taylor buser and cindy ung differential parental investment in families with both adopted and...
Post on 19-Dec-2015
217 views
TRANSCRIPT
TAYLOR BUSER AND CINDY UNG
Differential Parental Investment in Families with Both Adopted
and Genetic Children
Introduction: Background
Hamilton (1963): Kin selection theory means altruism correlates with shared genes
Daly & Wilson (1980): Stepchildren threaten resources of genetic children to stepparent
Daly & Wilson (1985, 2001): Children with stepparents are more likely to be abused
Introduction: Background
Daly & Wilson (1980): Adoption occurs between kin, fitness benefits outweigh cost
Callan (1985): In the West, adoption brings adaptive social benefits Childless: “materialistic, selfish” With children: “loving, hardworking”
Contrary evidence Hamilton et al. (2007): Adoptive households give
more investment than genetic households
Introduction: Hypothesis
Limitations of background research Between vs. within
Given that no genes are shared with household members No selective drive to invest Higher probability of negative outcomes
Hypothesis: parents of at least one adopted and one genetic child bias investment toward genetic offspring
Methods – Participant Selection
Adoption agency in MidwestRandomly chosen families with at least one
genetic and one adopted child over 22 years old at time of study
Sample sizes vary because some families had children younger than 22
Methods - Survey
Children referred to by birth or adoption order
Asked which investments were given and how much time was invested in each child
Asked about outcomes of each child in four categories: Health, Education, Personal, and Time
Methods – Statistical Methods
SPSS Controls for investment were combinations
of: age, birthorder, gender, education, marital status, and parents’ income
Sample sizes vary because investments did not apply to all children
Results – Adoptive Parents
126/3oo surveys returned75.6% of respondents were womenAverage age: 57.6 Average spouse age: 57.33Median income: $50,000 to $74,9995.9% divorced57.6% adopting because unable to
biologically conceive children
Results – Adopted and Biological Children
Average age: 26.950.3% Male45.2% AdoptedAdopted and genetic children didn’t differ in birthorder
or gender Incomes did not differ when controlled for several factors
Results: Comparisons in investment
Differential investment in education Preschool, tutoring, summer school
Personal investments Cars, rent, personal loans
Cultural activities Sports?
Promote intrinsic motivation Find new skills
Discussion
Hypothesis is not supported, investment was not biased towards genetic children
Positive investments associated with negative outcomes
Most adoptees did not need any treatment or extra investment from parents
Other research shows that adoptees are prone to other difficulties as well
Discussion: The “Squeaky Wheel”
Summer school and private tutoring can be remedial Same can be said for rent, treatment, public
assistance Parents don’t invest more in adoptees
because they are favored, but because they need more help
Discussion: Adoptees genetically predisposed?
Adoptees could be genetically predisposed to negative outcomes at higher rates
Alcohol and drug addiction, mental disorders are influenced by genetic factors As are nonviolent criminality, educational performance
Birthmother information rare because of confidentiality issues One study: mothers gave up their children for adoption
because of personal difficulties Another study: birth parents gave their children up
because of substance abuse, physical abuse, and mental illness
Discussion: Why adopt?
Our psychology is product of strategies that paid off in the past
Other cultures need optimal family size, not usual for U.S. families
Adaptive: Social acceptance, “the American ideal”
Maladaptive: Instinct fulfillment Industry of child adoption very new Takes time for a mechanism to be extinguished,
maladaptive or not
Discussion: Limitations and beyoooond
Limitations: Systematic ascertainment bias Parents want to prove they don’t favor genetic
children Age children were adopted, where they were adopted
fromFurther research:
Foster homes: If “the squeaky wheel gets the grease”, foster homes = more investment
Genetic similarity and prejudice: one white / one foreign adopted children, which one is favored?