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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
An exception is Eswaran and Kotwal (2004).
Since the evolutionary process is not forward-looking, today’s preferences might be better suited to our evolutionary past than for the here and now. However, to the extent that cognitive ability allows humans to adapt to the current environment, it is meaningful to explore the consequences of the assumption that people want to maximize reproductive success.
Cross-species comparisons are standard among biologists interested in parental care (e.g., Clutton-Brock 1991) since the effects of variations in habitat and reproductive physiology can be examined against a backdrop of the universal Darwinian objective of “survive and reproduce.”
Due to the (largely verbal) model’s complexity we cannot do full justice to it here. Rather, we will seek to give a simplified account of the model’s main ingredients and predictions.
On the other hand Trivers (1972) can be credited with having introduced the concept of opportunity cost to biology by being the first to define parental investment as “any investment by the parent in an individual offspring that increases the offspring’s chance of surviving (and hence reproductive success) at the cost of the parent’s ability to invest in other offspring” (p. 139; original text in italics).
This is not to say that considerations introduced by Trivers would necessarily be the only determinants of participation in a sexual liaison. There are obviously others to consider, such as the availability of birth control or the chances of contracting a sexually transmitted disease.
Laumann et al. (1994) report that 25 % of men and 15 % of women report having at least one extramarital affair during the course of their marriages. (The higher figure for men is due in part to visits to prostitutes.) Smith (2012) further finds that infidelity behaviors are correlated with occupation and education.
It has even been suggested that monogamy may have arisen because of fierce competition among males in the distant past: monogamous behavior, coupled with an increase in paternal investment, may have spread among males, starting with the low-ranked males (Gavrilets 2012). A different and rather intriguing hypothesis, put forward by Wade (1979), states that male-male competition might in fact have led males to invest less at the gamete stage. This argument puts Trivers’s (1972) theory on its head by suggesting that anisogamy might be the result of male-male competition rather than its cause.
To see this, note that the problem at hand is isomorphic to a textbook labor supply model in which the individual cares for the two goods “leisure” and “consumption.” In the model at hand interpret “parental care” as “leisure” and “mating success” as “consumption,” and consider an individual who faces the problem max c,m F(c, m) subject to the budget constraint \(m+pc=pT+\Upomega. \) The Marshallian demand for the good “parental care” is \(c(p,\Upomega), \) and the Slutsky equation is (e.g., Varian 1992)
$$ \frac{\partial c(p,\Upomega)}{\partial p} = \frac{\partial \overline{c}(p,F)} {\partial p} + (T-c) \frac{\partial c(p,\Upomega)}{\partial \Upomega}, $$(3)where \(\overline{c}(p,F)\) is the compensated demand for “parental care” (i.e., holding reproductive success F constant). The equation in the text follows immediately from this equation since \(e(p,\Upomega)=T-c(p,\Upomega). \) In the equation in the text we have omitted the terms in brackets for simplicity.
Whether effects similar to these income and substitution effects would remain in a model where the effect of a male’s mating effort also depended on the other males’ mating success, is an open question.
The benchmark sex ratio at birth is 106 boys to 100 girls. By contrast, the corresponding figure in China in 2007 is an estimated 124 boys to 100 girls (Wei and Zhang 2011).
For a model with monogamy and male unfaithfulness, see Bergstrom (1994b). In this model, if some males are unfaithful, depending on the sex ratio some males may end up having no mate at all.
Even maternity uncertainty may arise, due to parasitism; while this can occur among birds (e.g., Friedmann 1928), it is not relevant for humans.
In contrast, male chimpanzees engage in mate guarding only when females are in estrus, and show little interest in guarding during other times.
Mate guarding is not the only evolutionary explanation for paternal care, but it is the leading contender. The alternative hypothesis is household division of labor, whereby male hunters provision their families. A problem with this explanation is that it goes against the grain of evidence for contemporary hunter gatherer societies. Successful hunters direct their largesse toward the community at large and show little favoritism to family members (Balshine 2012).
See Bernheim (2009) for a discussion of these issues in the context of neuroeconomic tests of hypotheses about preferences.
From an endocrinological perspective though, it is striking that the function and workings of hormones tend to be remarkably well conserved through time. Oxytocin- and vasopressin-like neuropeptides have existed and have been implicated in reproductive behavior for at least 700 million years (Donaldson and Young 2008).
References
Akçay, E., & Roughgarden, J. (2007). Extra-pair paternity in birds: Review of the genetic benefits. Evolutionary Ecology Research, 9, 855–868.
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.
Alger, I. (2010). Public goods games, altruism, and evolution. Journal of Public Economic Theory, 12, 789–813.
