Review of Economics of the Household

, Volume 11, Issue 3, pp 421–446 | Cite as

The evolution of altruistic preferences: mothers versus fathers

Article

Abstract

What can evolutionary biology tell us about male-female differences in preferences concerning family matters? Might mothers be more solicitous toward offspring than fathers, for example? The economics literature has documented gender differences—children benefit more from money put in the hands of mothers rather than fathers, for example—and these differences are thought to be partly due to preferences. Yet for good reason family economics is mostly concerned with how prices and incomes affect behavior against a backdrop of exogenous preferences. Evolutionary biology complements this approach by treating preferences as the outcome of natural selection. We mine the well-developed biological literature to make a prima facie case for evolutionary roots of parental preferences. We consider the most rudimentary of traits—sex differences in gamete size and internal fertilization—and explain how they have been thought to generate male-female differences in altruism toward children and other preferences related to family behavior. The evolutionary approach to the family illuminates connections between issues typically thought distinct in family economics, such as parental care and marriage markets.

Keywords

Altruism Parental care Evolution Reproductive success Paternity Sex ratios 

JEL Classification

D1 D13 J12 J13 J16 Z13 

References

  1. Akçay, E., & Roughgarden, J. (2007). Extra-pair paternity in birds: Review of the genetic benefits. Evolutionary Ecology Research, 9, 855–868.Google Scholar
  2. Alexander, R. D., & Noonan, K. M. (1979). Concealment of ovulation, parental care, and human social evolution. In N. A. Chagnon & W. Irons (Eds.), Evolutionary biology and human social behavior: An anthropological perspective (pp. 402–435). North Scituate, MA: Duxbury.Google Scholar
  3. Alger, I. (2010). Public goods games, altruism, and evolution. Journal of Public Economic Theory, 12, 789–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alger, I., & Weibull, J. W. (2010). Kinship, incentives, and evolution. American Economic Review, 100(4), 1725–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alger, I., & Weibull, J. W. (2012). A generalization of Hamilton’s rule—Love others how much? Journal of Theoretical Biology, 299, 42–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Alvergne, A., Oda, R., Faurie, C., Matsumoto-Oda, A., Durand, V., & Raymond, M. (2009). Cross-cultural perceptions of facial resemblance between kin. Journal of Vision, 9(6), 1–10.Google Scholar
  7. Anderson, E. (1993). Sex codes and family life. In W. Wilson (Ed.), The ghetto underclass (pp. 76–95). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Anderson, K. G. (2006). How well does paternity confidence match actual paternity? Evidence from worldwide nonpaternity rates. Current Anthropology, 47(3), 513–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Arcidiocono, P., Beauchamp, A. W., & McElroy, M. B. (2010). Terms of endearment: An equilibrium model of sex and matching, NBER Working Paper 16517.Google Scholar
  10. Balshine , S. (2012). Patterns of parental care in vertebrates. In N. J. Royal P. T. Smiseth & M. Kölliker & (Eds.), The evolution of parental care (pp. 62–80). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Barber, B. M., & Odean, T. (2001). Boys will be boys: Gender, overconfidence, and common stock investment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(1), 261–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bateman, A. J. (1948). Intra-sexual selection in Drosphilia. Heredity, 2, 277–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Becker, G. S. (1973). A theory of marriage: Part I. Journal of Political Economy, 81(4), 813–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Becker, G. S. (1974). A theory of marriage: Part II. Journal of Political Economy, 82(2), S11–S26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Becker, G. S. (1991). A treatise on the family (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Becker, G. S., Landes, E. M., & Michael, R. T. (1977). An economic analysis of marital instability. Journal of Political Economy, 85(6), 1141–1187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bergstrom, T. C. (1994a). On the economics of polygyny, Working paper, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  18. Bergstrom, T. C. (1994b). Primogeniture, monogamy, and reproductive success in a stratified society, Working paper, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  19. Bergstrom, T. C. (1995). On the evolution of altruistic ethical rules for siblings. American Economic Review, 85(1), 58–81.Google Scholar
  20. Bergstrom, T. C. (1996). Economics in a family way. Journal of Economic Literature, 34, 1903–1934.Google Scholar
