here’s a neat, little paper i came across during my r&r: Altruism towards Cousins [pdf]. sounds like it should be right up my alley! (^_^)

the authors — joonghwan jeon and david m. buss — conducted a study of some “w.e.i.r.d.” students at the univ. of texas (n=195) to see if they might treat and feel about their *different* cousins *differently* — the different cousins being (hold on!): father’s brother’s (FB) kids, father’s sister’s (FZ) kids, mother’s brother’s (MB) kids, and mother’s sister’s (MZ) kids. they quizzed their subjects on such things like, *“would you run into a burning building to save your father’s brother’s son?”* — and so on and so forth.

their hypothesis was that, because of paternity uncertainty, people ought to feel closer to, and be more altruistic towards, their mother’s sister’s kids since the connection between those cousins is via two mothers (mother and mother’s sister) and, therefore, the relatedness pretty certain. on the other hand, people ought to show the *least* altruism towards their father’s brother’s kids since, in that case, the connection is via two fathers (father and father’s brother) thus a LOT of paternity uncertainty there.

they figured that the pattern of altruism ought to go like this: MZ kids first, FB kids last, MB and FZ kids somewhere in between.

so, what did they find?

well, after tweaking the data a bit — i.e. to include things like residential proximity (or not) — they found that, yes, indeed, people are (or say that they would be) the most altruistic towards their MZ kids, then their MB kids, then their FZ kids, and lastly their FB kids. that seems to fit their hypothesis perfectly! however, the authors do note that, all things considered [pg. 1185]:

*“ It is reasonable to conclude, however, that FaSis children [FZ kids] are the least likely to be helped among all the four cousin categories, because (i) the mean rating of FaSis children was invariably the lowest in the willingness-to-help scores, as well as in all the three psychological variables affecting altruism, (ii) the predicted linear trends proved to be highly significant for all the four dependent measures, and (iii) FaSis children were helped more than FaBro children, as predicted, although it just missed conventional significance. Given that MoSis children were always ranked at the top position with a high statistical significance (p less than or equal to 0.001) for all dependent measures, it remains to be revealed why the degree to which FaBro children are the least likely to be helped appears not to be as robust as expected.”*

that would make the pattern — MZ kids, MB kids, FB kids, FZ kids — which doesn’t fit their prediction. not perfectly, anyway.

the raw data *really* don’t fit their prediction (click on table for LARGER view):

here we see three different patterns. although MZ kids always do come first, in two instances, the FB kids came second — and they should come *dead last* according to the paternity uncertainty theory — AND the MB kids came last twice, which is not right at all:

– willingness-to-help (i.e. burning building) = MZ kids, FZ kids, FB kids, MB kids

– emotional closeness = MZ kids, FB kids, MB kids, FZ kids

– empathic concern = MZ kids, FB kids, FZ kids, MB kids

_____

what i wondered was: could the fact that the different cousins are, on average, *related to each other to different degrees* be connected to how altruistic cousins are to one another?

the coefficient of relationship between any two first cousins is 0.125 (give or take a few genes here and there) — but this figure doesn’t take into account the differential inheritance of the x- and y-chromosomes in humans, and that that *alters* the relatedness between different family members depending on whether they are male or female (for some background on this, see this post — also, see this paper).

a long time ago ~~in you know where…~~, i sat down and calculated the coefficients of relationship for different family members with the differential inheritance of the x- and y-chromosomes in mind. the plan was to do that for ALL the family members — all the various cousins, etc. — but, the best laid plans of mice and female bloggers….

so, unfortunately, i don’t have any new-and-improved coefficients of relationship for all the various cousins (nor do i feel like working on them today), but i DO have them for brothers and sisters, i.e. FB, FZ, MB and MZ. i think we can use them as a proxy for the cousin coefficients. here they are (assuming no inbreeding):

FB (B-B on the chart if you follow the link) = 0.5050

FZ (B-Z) = 0.4951

MB (Z-B) = 0.4872

MZ (Z-Z) = 0.5128

and, rearranged to be in order of relatedness:

MZ = 0.5128

FB = 0.5050

FZ = 0.4951

MB = 0.4872

so, if *I* were to predict which type of cousin people would be *most* altruistic towards, i would pick the MZ kids (score! three points to *moi*) — the least would the MB kids (two points! according to the raw data) — and then the FB kids second (two more points for me!) — and the FZ kids third (one point). that’s eight points to me and … six points to jeon and buss (using their prediction and the raw data). (~_^)

i kinda like my explanation. (^_^) but i could be wrong, of course (the likelihood is that i am, right?).

see also: genealogical terminology

_{(note: comments do not require an email. cousins?)}