Welcome to Open Science
Contact Us
Home Books Journals Submission Open Science Join Us News
Social Capital Provision by Biological and Non-Biological Parents: Testing the Hamilton’s Kin Selection Theory
Current Issue
Volume 8, 2021
Issue 1 (March)
Pages: 7-13   |   Vol. 8, No. 1, March 2021   |   Follow on         
Paper in PDF Downloads: 17   Since Jan. 11, 2021 Views: 175   Since Jan. 11, 2021
Authors
[1]
Alfred Kuranchie, Department of Social Studies Education, University of Education Winneba, Winneba, Ghana.
Abstract
Provision of social capital into children’s education is a normal responsibility for parents. As whether all categories of parents, be they real or pseudo, make the efforts to live up to this expectation, a lot of scientific inquiry had not been conducted into it Again, the kin selection theory has been tested on various aspects of human behaviour, not on parental social capital investment in their children and wards’ education. The paper, therefore, tested the Hamilton’s kin selection theory using real and pseudo parents’ offering social capital for their wards’ schooling. The study utilised children living with biological and biological parents respectively. Descriptive survey design was employed for the data collection and analysis. While frequency counts and percentage distributions were employed for the analysis of the bio-data of the respondents, t-test was used to check the similarities or otherwise in provision of social capital by the two categories of caregivers. The analysis yielded results, which disclosed differences in the social investment made by biological and non-biological parents, confirming the kin selection theory. It could be concluded that the kin selection theory holds true in parental involvement in children’s education as well. The paper contributes to expanding extant literature and understanding of the kin selection theory on behavioural science or in human and altruistic behaviour. Research areas that need further scientific inquiry with respect to the theory have been offered.
Keywords
Social Capital, Real Parents, Pseudo Parents, Hamilton’s Kin Selection Theory
Reference
[1]
Cheatham, G. A., & Ostrosky, M. M. (2013). Goal setting during early childhood parent-teacher conferences: A comparison of three groups of parents. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 27 (2), 166-189.
[2]
Castro, M., Casas, E., Martin, E., Lizasoain, L., Asencio, E. & Gaviria, J. (2015). Parental involvement on student academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 14, 33-46.
[3]
Martinez, A. (2015). Parent involvement and its effects on students’ academic achievement. Doctoral Dissertation. California State University, Stanislaus.
[4]
Williams, V. L. (2017). Relationship between parents’ attitude and involvement in an elementary school. Doctoral Dissertation, Walden University.
[5]
Bshary, R. & Raihani, N. J. (2017). Helping in humans and other animals: A fruitful Interdisciplinary dialogue society. Proc. R. Soc. B., 2, 1-9.
[6]
Rafiq, H. M. W., Fatima, T., Sohail, M. M., Saleen, M. & Al Khan, M. (2013). Parental involvement and academic achievement: A study on secondary school students. Journal of Education, 3 (2), 34-39.
[7]
Ndebele, M. (2015). Socio-economic factors affecting parents’ involvement in homework: Practices and perceptions from eight Johannesburg public primary schools. Perspectives in Education, 33 (3), 72-91.
[8]
Plagens, G., K. (2011). Social capital and education: Implications for student and school performance. Education and Culture, 27 (1), 40-64.
[9]
Ferrara, M. M. (2015). Parental involvement facilitators: Unlocking social capital wealth. School Community Journal, 25 (1), 29-51.
[10]
Durisic, M. & Bunijevac, M. (2017). Parental involvement as an important factor for successful education. CEPS Journal, 7 (3), 137-153.
[11]
Kocayoruk, E. & Simsek, O. F. (2016). Parental attachment and adolescents' perception of school alienation: The mediation role of self-esteem and adjustment. The Journal of Psychology, 150 (4), 405-421.
[12]
Stockfish, V. (2013). Family-school partnerships framework. School and Community Journal, 12 (3), 21-41.
[13]
Williamson, J, & Greenberg, A. (2010). Families, not orphanages. Better Care Network, Working Paper.