Alger, I., & Weibull, J. W. (2010). Kinship, incentives, and evolution. American Economic Review, 100(4), 1725–58.
Alger, I., & Weibull, J. W. (2012). A generalization of Hamilton’s rule—Love others how much? Journal of Theoretical Biology, 299, 42–54.
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.
Anderson, E. (1993). Sex codes and family life. In W. Wilson (Ed.), The ghetto underclass (pp. 76–95). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Anderson, K. G. (2006). How well does paternity confidence match actual paternity? Evidence from worldwide nonpaternity rates. Current Anthropology, 47(3), 513–520.
Arcidiocono, P., Beauchamp, A. W., & McElroy, M. B. (2010). Terms of endearment: An equilibrium model of sex and matching, NBER Working Paper 16517.
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.
Barber, B. M., & Odean, T. (2001). Boys will be boys: Gender, overconfidence, and common stock investment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(1), 261–292.
Bateman, A. J. (1948). Intra-sexual selection in Drosphilia. Heredity, 2, 277–287.
Becker, G. S. (1973). A theory of marriage: Part I. Journal of Political Economy, 81(4), 813–846.
Becker, G. S. (1974). A theory of marriage: Part II. Journal of Political Economy, 82(2), S11–S26.
Becker, G. S. (1991). A treatise on the family (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Becker, G. S., Landes, E. M., & Michael, R. T. (1977). An economic analysis of marital instability. Journal of Political Economy, 85(6), 1141–1187.
Bergstrom, T. C. (1994a). On the economics of polygyny, Working paper, University of Michigan.
Bergstrom, T. C. (1994b). Primogeniture, monogamy, and reproductive success in a stratified society, Working paper, University of Michigan.
Bergstrom, T. C. (1995). On the evolution of altruistic ethical rules for siblings. American Economic Review, 85(1), 58–81.
Bergstrom, T. C. (1996). Economics in a family way. Journal of Economic Literature, 34, 1903–1934.
Bernheim, B. D. (2009). On the potential of neuroeconomics: A critical (but hopeful) appraisal. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 1(2), 1–41.
Birkhead, T. (2000). Promiscuity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bishai, D., & Grossbard, S. (2010). Far above rubies: Bride price and extramarital sexual relations in Uganda. Journal of Population Economics, 23, 1177–1187.
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.
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.
Buss, D. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–49.
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.
Christenfeld, N. J. S., & Hill, E. A. (1995). Whose baby are you. Nature, 378, 669.
Clark, R. D., & Hatfield, E. (1989). Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 2(1), 39–55.
Clutton-Brock, T. H. (1991). The evolution of parental care. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Croson, R., & Gneezy, U. (2009). Gender differences in preferences. Journal of Economic Literature, 47(2), 448–474.
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.
Dawkins, R., & Carlisle, T. (1976). Parental investment, mate desertion and a fallacy. Nature, 262, 131–133.
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.
Dekel, E., Ely, J. C., & Yilankaya, O. (2007). Evolution of preferences. Review of Economic Studies, 74(3), 685–704.
Doepke, M., & Tertilt, M. (2009). Women’s liberation: What’s in it for men? Quarterly Journal Of Economics, 124(4), 1541–1591.
Doepke, M. & Tertilt, M. (2011). Does female empowerment promote economic development? CEPR Discussion Papers 8441.
Donaldson, Z. R., & Young, L. J. (2008). Oxytocin, vasopressin, and the neurogenetics of sociality. HortScience, 322(5903), 900–904.
Du, Q., & Wei, S.-J. (2010). A sexually unbalanced model of current account imbalances. NBER Working Paper 16000.
Eswaran, M., & Kotwal, A. (2004). A theory of gender differences in parental altruism. Canadian Journal of Economics, 37(4), 918–950.
Fisher, R. A. (1930). The genetical theory of natural selection. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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.
Fortunato, L., & Archetti, M. (2010). Evolution of monogamous marriage by maximization of inclusive fitness. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 23(1), 149–156.
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.
Friedmann H. (1928). Social parasitism in birds. Quarterly Review of Biology 3(4), 554–569.
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.
Gavrilets, S. (2012). Human origins and the transition from promiscuity to pair bonding. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109, 9923–9928.
Geary, D. C. (2010). Male, female: The evolution of human sex differences (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
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.
Grafen, A. (2000). A biological approach to economics through fertility. Economics Letters, 66(3), 241–248.
Grafen, A., & Sibly, R. (1978). A model of mate desertion. Animal Behaviour, 26, 645–652.
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.
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.
Grossbard, A. (1976). An economic analysis of polygyny: The case of Maiduguri. Current Anthropology, 17(4), 701–707.
