contexts, the most signiﬁcant factor determining translating academic research into parenting advice or

care was the mother’s access to resources, with greater policy [58,59 ]: ‘natural’ parental behaviour is often sur-

resource access predicting greater maternal care, which prisingly ﬂexible, and there are multiple pathways to

probably reﬂects the importance of resource access to child successful parenting.

health and survival in low-resource populations [57]. The

current state of parenting research has now clearly demon-

Conﬂict of interest statement

strated how different parenting strategies can be across

The author wishes to conﬁrm that there are no known

human populations, and is beginning to produce sufﬁcient

conﬂicts of interest.

high quality research across a range of contexts to allow us to

construct a holistic explanation of parenting, including the

Acknowledgements

inﬂuence of biological universals, adaptation to different

Thanks to LSHTM’s Evolutionary Demography Group, Laura Brown,

environmental conditions, and cultural differences, as well

Sophie Hedges, David Lawson, Susie Schaffnit, Paula Sheppard and Gert

as how these three components interact to affect parenting

Stulp, and to the editors of this special issue, Steve Gangestad and Josh

behaviour. Tybur, for helpful suggestions.

www.sciencedirect.com Current Opinion in Psychology 2016, 7:98–103

102 Evolutionary psychology

19. Meehan CL, Quinlan R, Malcom CD: Cooperative breeding and

References and recommended reading

maternal energy expenditure among Aka foragers. Am J Hum

Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review,

Biol 2013, 25:42-57.

have been highlighted as:

20. Scelza BA, Silk JB: Fosterage as a system of dispersed

of special interest

cooperative breeding: evidence from the Himba. Hum Nat

of outstanding interest

2014, 25:448-464.

1. Kaplan H, Lancaster JB, Tucker WT, Anderson KG: Evolutionary 21. Perry G, Daly M, Macfarlan S: Maternal foster families provide

approach to below replacement fertility. Am J Hum Biol 2002, more stable placements than paternal families. Child Youth

14:233-256. Serv Rev 2014, 46:155-159.

2. Hrdy SB: Mothers and Others: The Evolutionary Origins of Mutual 22. Sheppard P, Schaffnit SB, Garcia JR, Sear R: Fostering relations:

Understanding. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press; 2009. ﬁrst sex and marital timings for children raised by kin and non-

kin carers. Evol Hum Behav 2014, 35:161-168.

3. LeVine RA, Dixon S, LeVine SE, Richman A, Keefer C,

Liederman PH et al.: The comparative study of parenting. 23. Coall DA, Hertwig R: Grandparental investment: past, present

Anthropol Child Dev A Cross-Cultural Read; Blackwell, Malden: and future. Behav Brain Sci 2010, 33:1-19.

2008:55-65.

24. Glaser K, Price D, Di Gessa G, Ribe E, Stuchbury R, Tinker A:

4. Royle NJ, Russell AF, Wilson AJ: The evolution of ﬂexible

Grandparenting in Europe: Family Policy and Grandparents’ Role in

parenting. Science 2014, 345:776-781.

Providing Childcare. 2013.

A theoretical discussion of how parenting may adapt to different ecolo-

gical circumstances, using examples from the biological literature, which 25. Coall DA, Hilbrand S, Hertwig R: Predictors of grandparental

unfortunately neglects the human literature but provides an excellent investment decisions in contemporary Europe: biological

introduction to the evolutionary theory behind ﬂexible parenting. relatedness and beyond. PLoS One 2014, 9:e84082.

5. Nettle D, Gibson MA, Lawson DW, Sear R: Human behavioral

26. Aassve A, Arpino B, Goisis A: Grandparenting and mothers’

ecology: current research and future prospects. Behav Ecol

labour force participation: a comparative analysis using the

2013, 24:1031-1040.

Generations and Gender Survey. Demogr Res 2012, 27:53-84.

6. Hrdy SB: Mother Nature: Maternal Instincts and the Shaping of the

27. Meil G, Rogero-Garcı´a J: Does paternal childcare replace

Species. London: Vintage; 2000.

grandparental support in dual-earner families? Fam Sci 2015,

6:31-37.

7. Sear R, Mace R: Who keeps children alive? A review

of the effects of kin on child survival. Evol Hum Behav 2008,

29:1-18. 28. Jappens M, Van Bavel J: Regional family cultures and child care

by grandparents in Europe. Demogr Res 2012, 27:85-120.

