Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-55597f9d44-ms7nj Total loading time: 0.464 Render date: 2022-08-17T02:18:21.727Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

CHILDLESSNESS AND INVESTMENT IN NIECES, NEPHEWS, AUNTS AND UNCLES IN FINLAND

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 August 2014

ANTTI O. TANSKANEN*
Affiliation:
University of Helsinki, Finland

Summary

Kin selection theory predicts that individuals may increase their inclusive fitness by investing in their genetically related kin. In addition, according to the reproductive value hypothesis, individuals may increase their fitness more by investing in their kin in descending rather than ascending order. The present study uses the Generational Transmissions in Finland data collected in 2012 (n=601 women) and analyses whether childless younger women invest more in their kin than younger women with children. The study finds that childless women are more likely than mothers to invest in their nieces and nephews but not their aunts and uncles. Thus the results are in line with the reproductive value prediction.

Type
Short Report
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abma, J. C. & Martinez, G. M. (2006) Childlessness among older women in the United States: trends and profiles. Journal of Marriage and Family 68, 10451056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albertini, M. & Kohli, M. (2009) What childless older people give: is the generational link broken? Ageing and Society 29, 12611274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, U. & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2002) Individualization. Sage Publications, London.Google Scholar
Buchanan, A. & Rotkirch, A. (eds) (2013) Fertility Rates and Population Decline: No Time for Children? Palgrave Macmillan, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Essock-Vitale, S. M. & McGuire, M. T. (1985) Women's lives viewed from an evolutionary perspective. II. Patterns of helping. Ethology and Sociobiology 6, 155173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hakim, C. (2005) Childlessness in Europe. Economic and Social Research Council, Swindon.Google Scholar
Hamilton, W. D. (1964) The genetical evolution of social behaviour I and II. Journal of Theoretical Biology 7, 152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, A. (1988) Evolution and Human Kinship. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Jokela, M., Alvergne, A., Pollet, T. V. & Lummaa, V. (2011) Reproductive behavior and personality traits of the Five Factor Model. European Journal of Personality 25, 487500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Komter, A. E. & Vollebergh, W. A. M. (2002) Solidarity in Dutch families: family ties under strain? Journal of Family Issues 23, 171188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michalski, R. L. & Euler, H. A. (2008) Evolutionary perspectives on sibling relationships. In Salmon, C. A. & Shackelford, T. K. (eds) Family Relationships: An Evolutionary Perspective. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 185204.Google Scholar
Pollet, T. V. & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2008) Childlessness predicts helping of nieces and nephews in United States, 1910. Journal of Biosocial Science 40, 761770.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pollet, T. V. & Hoben, A. D. (2011) An evolutionary perspective on siblings: rivals and resources. In Salmon, C. A. & Shackelford, T. K. (eds) The Oxford Handbook on Evolutionary Family Psychology. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 128148.Google Scholar
Pollet, T. V., Kuppens, T. & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2006) When nieces and nephews become important: differences between childless women and mothers in relationships with nieces and nephews. Journal of Cultural and Evolutionary Psychology 4, 8393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statistics Finland (2012) Families. Statistics Finland, Helsinki.Google Scholar
Wenger, G. C., Scott, A. & Patterson, N. (2000) How important is parenthood? Childlessness and support in old age in England. Ageing and Society 20, 161182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

CHILDLESSNESS AND INVESTMENT IN NIECES, NEPHEWS, AUNTS AND UNCLES IN FINLAND
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

CHILDLESSNESS AND INVESTMENT IN NIECES, NEPHEWS, AUNTS AND UNCLES IN FINLAND
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

CHILDLESSNESS AND INVESTMENT IN NIECES, NEPHEWS, AUNTS AND UNCLES IN FINLAND
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *