Advertisement

Human Nature

, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 189–210 | Cite as

Lineage, Sex, and Wealth as Moderators of Kin Investment

Evidence from Inheritances
  • Gregory D. WebsterEmail author
  • Angela Bryan
  • Charles B. Crawford
  • Lisa McCarthy
  • Brandy H. Cohen
Article

Abstract

Supporting Hamilton’s inclusive fitness theory, archival analyses of inheritance patterns in wills have revealed that people invest more of their estates in kin of closer genetic relatedness. Recent classroom experiments have shown that this genetic relatedness effect is stronger for relatives of direct lineage (children, grandchildren) than for relatives of collateral lineage (siblings, nieces, nephews). In the present research, multilevel modeling of more than 1,000 British Columbian wills revealed a positive effect of genetic relatedness on proportions of estates allocated to relatives. This effect was qualified by an interaction with lineage, such that it was stronger for direct than for collateral relatives. Exploratory analyses of the moderating role of benefactors’ sex and estate values showed the genetic relatedness effect was stronger among female and wealthier benefactors. The importance of these moderators to understanding kin investment in modern humans is discussed.

Keywords

Genetic relatedness Inclusive fitness Inheritance Kin investment Lineage Prosocial behavior Resource allocation Wills 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the staff of the Vancouver Probate Office for their assistance in helping us access the probated wills, and the Canada Manpower Summer Student Works Project, who paid the salaries of the students who worked on this project.

This material is based on work supported by the National Institute of Mental Health under Training Grant Award PHS 2 T32 MH014257 entitled “Quantitative Methods for Behavioral Research” (to M. Regenwetter, Principal Investigator). This research was completed while the first author was a postdoctoral trainee in the Quantitative Methods Program of the Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Institute of Mental Health.

This research was previously presented by the first author at the 17th annual meeting of the Human Behavior and Evolution Society in Austin, Texas, in June 2005.

References

  1. Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  2. Chagnon, N. A. (1988). Male Yanomamö manipulations of kinship classifications of female kin for reproductive advantage. In L. Betzig, M. Borgerhoff Mulder, & P. Turke (Eds.) Human reproductive behavior: A Darwinian perspective (pp. 23–48). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  4. Cooper, J. P. (1976). Patterns of inheritance and settlement by great landowners from the fifteenth to the eighteenth centuries. In J. Goody, J. Thirsk, & E. P. Thompson (Eds.) Family and inheritance: Rural society in Western Europe, 1200–1800 (pp. 192–327). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Daly, M., Salmon, C., & Wilson, M. (1997). Kinship: The conceptual hole in psychological studies of social cognition and close relationships. In J. A. Simpson, & D. T. Kenrick (Eds.) Evolutionary social psychology (pp. 265–296). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  6. DeBruine, L. M. (2002). Facial resemblance enhances trust. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B, 269, 1307–1312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. DeBruine, L. M. (2004a). Facial resemblance increases the attractiveness of same-sex faces more than other-sex faces. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B, 271, 2085–2090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. DeBruine, L. M. (2004b). Resemblance to self increases the appeal of child faces to both men and women. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, 142–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. DeBruine, L. M. (2005). Trustworthy but not lust-worthy: Context-specific effects of facial resemblance. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B, 272, 919–922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. DeKay, W. T. (1995). Grandparental investment and the uncertainty of kinship. Paper presented at the seventh annual meeting of the Human Behavior and Evolution Society, Santa Barbara, CA.Google Scholar
  11. Euler, H. A., Hoier, S., & Rohde, P. A. (2001). Relationship-specific closeness of intergenerational family ties. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 147–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Euler, H. A., & Weitzel, B. (1996). Discriminative grandparental solicitude as reproductive strategy. Human Nature, 7, 39–59.Google Scholar
  13. Gaulin, S. J. C., McBurney, D. H., & Brakeman-Wartell, S. L. (1997). Matrilateral biases in the investment of aunts and uncles: A consequence and measure of paternity uncertainty. Human Nature, 8, 139–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goody, J. (1983). The development of family and marriage in Europe. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hamilton, W. D. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behavior. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7, 1–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Judd, C. M., & McClelland, G. H. (1989). Data analysis: A model comparison approach. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  17. Judge, D. S. (1995). American legacies and the variable life histories of women and men. Human Nature, 6, 291–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Judge, D. S., & Hrdy, S. B. (1992). Allocation of accumulated resources among close kin: Inheritance in Sacramento, California, 1890–1984. Ethology and Sociobiology, 13, 495–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Korchmaros, J. D., & Kenny, D. A. (2001). Emotional closeness as a mediator of the effect of genetic relatedness on altruism. Psychological Science, 12, 262–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Le Roy Ladurie, E. (1976). Family structures and inheritance customs in sixteenth-century France. In J. Goody, J. Thirsk, & E. P. Thompson (Eds.) Family and inheritance: Rural society in Western Europe, 1200–1800 (pp. 37–70). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Lieberman, D., Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2003). Does morality have a biological basis? An empirical test of the factors governing moral sentiments relating to incest. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B, 270, 819–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lieberman, D., Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2007). The architecture of human kin detection. Nature, 445, 727–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McBurney, D. H., Simon, J., Gaulin, S. J. C., & Geliebter, A. (2002). Matrilateral biases in the investment of aunts and uncles: Replication in a population presumed to have high paternity certainty. Human Nature, 13, 391–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detecting interaction and moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 376–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Michalski, R. L., & Shackelford, T. K. (2005). Grandparental investment as a function of relational uncertainty and emotional closeness with parents. Human Nature, 16, 293–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Park, J. H., & Schaller, M. (2005). Does attitude similarity serve as a heuristic cue for kinship? Evidence of an implicit cognitive association. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 158–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pashos, A. (2000). Does paternal uncertainty explain discriminative grandparental solicitude? A cross-cultural study in Greece and Germany. Evolution and Human Behavior, 21, 97–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  29. Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., Cheong, Y. F., & Congdon Jr., R. T. (2004). HLM6: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
  30. Salmon, C., & Daly, M. (1996). On the importance of kin relations to Canadian women and men. Ethology and Sociobiology, 17, 289–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Smith, M. S., Kish, B. J., & Crawford, C. B. (1987). Inheritance of wealth as human kin investment. Ethology and Sociobiology, 8, 171–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1992). Psychological foundations of culture. In J. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.) The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 19–136). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.) Sexual selection and the descent of man: 1871–1971 (pp. 136–179). Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  34. Trivers, R. L. (1974). Parent–offspring conflict. American Zoologist, 14, 249–264.Google Scholar
  35. Webster, G. D. (2003). Prosocial behavior in families: Moderators of resource sharing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 644–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Webster, G. D. (2004). Human kin investment as a function of genetic relatedness and lineage. Evolutionary Psychology, 2, 129–141.Google Scholar
  37. Webster, G. D. (2006). Kin-based resource allocation: Inclusive fitness and emotional closeness. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Colorado at Boulder.Google Scholar
  38. Webster, G. D. (2008). The kinship, acceptance, and rejection model of altruism and aggression (KARMAA): Implications for interpersonal and intergroup aggression. Group Dynamics: Theory, Practice, and Research, 12, 27–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gregory D. Webster
    • 1
    Email author
  • Angela Bryan
    • 2
  • Charles B. Crawford
    • 3
  • Lisa McCarthy
    • 3
  • Brandy H. Cohen
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Illinois at Urbana–ChampaignChampaignUSA
  2. 2.Department of Psychology/CASAA, MSC 03-2220University of New MexicoAlbuquerqueUSA
  3. 3.Department of PsychologySimon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada
  4. 4.Organizational Performance and Change, Colorado State University, Denver CenterDenverUSA

Personalised recommendations