CHAPTER 8: PROBLEMS OF KINSHIP

Chapter Summary
We start this chapter by delving deeper into Hamiltons (1964) theory of inclusive fitness, formalized by
Hamiltons rule c < rb. For altruism to evolve, for example, the cost to the actor must be less than the
benefits provided, multiplied by the genetic relatedness between the actor and the recipient. In one bold
stroke, this theory offered one answer to the question of how altruism could evolve. It simultaneously
extended Darwins definition of classical fitness (personal reproductive success) to inclusive fitness
(personal reproductive success plus the effects of ones actions on the fitness of genetic relatives,
weighted by the degree of genetic relatedness).
Next we draw out the profound theoretical implications of inclusive fitness theory for humans. For
example, (1) there will be a special evolved psychology of kinship involving psychological mechanisms
dedicated to solving the differing adaptive problems confronted when dealing with siblings, half siblings,
grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, and uncles; (2) sex and generation will be critical categories
differentiating kin because these dimensions define important properties on ones fitness vehicles (e.g.,
male kin have a higher ceiling on reproduction than female kin; younger kin have higher reproductive
value than older kin); (3) kin relationships will be arrayed on a dimension from close to distant, the
primary predictor of closeness being genetic relatedness; (4) cooperation and kin solidarity will be a
function of genetic relatedness among kin; (5) older kin members will encourage younger kin members to
be more altruistic toward genetic relatives such as siblings than younger kin members will naturally be
inclined to be; (6) ones position within a family will be central to ones identity; and (7) people will
exploit kin terms to influence and manipulate others in nonkin contexts (e.g., Brother, can you spare
some cash?).
Empirical studies have confirmed the importance of kinship as a predictor of helping behavior. One study
documented that alarm calling among ground squirrels, a potentially costly endeavor to the caller because
it draws the attention of predators, occurs when close kin are likely to be nearby. Helping kin first
requires the ability to recognize kin. Humans have at least four kin recognition mechanisms: (1)
association; (2) odor; (3) kin classification systems based on a universal grammar that includes
genealogical distance, social rank, and group membership resemblance; and (4) facial resemblance. A
study of 300 Los Angeles women found that helping was a function of the genetic relatedness to the
individual being helped. Another study showed that in hypothetical life-or-death scenarios, such as risking
ones life to pull someone from a burning building, helping was highly predictable from the degree of
genetic relatedness between the helper and the person being helped. In studies of inheritance, people tend
to leave more to genetic relatives (and to spouses, who will presumably pass on the resources to genetic
relatives) than to nonrelatives. Other studies show that the amount of grief and sorrow that individuals
experience is directly related to the degree of genetic relatedness (see Segal et al., 1995, for empirical
evidence and Archer, 1998, for an extended review of the psychology of grief). All of these empirical
studies point to the importance of kinship as a predictor of the allocation of acts of helping.
Concern over close kin also extends to individuals maintaining vigilance over their close kins romantic
relationships, especially over female kin. Absence of close kin, on the other hand, has disadvantages.
Growing up without close kin, or in stepfamilies with half siblings, can be stressful, as indicated by the
higher cortisol levels of children in these families.
Grandparental investment is a special arena for testing nonintuitive predictions from inclusive fitness
theory. In particular, paternity uncertainty comes into play. A paternal grandfather has double the risk of
genetic relatedness being severed. First, he might not be the father of his children. Second, his son might
not be the father of his own children. Grandmothers, in contrast, are 100 percent certain that they are the