[14]
Owusu, A. G. & Adjei, F. G. (2009). This place is better than my home: Anecdotes on child fosterage and child domestic work in three districts in the northern Ghana. Ghana Social Science Journal, 6 (2), 259-281.
[15]
Hegar, R. L. & Scannapieco, R. (1999). (Eds.). Kinship foster care: Policy, practice and research. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
[16]
Akresh, R. (2004). Adjusting household structure: School enrolment impacts on child fostering in Burkina Faso. IZA Discussion Paper, 1379.
[17]
Notermans, C. (2004). Fosterage and the politics of marriage and kinship in East Cameroun. In F. Bowie (Ed.). Cross-cultural approaches to adoption. (pp 63-72). London: Rutledge.
[18]
Better Care Network (2015). Ghana DHS 2014: Children’s care and living arrangement. New York, NY: Better Care Network.
[19]
Hamilton, W. D. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behaviour. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7 (1/2), 1–52.
[20]
Birch, J. & Okasha, S. (2015). Kin selection and its critics. Bioscience, 65 (1), 22-32.
[21]
Hames, R. (2015). Kin selection. Anthropology Faculty Publications, 505-523.
[22]
McNamara, R. A. & Henrich, J. (2016). Kin and kinship psychology both influence co-operation in Yasawa, Fiji. Evolution and Human Behaviour, 23, 135-139.
[23]
Webster, G. D. (2003). Prosocial behaviour in families: Moderators of resource sharing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 644-652.
[24]
Fitzgerald, C. J., Thompson, M. C. & Whitaker, M. E. (2010). Altruism between romantic partners: Biological offspring as a bridge between altruism and recipient. Evolutionary Psychology, 8 (3), 122-131.
[25]
Hamilton, L., Cheng, S. & Powell. B. (2007). Adoptive parents, adaptive parents: Evaluating the importance of biological ties for parental investment. American Sociological Review, 72, 95-116.
[26]
Apicella, C. L., Marlowe, F. W., Fowler, J. H., & Christakis, N. A. (2012). Social networks and co-operation in hunter-gatherers. Nature, 481 (7382), 497–501.
[27]
Varvatsoulias, G. (2013). Kin selection and inclusive fitness in evolutionary biology and psychology part 1: Could they be related to New Testament explanations of altruistic behaviour? European Journal of Science and Theology, 9 (4), 139-154.
[28]
Daly, M. & Wilson, M. (1988). Homicide. New York, NY: A. de Gruyter.
[29]
Korchmaros, J. & Kenny, D. (2001). Emotional closeness as a mediator of the effect of genetic relatedness on altruism. Psychological Science, 12 (3), 262-265.
[30]
Stewart-Willaims, S. (2008). Altruism among kin vs non-kin: Effects of cost of help and reciprocal exchange. Evolution and Human Behaviour, 28 (3), 193-198.
[31]
Patton, J. (2005). Meat sharing for coalitional support. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 137-157.
[32]
Gurven, M., Hill, K., Kaplan, H., Hurtado, A., & Lyles, R. (2000). Food transfers among Hiwiforagers of Venezuela: Tests of reciprocity. Human Ecology, 28 (2), 171-218.
[33]
Fitzgerald, C. J., Thompson, M. C. & Whitaker, M. B. (2010). Altruism between romantic partners: Biological offspring as a genetic bridge between altruist and recipient. Evolutionary Psychology, 8 (3), 462-476.
[34]
Austin, F. & Richie, L. (2016). Helping among kin vs non-kin: The role of psychological closeness. International Journal of Research Studies in Psychology, 5 (3), 3-11.
[35]
Burton-Chellew, M. N. & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2015). Hamilton’s rule predicts anticipated social support in humans. Behavioural Ecology, 26 (1), 130-141.
[36]
Curry, O., Roberts, S. G., B. & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2012). Altruism in social networks: Evidence for a kinship premium. British Journal of Psychology, 1-13.