Grossbard-Shechtman, A. (1980). The economics of polygamy. In J. DaVanzo & J. Simon (Eds.), Research in population economics. Boulder, CO: JAI Press.
Grossbard-Shechtman, A. (1986). Economic behavior, marriage and fertility: Two lessons from polygyny. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 7(4), 415–424.
Haig, D. (1993). Genetic conflicts in human pregnancy. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 68(4), 495–532.
Hansson, I., & Stuart, C. (1990). Malthusian selection of preferences. American Economic Review, 80(3), 529–544.
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.
Heifetz, A., Shannon, C., & Spiegel, Y. (2007). The dynamic evolution of preferences. Economic Theory, 32(2), 251–286.
Hitsch, G. J., Hortaçsu, A., & Ariely, D. (2010). What makes you click? Mate preferences in online dating. Quantitative Marketing and Economics, 8, 393–427.
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.
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.
Kokko, H., & Jennions, M. (2008). Parental investment, sexual selection and sex ratios. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 21, 919–948.
Lagerlöf, N.-P. (2005). Sex, equality, and growth. Canadian Journal of Economics, 38(3), 807–831.
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.
Maynard Smith, J. (1977). Parental investment: A prospective analysis. Animal Behaviour, 25, 1–9.
McCall, C., & Singer, T. (2012). The animal and human neuroendocrinology of social cognition, motivation and behavior. Nature Neuroscience, 15(5), 681–688.
Miller, G. (2000). The mating mind: How sexual choice shaped the evolution of human nature. New York, NY: Doubleday.
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.
Netzer, N. (2009). Evolution of time preferences and attitudes toward risk. American Economic Review, 99(3), 937–955.
Orians, G. H. (1969). On the evolution of mating systems in birds and mammals. American Naturalist, 103(934), 589–603.
Pagel, M. (1997). Desperately concealing father: A theory of parent-infant resemblance. Animal Behaviour, 53(5), 973–981.
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.
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.
Posner, R. A. (1992). Sex and reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Queller, D. C. (1997). Why do females care more than males? Proceedings: Biological Sciences, 264(1388), 1555–1557.
Rasul, I. (2006). The economics of child custody. Economica, 73(289), 1–25.
Rayo, L., & Becker, G. S. (2007). Evolutionary efficiency and happiness. Journal of Political Economy, 115(2), 302–337.
Robson, A. (2001). Why would nature give individuals utility functions? Journal of Political Economy, 109(4), 900–914.
Robson, A., & Samuelson, L. (2011). The evolution of decision and experienced utilities. Theoretical Economics, 6(3), 311–339.
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.
Siow, A. (1998). Differential fecundity, markets, and gender roles. Journal of Political Economy, 106(2), 334–354.
Smith, I. (2012). Reinterpreting the economics of extramarital affairs. Review of Economics of the Household, 10(3), 319–343.
Stevenson, B., & Wolfers, J. (2007). Marriage and divorce: Changes and their driving forces. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21(2), 27–52.
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.
Temeles, E. J., & Kress, W. J. (2003). Adaptation in a plant-hummingbird association. HortScience, 300(5619), 630–633.
Tertilt, M. (2005). Polygyny, fertility, and savings. Journal of Political Economy, 113(6), 1341–1371.
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.
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.
Varian, H. R. (1992). Microeconomic analysis. (3rd ed.). New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.
Volk, A., & Quinsey, V. L. (2002). The influence of infant facial cues on adoption preferences. Human Nature, 13, 437–455.
Wade, M. J. (1979). Sexual selection and variance in reproductive success. American Naturalist, 114, 742–764.
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.
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.
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.
Weibull, J. W. (1995). Evolutionary game theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Westneat, D., Sherman, P., & Morton, M. (1990). The ecology and evolution of extra-pair copulations in birds. Current Ornithology, 7, 331–370.
Whittingham, L. A., & Dunn, P. O. (2001). Male parental care and paternity in birds. Current Ornithology, 16, 257–298.
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.
Zeitzen, M. K. (2008). Polygamy: A cross-cultural analysis. Oxford: Berg Publishers.
Acknowledgments
Financial support for this work was provided to Donald Cox by a grant from the National Institute on Child Health and Human Development (R01-HD045637) and to Ingela Alger by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) as well as the Agence National de la Recherche (ANR). The findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely our own and do not necessarily represent the views, opinions, or policy of the National Institutes of Health, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the Agence Nationale de la Recherche, or of any other government agency.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Alger, I., Cox, D. The evolution of altruistic preferences: mothers versus fathers. Rev Econ Household 11, 421–446 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11150-013-9201-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11150-013-9201-1