8. Henrich J, Heine SJ, Norenzayan A: The weirdest people in the Empirical, cross-national study in Europe which provides a detailed

world? Behav Brain Sci 2010, 33:61-83. analysis of the determinants of grandparental care and how it varies in

this region.

9. LeVine RA: Attachment theory as cultural ideology. Different

Faces of Attachment: Cultural Variation of a Universal Human 29. Shenk MK, Towner MC, Kress HC, Alam N: A model comparison

Need. 2014:. pp. 50–65. approach shows stronger support for economic models of

A clear articulation of the culturally-biased nature of attachment theory, fertility decline. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2013, 110:8045-8050.

from an author with a lifetime’s experience of research in cross-cultural

parenting. 30. Feldman R: The adaptive human parental brain: implications

for children’s social development. Trends Neurosci 2015,

10. Otto H, Keller H: Different Faces of Attachment: Cultural Variations 38:387-399.

on a Universal Human Need. Cambridge University Press; 2014.

Valuable detail of the cross-cultural similarities and differences found in 31. Gray PB, Crittenden AN: Father Darwin: effects of children on

infant attachment, with examples from many different cultural contexts. men, viewed from an evolutionary perspective. Fathering 2014,

12:121.

11. Lancy DF: Teaching is so WEIRD. Behav Brain Sci 2015, 38:e48. Review article of the consequences of fathering for men.

12. Lancy DF: The Anthropology of Childhood: Cherubs, Chattel,

32. Burn KF, Henderson VW, Ames D, Dennerstein L, Szoeke C: Role

Changelings. Cambridge University Press; 2014.

of grandparenting in postmenopausal women’s cognitive

health: results from the Women’s Healthy Aging Project.

13. Walker RS, Hill KR, Flinn MV, Ellsworth RM: Evolutionary history

Menopause 2014, 21:1069-1074.

of hunter–gatherer marriage practices. PLoS One 2011,

6:e19066.

33. Arpino B, Bordone V: Does grandparenting pay off? The effect

of child care on grandparents’ cognitive functioning,. J

14. Hewlett BS: Culture, history and sex: anthropological

Marriage Fam 2014, 76:337-351.

contributions to conceptualizing father involvement. Marriage

Fam Rev 2000, 29:59-73.

34. Hewlett BS, Fouts HN, Boyette AH, Hewlett BL: Social learning

among Congo Basin hunter-gatherers

15. Meehan CL, Hawks S: Maternal and allomaternal . Philos Trans R Soc B

366

responsiveness: the signiﬁcant of cooperative caregiving in Biol Sci 2011, :1168-1178.

attachment theory. Different Faces of Attachment: Cultural

35. Volk AA: Human breastfeeding is not automatic: why that’s so

Variation of a Universal Human Need. Cambridge: Cambridge

and what it means for human evolution. J Soc Evol Cult Psychol

University Press; 2014, 113-140.

2009, 3:305-314.

16. Snopkowski K, Sear R: Grandparental help in Indonesia is

The role of cultural factors in human breastfeeding:

directed preferentially towards needier descendants: a 36. Wells JCK:

adaptive behaviour or biopower?

potential confounder when exploring grandparental In Ecol Cult Nutr Heal Dis.

inﬂuences on child health. Soc Sci Med 2015, 128:105-114. Edited by Bose K. Delhi, India: Kamla-Raj Enterprises; 2006:

39-47.

17. Meehan CL: The effects of residential locality on parental and

alloparental investment among the Aka foragers of the Central 37. Bell AV, Hinde K, Newson L: Who was helping? The scope for

African Republic. Hum Nat 2005, 16:58-80. female cooperative breeding in early Homo. PLoS One 2013,

8:e83667.

18. Meehan CL, Helfrecht C, Quinlan RJ: Cooperative breeding and

Aka children’s nutritional status: is ﬂexibility key? Am J Phys 38. Shwalb DW, Shwalb BJ, Lamb ME: Fathers in Cultural Context.

Anthropol 2014, 153:513-525. Routledge 2013.

Provides empirical data on cooperative breeding in a forager population,

including detail on who helps mothers out, from a team with extensive 39. Kokko H, Jennions MD: Parental investment, sexual selection

experience and publications on this topic. and sex ratios. J Evol Biol 2008, 21:919-948.

Current Opinion in Psychology 2016, 7:98–103 www.sciencedirect.com

Parenting is cooperative and flexible in Homo sapiens Sear 103

40. Kokko H, Jennions MD: Sex differences in parental care. In Evol 51. Hill K, Hurtado AM: Cooperative breeding in South American

Parent Care. Edited by Royle N, Smiseth PT, Ko¨ lliker M. Oxford: hunter–gatherers. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 2009, 276:3863-3870.

Oxford University Press; 2012:101-116.

52. Ellsworth RM, Bailey DH, Hill KR, Hurtado AM, Walker RS:

Both Kokko and Jennions papers above are extremely important articles

Relatedness, co-residence, and shared fatherhood among

in evolutionary biology, clearly describing the problems in the previous

ache foragers of Paraguay. Curr Anthropol 2014:647-653.

literature on parental investment and its allocation between males and

Gives detail about the potential costs and beneﬁts of partible paternity,

females, and some potential solutions.

the belief that children may have more than one father, common in

41. Trivers R: Parental investment and sexual selection. In Sex Sel polyandrous south American populations.

Descent Man 1871–1971. Edited by Campbell B. New York: Aldine

53. Scelza BA: Female choice and extra-pair paternity in a

de Gruyter; 1972:136-179.

traditional human population. Biol Lett 2011, 7:889-891.

42. Schacht R, Borgerhoff Mulder M: Sex ratio effects on

54. Gray PB, Brown E: Fatherhood in St. Kitts: patterns and

reproductive strategies in humans. R Soc Open Sci 2015,

2:140402. predictors of partnership and paternal dynamics in a

Caribbean island. Fathering 2015, 13:18-35.

43. Gilding M: Rampant misattributed paternity: the creation of an

55. Mattison SM, Scelza B, Blumenﬁeld T: Paternal investment and

urban myth. People Place 2005, 13:1-11.

the positive effects of fathers among the matrilineal Mosuo of

Southwest China 116

44. Anderson KG: How well does paternity conﬁdence match . Am Anthropol 2014, :591-610.

actual paternity? Evidence from worldwide nonpaternity rates. Empirical data on fathering and its consequences for child outcomes in a

Curr Anthropol 2006, 47:513-520. matrilineal population where husbands and wives typically do not core-

side.

45. Larmuseau MHD, Vanoverbeke J, Van Geystelen A, Defraene G,

56. Kushnick G, Hanowell B, Kim J-H, Langstieh B, Magnano V,

Vanderheyden N, Matthys K et al.: Low historical rates of

Olah K: Experimental evidence for convergent evolution of

cuckoldry in a Western European human population traced by

maternal care heuristics in industrialized and small-scale

Y-chromosome and genealogical data. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci

populations. R Soc Open Sci 2015, 2:140518.

2013, 280:20132400.

Cross-cultural study using the same vignette experiment in several

46. Greeff JM, Erasmus JC: Three hundred years of low non- different populations, both WEIRD and non-WEIRD, to explore the factors

paternity in a human population. Heredity (Edinb) 2015. which inﬂuence maternal care decisions.

47. Strassmann BI, Kurapati NT, Hug BF, Burke EE, Gillespie BW, 57. Kushnick G: Access to resources shapes maternal decision

Karafet TM et al.: Religion as a means to assure paternity. Proc making: evidence from a factorial vignette experiment. PLoS

Natl Acad Sci U S A 2012, 109:9781-9785. One 2013, 8:e75539.

48. Scelza BA: Choosy but not chaste: multiple mating in human 58. Gibson MA, Lawson DW: Applying evolutionary anthropology.

females. Evol Anthropol 2013, 22:259-269. Evol Anthropol 2015, 24:3-14.

Review article on the beneﬁts of multiple mating to human females,

59. Lawson DW, Uggla C: Family structure and health in the

bringing into question the long-standing view that females should be

developing world: what can evolutionary anthropology

‘coy’ and not pursue multiple mates.

contribute to population health science? In Applied

49. Starkweather KE, Hames R: A survey of non-classical Evolutionary Anthropology. Darwinian Approaches to

polyandry. Hum Nat 2012, 23:149-172. Contemporary World Issues. Edited by Gibson MA, Lawson DW.

New York: Springer; 2014:85-118.

50. Walker RS, Flinn MV, Hill KR: Evolutionary history of partible Discussion of the beneﬁts and potential pitfalls of applying research in the

paternity in lowland South America. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A evolutionary behavioural sciences to real world problems, illustrated with

2010, 107:19195-19200. examples of how family structure inﬂuences child health.

www.sciencedirect.com Current Opinion in Psychology 2016, 7:98–103