[37]
Essock-Vitale, S. M., & McGuire, M. T. (1985). Women’s lives viewed from an evolutionaryperspective: Patterns of helping. Ethology and Sociobiology, 6, 155–173.
[38]
Kruger, D. J. (2003). Evolution and altruism: Combining psychological mediators with naturally selected tendencies. Evolution and Human Behaviour, 24 (2), 118–125.
[39]
Neyer, F. J. & Lang, F. R. (2003). Blood is thicker than water: Kinship orientation across adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 310–321.
[40]
Madsen, E. A., Tunney, R. J., Fieldman, G., Plotkin, H. C., Dunbar, R. I. M., Richardson, J.-M. & McFarland, D. (2007). Kinship and altruism: A cross-cultural experimental study. British Journal of Psychology, 98 (2), 339–359.
[41]
Rachlin, H. & Jones, B. (2008). Altruism among relatives and non-relatives. Behaviour Processes. 79 (2), 120-123.
[42]
Lieberman, D., Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2007). The architecture of human kin detection. Nature, 445, 727–731.
[43]
DeLongis, A. & Peece, M. (2002). Emotional and relational consequences of coping in stepfamilies. Marriage and Family Review, 34, 115-138.
[44]
Berger, L. M., Carlos, M. J., Bzostek, S. H. & Osborne, C. (2008). Parenting practices of resident fathers: The role of marital and biological ties. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 625-639.
[45]
Schettlers, S. & Steinbach, A. (2011). How do biological and social kinship play out within families in the United State America?: An evolutionary perspective on perceived parental care and closeness in adolescence. Journal of Family Research, 23 (2), 173-195.
[46]
Segal, N. L., Li, N. P., Graham, J. L. & Miller, S. A. (2005). Do parents favour their adoptive or biological children? Predictions from kin selection and compensatory models. Evolution and Human Behaviour, 36, 379-388.
[47]
Essock-Vitale, S. M. (1985). Women’s lives viewed from an evolutionary perspective 2: Patterns of helping. Ethology and Sociobiology, 6, 155-173.
[48]
Gibson, K. (2009). Differential parental investment in families with adopted and genetical children. Evolution and Human Behaviour, 30, 184-189.
[49]
Werum, R., Davis, T., Cheng, S. & Browne, T. (2016). Adopted context, parental involvement, and children’s educational outcomes. Journal of Family Issues, 1-27.
[50]
Farr, R. H, Fotssel, S. L. & Horson, C. J. (2010). Parenting and child development in adoptive families: Does family orientation matter? Applied Development Science, 14, 164-178.
[51]
United Nations (2009). Child adoption: Trends and policies. New York, NY: United Nations Publications.
[52]
Juffer, F. & Van Ijzendoorn, M. M. H. (2007). Adoptees do not lack self-esteem: A meta-analysis of studies on self-esteem of transition, international, and domestic adoptees. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 1067-1083.
[53]
Toussaint, J. G. (2008). Adoptive status, social capital and academic achievement. Ph. D. Dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksbury, VA.
[54]
Tan, T. & Jordan-Arthur, B. (2014). Adopted Chinese girls come of age: Feelings aboutadoption, ethnic identity, academic functioning, and global self-esteem. Children and Youth Services Review, 34, 1500-1508.
[55]
Coleman, J. S., (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology Supplement, 94, 95-120.
Open Science Scholarly Journals
Open Science is a peer-reviewed platform, the journals of which cover a wide range of academic disciplines and serve the world's research and scholarly communities. Upon acceptance, Open Science Journals will be immediately and permanently free for everyone to read and download.
CONTACT US
Office Address:
228 Park Ave., S#45956, New York, NY 10003
Phone: +(001)(347)535 0661
E-mail:
LET'S GET IN TOUCH
Name
E-mail
Subject
Message
SEND MASSAGE
Copyright © 2013-, Open Science Publishers - All Rights Reserved