  21. Bernheim, B. D. (2009). On the potential of neuroeconomics: A critical (but hopeful) appraisal. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 1(2), 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Birkhead, T. (2000). Promiscuity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Bishai, D., & Grossbard, S. (2010). Far above rubies: Bride price and extramarital sexual relations in Uganda. Journal of Population Economics, 23, 1177–1187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Bredart, S., & French, R. M. (1999). Do babies resemble their fathers more than their mothers? A failure to replicate Christenfeld and Hill (1995). Evolution and Human Behavior, 20, 129–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Buchan, J. C., Alberts, S. C., Silk, J. B., & Altmann, J. (2003). True paternal care in a multi-male primate society. Nature, 425(6954), 179–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Buss, D. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Chang, Y., & Kim, S.-B. (2006). From individual to aggregate labor supply: A quantitative analysis based on a heterogeneous agent macroeconomy. International Economic Review, 47(1), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Christenfeld, N. J. S., & Hill, E. A. (1995). Whose baby are you. Nature, 378, 669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Clark, R. D., & Hatfield, E. (1989). Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 2(1), 39–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Clutton-Brock, T. H. (1991). The evolution of parental care. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Croson, R., & Gneezy, U. (2009). Gender differences in preferences. Journal of Economic Literature, 47(2), 448–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Cushing, B. S., Martin, J. O., Young, L. J., & Carter, C. (2001). The effects of peptides on partner preference formation are predicted by habitat in prairie voles. Hormones and Behavior, 39(1), 48–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Dawkins, R., & Carlisle, T. (1976). Parental investment, mate desertion and a fallacy. Nature, 262, 131–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. DeBruine, L. M. (2004). Resemblance to self increases the appeal of child faces to both men and women. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25(3), 142–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Dekel, E., Ely, J. C., & Yilankaya, O. (2007). Evolution of preferences. Review of Economic Studies, 74(3), 685–704.Google Scholar
  36. Doepke, M., & Tertilt, M. (2009). Women’s liberation: What’s in it for men? Quarterly Journal Of Economics, 124(4), 1541–1591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Doepke, M. & Tertilt, M. (2011). Does female empowerment promote economic development? CEPR Discussion Papers 8441.Google Scholar
  38. Donaldson, Z. R., & Young, L. J. (2008). Oxytocin, vasopressin, and the neurogenetics of sociality. HortScience, 322(5903), 900–904.Google Scholar
  39. Du, Q., & Wei, S.-J. (2010). A sexually unbalanced model of current account imbalances. NBER Working Paper 16000.Google Scholar
  40. Eswaran, M., & Kotwal, A. (2004). A theory of gender differences in parental altruism. Canadian Journal of Economics, 37(4), 918–950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Fisher, R. A. (1930). The genetical theory of natural selection. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Fisman, R., Iyengar, S. S., Kamenica, E., & Simonson, I. (2006). Gender differences in mate selection: Evidence from a speed dating experiment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121(2), 673–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Fortunato, L., & Archetti, M. (2010). Evolution of monogamous marriage by maximization of inclusive fitness. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 23(1), 149–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Frank, R. H. (1987). If homo economicus could choose his own utility function, would he want one with a conscience? American Economic Review, 77(4), 593–604.Google Scholar
  45. Friedmann H. (1928). Social parasitism in birds. Quarterly Review of Biology 3(4), 554–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Fromhage, L., & McNamara, J. M. , Houston, A. I. (2007). Stability and value of male care for offspring: Is it worth only half the trouble? Biology Letters, 3(3), 234–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Gavrilets, S. (2012). Human origins and the transition from promiscuity to pair bonding. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109, 9923–9928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Geary, D. C. (2010). Male, female: The evolution of human sex differences (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Gordon, I., Zagoory-Sharon, O., Leckman, J. F., & Feldman, R. (2010). Oxytocin and the development of parenting in humans. Biological Psychiatry, 68(4), 377–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Grafen, A. (2000). A biological approach to economics through fertility. Economics Letters, 66(3), 241–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Grafen, A., & Sibly, R. (1978). A model of mate desertion. Animal Behaviour, 26, 645–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Gray, P. B., Kahlenberg, S. M., Barrett, E. S., LipsonS.F. Ellison, P. T., & Ellison, S. F. (2002). Marriage and fatherhood are associated with lower testosterone in males. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23(3), 193–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Gray, P., Parkin, J., & Samms-Vaughan, M. (2007). Hormonal correlates of human paternal interactions: A hospital-based investigation in urban Jamaica. Hormones and Behavior, 52(4), 499–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Grossbard, A. (1976). An economic analysis of polygyny: The case of Maiduguri. Current Anthropology, 17(4), 701–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Grossbard-Shechtman, A. (1980). The economics of polygamy. In J. DaVanzo & J. Simon (Eds.), Research in population economics. Boulder, CO: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  56. Grossbard-Shechtman, A. (1986). Economic behavior, marriage and fertility: Two lessons from polygyny. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 7(4), 415–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Haig, D. (1993). Genetic conflicts in human pregnancy. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 68(4), 495–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Hansson, I., & Stuart, C. (1990). Malthusian selection of preferences. American Economic Review, 80(3), 529–544.Google Scholar
  59. Hawkes, K. (2004). Mating, parenting and the evolution of human pair bonds. In B. Chapais & C. Berman (Eds.), Kinship and behavior in primates (pp. 443–474). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Heifetz, A., Shannon, C., & Spiegel, Y. (2007). The dynamic evolution of preferences. Economic Theory, 32(2), 251–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Hitsch, G. J., Hortaçsu, A., & Ariely, D. (2010). What makes you click? Mate preferences in online dating. Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 8, 393–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Hrdy, S. B. (2000). The optimal number of fathers: Evolution, demography, and history in the shaping of female preferences. Annals of New York Academy of Sciences, 907, 75–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Jones, A. G., & Avise, J. C. (2001). Mating systems and sexual selection in male-pregnant pipefishes and seahorses: Insights from microsatellite-based studies of maternity. Journal of Heredity, 92(2), 150–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Kokko, H., & Jennions, M. (2008). Parental investment, sexual selection and sex ratios. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 21, 919–948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Lagerlöf, N.-P. (2005). Sex, equality, and growth. Canadian Journal of Economics, 38(3), 807–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R. T., & Michaels, S. (1994). The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  67. Maynard Smith, J. (1977). Parental investment: A prospective analysis. Animal Behaviour, 25, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. McCall, C., & Singer, T. (2012). The animal and human neuroendocrinology of social cognition, motivation and behavior. Nature Neuroscience, 15(5), 681–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Miller, G. (2000). The mating mind: How sexual choice shaped the evolution of human nature. New York, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  70. Neff, B. D., & Pitcher, T. E. (2005). Genetic quality and sexual selection: an integrated framework for good genes and compatible genes. Molecular Ecology, 14(1), 19–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Netzer, N. (2009). Evolution of time preferences and attitudes toward risk. American Economic Review, 99(3), 937–955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Orians, G. H. (1969). On the evolution of mating systems in birds and mammals. American Naturalist, 103(934), 589–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Pagel, M. (1997). Desperately concealing father: A theory of parent-infant resemblance. Animal Behaviour, 53(5), 973–981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Platek, S. M., Burch, R. L., Panyavin, I. S., WassermanB.H. Gallup, G. G., & Gallup, B. H. (2002). Reactions to children’s faces: Resemblance affects males more than females. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23(3), 159–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Platek, S. M., Keenan, J. P., & Mohamed, F. B. (2005). Sex differences in the neural correlates of child facial resemblance: An event-related FMRI study. NeuroImage, 25(4), 1336–1344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Posner, R. A. (1992). Sex and reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  77. Queller, D. C. (1997). Why do females care more than males? Proceedings: Biological Sciences, 264(1388), 1555–1557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Rasul, I. (2006). The economics of child custody. Economica, 73(289), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Rayo, L., & Becker, G. S. (2007). Evolutionary efficiency and happiness. Journal of Political Economy, 115(2), 302–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Robson, A. (2001). Why would nature give individuals utility functions? Journal of Political Economy, 109(4), 900–914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Robson, A., & Samuelson, L. (2011). The evolution of decision and experienced utilities. Theoretical Economics, 6(3), 311–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Sanchez, R., Parkin, J. C., Chen, J. Y., & Gray, P. B. (1979). Oxytocin,vasopressin, and human social behavior. In P. B Gray & P. T. Ellison (Eds.), Endocrinology of social relationships (pp. 317–339). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  83. Siow, A. (1998). Differential fecundity, markets, and gender roles. Journal of Political Economy, 106(2), 334–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Smith, I. (2012). Reinterpreting the economics of extramarital affairs. Review of Economics of the Household, 10(3), 319–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Stevenson, B., & Wolfers, J. (2007). Marriage and divorce: Changes and their driving forces. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21(2), 27–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Storey, A. E., Walsh, C. J., Quinton, R. L., & Wynne-Edwards, K. E. (2000). Hormonal correlates of paternal responsiveness in new and expectant fathers. Evolution and Human Behavior, 21(2), 79–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Temeles, E. J., & Kress, W. J. (2003). Adaptation in a plant-hummingbird association. HortScience, 300(5619), 630–633.Google Scholar
  88. Tertilt, M. (2005). Polygyny, fertility, and savings. Journal of Political Economy, 113(6), 1341–1371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man (pp. 136–179). Chicago, IL: Aldine.Google Scholar
  90. Vaillant, N. G., & Wolff, F.-C. (2011). Positive and negative preferences in human mate selection. Review of Economics of the Household, 9(2), 273–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Varian, H. R. (1992). Microeconomic analysis. (3rd ed.). New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  92. Volk, A., & Quinsey, V. L. (2002). The influence of infant facial cues on adoption preferences. Human Nature, 13, 437–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Wade, M. J. (1979). Sexual selection and variance in reproductive success. American Naturalist, 114, 742–764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Wade, M. J., & Shuster, S. M. (2002). The evolution of parental care in the context of sexual selection: A critical reassessment of parental investment theory. American Naturalist, 160(3), 285–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Walum, H., Westberg, L., Henningsson, S., Neiderhiser, J. M., Reiss, D., Igl, W., et al. (2008). Genetic variation in the vasopressin receptor 1a gene (AVPR1A) associates with pair-bonding behavior in humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(37), 14153–14156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Wei, S.-J., & Zhang, X. (2011). The competitive saving motive: Evidence from rising sex ratios and savings rates in China. Journal of Political Economy, 119(3), 511–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Weibull, J. W. (1995). Evolutionary game theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  98. Westneat, D., Sherman, P., & Morton, M. (1990). The ecology and evolution of extra-pair copulations in birds. Current Ornithology, 7, 331–370.Google Scholar
  99. Whittingham, L. A., & Dunn, P. O. (2001). Male parental care and paternity in birds. Current Ornithology, 16, 257–298.Google Scholar
  100. Young, L. J., Nilsen, R., Waymire, K. G., MacGregor, G. R., & Insel, T. R. (1999). Increased affiliative response to vasopressin in mice expressing the v1a receptor from a monogamous vole. Nature, 400(6746), 766–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Zeitzen, M. K. (2008). Polygamy: A cross-cultural analysis. Oxford: Berg Publishers.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.TSE (LERNA, CNRS), IAST, IDEIUniversité Toulouse 1 CapitoleToulouse, Cedex 6France
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsBoston CollegeChestnut HillUSA

Personalised recommendations