genetic relatives of the children of their daughters. On the basis of this logic, we should expect mothers
mothers to show the heaviest grandparental investment, on average, and fathers fathers to show the least.
The other two types of grandparentsfathers mothers and mothers fathersshould show investment
patterns between these extremes because in each of these cases, there is one opportunity for genetic
relatedness to be severed.
Empirical evidence from Germany, the United States, Greece, and France supports these predictions.
Grandchildren felt closest to their maternal grandmothers and most distant from their paternal
grandfathers. Furthermore, grandchildren reported that they received the most resources from their
maternal grandmothers and the least from their paternal grandfathers. Although the two other types of
grandparents fell in between these extremes, it is interesting to note that in both cases, the maternal
grandfather invested more than the paternal grandmother. This finding rules out the idea that women
invest more than men in kin across the board.
A similar logic applies to investment by aunts, uncles, and cousins. The siblings of a sister are sure that
their sister is the parent of her child, so these aunts and uncles are sure that they are the genetic relatives
of their nieces and nephews. The siblings of a brother, in contrast, are not certain, because their brother
may have been cuckolded. This leads to the prediction of differential investment by aunts and uncles,
depending on whether the children are their sisters or brothers. Maternal aunts, for example, would be
expected to invest more than paternal aunts.
In a study of investment by aunts and uncles, two important predictors of investment by aunts and uncles
were determined. First, aunts tended to invest more than uncles, regardless of whether their nieces and
nephews were the children of a brother or a sistera sex effect. Second, the maternal aunts and uncles
invested more than the paternal aunts and uncles, supporting the key prediction. Similar results were
found in studies of helping cousins through maternal versus paternal lines.
The final section of this chapter examines the broader perspective on the evolution of the family. Given
the fact that families are exceedingly rare in the animal worldfound among roughly 3 percent of all
mammalsthe very existence of families requires explanation. According to Stephen Emlen, families,
consisting of mature offspring continuing to reside at home, occur under two key conditions: (1) when
there is a scarcity of reproductive vacancies elsewhere or (2) when there are distinct benefits of staying at
home, such as enhancing survival, improving abilities to compete, and giving aid to (and receiving aid
from) genetic relatives.
Several predictions follow from this theory. The theory predicts, for example, that family stability will be
higher when there is more wealth, and hence greater opportunities to benefit from the family and perhaps
inherit familial wealth. It predicts that the sudden death of a reproducer within the family will result in a
conflict over who will fill the void (e.g., conflict over access to parental wealth). It predicts that
stepfathers and stepmothers will invest less than genetic fathers and mothers and that stepfamilies will be
inherently less stable and more conflicted than genetically intact families. Many of these predictions have
been tested with nonhuman animals, and some with humans. Emlens theory has been criticized on
several grounds, including (1) that it fails to take into account the fact that postmenopausal women can
continue to aid their families and cannot exploit available reproductive vacancies and (2) that people often
engage in extensive reciprocal exchange with nonkin. These factors suggest refinements of Emlens
theory that take into account the unique aspects of the human animal.
Although early evolutionary models emphasized harmonious cooperation within members of the family,
recent evolutionary models point to three important arenas of conflict: sibling conflict, parentoffspring
conflict, and conflict between mother and father. Although inclusive fitness theory predicts that genetic
relatedness will be an important predictor of altruism, family members almost never have identical

genetic interests. As a consequence, conflict and competition within families are predicted to be
pervasive.
Suggested Readings
Coall, D. A., & Hertwig, R. (2010). Grandparental investment: Past, present, and future. Behavioral and
Brain Sciences, 33, 159.
Cronk, L., & Gerkey, D. (2007). Kinship and descent. In R.I.M. Dunbar & L. Barrett (Eds.), Oxford
Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology (pp. 463478). New York: Oxford University Press.
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. 265296). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Davis, J. N., & Daly, M. (1997). Evolutionary theory and the human family. The Quarterly Review of
Biology, 72, 407435.
DeKay, W. T., & Shackelford, T. K. (2000). Toward an evolutionary approach to social cognition.
Evolution and Cognition, 6, 185195.
Faulkner, J., & Schaller, M. (2007). Nepotistic nosiness: Inclusive fitness and vigilance of kin members
romantic relationships. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 430438.
Fawcett, T. W., van den Berg, P., Weissing, F. J., Park, J. H., & Buunk, A. P. (2010). Intergenerational
conflict over parental investment. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 2324.
Hamilton, W. D. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behavior. I and II. Journal of Theoretical
Biology, 7, 152.
Lieberman, D., Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2007). The architecture of human kin detection. Nature, 445,
727731.
Mock, D. W. (2004). More than kin and less than kind: The evolution of family conflict. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Platek, S. M., & Kemp, S. M. (2009). Is family special in the brain? An event-related fMRI study of
familiar, familial, and self-face recognition. Neuropsychologia, 47, 849858.
Pollet, T. V., Nettle, D., & Nelissen, M. (2007). Maternal grandmothers do go the extra mile: Factoring
distance and lineage into differential contact with grandchildren. Evolutionary Psychology, 5,
832843.