Social Relationships: Adults and
Infants
This is the theme for three lectures- including parent-offspring
conflict and infanticide. See Primate
Societies book in ch 27, 28 for
more articles on this topic.
We've touched on some things about adult-infant contacts; remember
Hamilton's rule: rB>C. This is the basic theoretical framework for
understanding why an adult should ever take care of any infant. We've
also seen how maximizing inclusive fitness explains males taking care of
infants in cooperative polyandry, we've also
seen male relations with infants in baboons- part of mating effort
really, not parenting effort.
We've also spoken of adult females and infants in the context of
allomothering.
Adult females and infants
Most of the interaction that goes on between adults and infants and that
is between infants and mothers. Any parental care by males is an
exception to the general rule- in mammals, and particularly in primates,
males don't take care of the kids. Remember that females spend a
disproportional portion of their lives taking care of their infants. See
the overhead about baboon lifecycles.
Variations in mother-infant relations: Maternal styles in
baboons
People really think it's interesting, the variation between individuals
in this relationship between moms and infants. Some of the best studies
are from savannah baboons. Especially the yellow baboon- mostly by Jean
Altmann, who also wrote our coursepack article. She basically found that
there were two types of mothers: permissive and
restrictive mothers.
- Characteristics
- Permissive mothers stop restraining their infants at a younger age
than restrictive mothers- when the infants are small, the mother is manly
responsible for keeping the infant with her, grabbing him if he wanders
off. At some point, the mom stops grabbing it and it's the infant's
responsibility to keep up. Permissive mothers stop grabbing their
wandering babies at about .5 months vs. 2.25 months for restrictive
mothers.
Permissive mothers stop following their infants earlier than restrictive
mothers. Early in life, mom is responsible for keeping the pair together,
but later on the infant maintains responsibility. Permissive mothers stop
following their kids at around 1mo vs. 3.25 months for the restrictive
mothers. (This is using the Heinz index of approaches vs leaves to
determine who is doing the work of maintaining the proximity.)
Anything else you look at, such as rejection of nursing or refusals to
carry, happens earlier in permissive mothers than in restrictive
mothers.
- Relationship between maternal style and rank
- It turns out that permissive mothers tend to be higher ranking than
restrictive mothers. Permissive mother's rank in her group was an average
of 6, while restrictive mothers' average rank was about 11- much lower.
It's not too clear why this is- could it be that he high-ranking mothers
are more secure that their kids'll be safe since they're high-ranking?
But nothing people have come up with has seemed to work perfectly- for
instance, in macaques it's the opposite.
- Evolutionary consequences for mothers and
infants
- One result is that permissive moms wean their infants earlier. So,
because permissive mothers stop lactating earlier, you might think they
have a reproductive advantage because they could conceive sooner.
However, this does not translate into a reproductive advantage, because
permissive mothers do not show shorter birth cycles than restrictive
mothers; the former take more cycles to conceive than the latter.
Some evidence suggests that restrictive motherhood increases infant
survival. Ill health and infant death occurred at a slightly higher rate
among infants of permissive mothers (5 of 7; 71%) than among those of
restrictive mothers (2 of 5; 40%). Note from the small sample sizes that
these aren't statistically significant.
So, given a choice of mothering style, why would mothers pick a more
permissive mothering style if it increases their kids' mortality? We'll
devote a whole lecture to this in the lecture on parent-offspring
conflict, later on.
Adult males and infants
In a lot of species there 's a lot of interactions between males and
infants in some species. These are categorized as:
- Intensive caretaking
- The male does a lot of parenting, such as in the callitrichids. In
monogamous species, males are also doing a lot of carrying and
protecting. Males should be sure of paternity to benefit from taking care
of infants, so it's usually monogamous species like aotus, the
night monkey. Most monogamous species have intensive care from the
dads.
- Affiliations
- The male forms social bonds with the infant; they interact sometimes,
playing together or maybe sharing food. You see these types of
interactions in black howlers, baboons, and gorillas.
- Tolerance
- The male and infant don't have much interaction. This is most common
in solitary species, such as orangutans. Males show no attractions to
infants. They don't seek them out, but don't avoid them either.
A controversial aspect of male relations with infants- Triadic
interactions
This is when there are three parties involved; two adult males and one
baby. When there is a conflict between two males, sometimes one of them
will pick up an infant.
This was first documented in barbary macaques. They're noted for males
doing a lot of infant carrying and holding, but it was particularly Deag
and Crook who noticed that males were particularly likely to pick up and
carry a baby when they were in a conflict with another male. There are
two hypotheses to explain this behavior.
- Agonistic buffering hypothesis
- The holder is using the baby to protect himself from the other male,
who doesn't want to risk hurting the baby because then all the female
baboons will get on his case.
- Parental care hypothesis
- This was suggested by Busse and Hamilton. When studying chacma
baboons, they noticed that infants are most often picked up by a
long-term resident male, while the male he's having the conflict with is
usually a recent immigrant. They guessed that it might be a form of
parental care- the holder could possibly be a father of the infant and he
is protecting it from the other possibly infanticidal male; so it's a
form of parental care by the males.
Evidence and predictions-- Agonistic buffering
- Prediction
- Males who carry infants receive less aggression than males who don't
carry infants.
- Evidence
- Among the baboons at Gombe, a male was less likely to be
threatened by another male when he was carrying an infant than when he
was not carrying an infant. (20 of 22 dyads (91%))
- In a study of captive bonnet macaques, 6 of 7 males were harassed by
other males less often when holding an infant than when engaged in other
activities. (Silk and Samuels did this study.)
Another prediction is that the male who is the recipient of the behavior
(i.e. the one who is not carrying the infant) should be the father of the
infant- the infant is being used like a hostage against him- but no one
has found evidence of this.
So, a correlation has been shown, but causation has not. In other words,
maybe because he is holding infant he is not attacked, but it also could
be that when he is holding the infant, he is trying harder not to provoke
an attack since he is supposed to be protecting it.
Evidence and predictions-- Parental care
- Prediction
- Male carrier is a probable father, while recipient is not a probable
father.
- Evidence
- (Remember that males often carry their friend's babies- also remember
that a lot of the time, males are likely to be the father of their
friend's babies.)
- Among chacma baboons, male carriers were high-ranking during the
time at which the carried infants were conceived, and were therefore
probable fathers.
- In contrast, most recipient males were not in the group when carried
infants were conceived (42 of 45 infant-recipient combinations). This is
particularly interesting because recent immigrants or males who have just
recently reached high rank are the ones who are the most likely to
practice infanticide- so they are potentially threatening to the
infants.
- Male barbary macaques frequently care for infants. Recent genetic
studies indicate that males do not show preferential treatment to their
own infants. They found no particular correlation between care and
paternity. This may indicate that the researchers knew more about
paternity than the monkeys themselves did. Remember that mating is fairly
promiscuous in barbary macaques so the males wouldn't have a lot of
information available to guess which infants were their own.