IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0007345.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Perfect Family: Decision Making in Biparental Care

Author

Listed:
  • Erol Akçay
  • Joan Roughgarden

Abstract

Background: Previous theoretical work on parental decisions in biparental care has emphasized the role of the conflict between evolutionary interests of parents in these decisions. A prominent prediction from this work is that parents should compensate for decreases in each other's effort, but only partially so. However, experimental tests that manipulate parents and measure their responses fail to confirm this prediction. At the same time, the process of parental decision making has remained unexplored theoretically. We develop a model to address the discrepancy between experiments and the theoretical prediction, and explore how assuming different decision making processes changes the prediction from the theory. Model Description: We assume that parents make decisions in behavioral time. They have a fixed time budget, and allocate it between two parental tasks: provisioning the offspring and defending the nest. The proximate determinant of the allocation decisions are parents' behavioral objectives. We assume both parents aim to maximize the offspring production from the nest. Experimental manipulations change the shape of the nest production function. We consider two different scenarios for how parents make decisions: one where parents communicate with each other and act together (the perfect family), and one where they do not communicate, and act independently (the almost perfect family). Conclusions/Significance: The perfect family model is able to generate all the types of responses seen in experimental studies. The kind of response predicted depends on the nest production function, i.e. how parents' allocations affect offspring production, and the type of experimental manipulation. In particular, we find that complementarity of parents' allocations promotes matching responses. In contrast, the relative responses do not depend on the type of manipulation in the almost perfect family model. These results highlight the importance of the interaction between nest production function and how parents make decisions, factors that have largely been overlooked in previous models.

Suggested Citation

  • Erol Akçay & Joan Roughgarden, 2009. "The Perfect Family: Decision Making in Biparental Care," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(10), pages 1-10, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0007345
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0007345
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0007345
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0007345&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0007345?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rufus A. Johnstone & Camilla A. Hinde, 2006. "Negotiation over offspring care--how should parents respond to each other's efforts?," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 17(5), pages 818-827, September.
    2. Eddie Dekel & Jeffrey C. Ely & Okan Yilankaya, 2007. "Evolution of Preferences -super-1," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 74(3), pages 685-704.
    3. C.A. Hinde, 2006. "Negotiation over offspring care?--a positive response to partner-provisioning rate in great tits," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 17(1), pages 6-12, January.
    4. P. L. Schwagmeyer & Douglas W. Mock & Geoffrey A. Parker, 2002. "Biparental care in house sparrows: negotiation or sealed bid?," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 13(5), pages 713-721, September.
    5. John M. McNamara & Catherine E. Gasson & Alasdair I Houston, 1999. "Incorporating rules for responding into evolutionary games," Nature, Nature, vol. 401(6751), pages 368-371, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alfréd Trnka & Tomáš Grim, 2013. "To compensate or not to compensate: testing the negotiation model in the context of nest defense," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 24(1), pages 223-228.
    2. Daiping Wang & Wenyuan Zhang & Shuai Yang & Xiang-Yi Li Richter, 2023. "Sex differences in avian parental care patterns vary across the breeding cycle," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-12, December.
    3. Tina A Barbasch & Rebecca Branconi & Robin Francis & Madison Pacaro & Maya Srinivasan & Geoffrey P Jones & Peter M Buston, 2021. "Negotiations over parental care: a test of alternative hypotheses in the clown anemonefish," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 32(6), pages 1256-1265.
    4. Ennio Bilancini & Leonardo Boncinelli & Jiabin Wu, 2016. "The Interplay of Cultural Aversion and Assortativity for the Emergence of Cooperation," Center for Economic Research (RECent) 121, University of Modena and Reggio E., Dept. of Economics "Marco Biagi".
    5. Ingela Alger & Laurent Lehmann, 2023. "Evolution of Semi-Kantian Preferences in Two-Player Assortative Interactions with Complete and Incomplete Information and Plasticity," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 1288-1319, December.
    6. Rufus A. Johnstone & Andrea Manica & Annette L. Fayet & Mary Caswell Stoddard & Miguel A. Rodriguez-Gironés & Camilla A. Hinde, 2014. "Reciprocity and conditional cooperation between great tit parents," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 25(1), pages 216-222.
    7. Jiabin Wu, 2020. "Labelling, homophily and preference evolution," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 49(1), pages 1-22, March.
    8. Ennio Bilancini & Leonardo Boncinelli & Jiabin Wuz, 2016. "The Interplay of Cultural Aversion and Assortativity for the Emergence of Cooperation," Department of Economics 0084, University of Modena and Reggio E., Faculty of Economics "Marco Biagi".
    9. Alger, Ingela, 2021. "On the evolution of male competitiveness," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 190(C), pages 228-254.
    10. Philippe Jehiel, 2022. "Analogy-Based Expectation Equilibrium and Related Concepts:Theory, Applications, and Beyond," Working Papers halshs-03735680, HAL.
    11. Dietrich, Franz, 2012. "Modelling change in individual characteristics: An axiomatic framework," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 471-494.
    12. Edward Castronova, 2023. "Preference evolution, attention, and happiness," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 76(2), pages 301-315, May.
    13. Ingela Alger & Donald Cox, 2013. "The evolution of altruistic preferences: mothers versus fathers," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 11(3), pages 421-446, September.
    14. Mohlin, Erik, 2012. "Evolution of theories of mind," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 299-318.
    15. Alger, Ingela & Lehmann, Laurent & Weibull, Jörgen W., 2015. "Does evolution lead to maximizing behavior?," TSE Working Papers 15-561, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    16. Gamba, Astrid, 2013. "Learning and evolution of altruistic preferences in the Centipede Game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 112-117.
    17. Norman, Thomas W.L., 2012. "Equilibrium selection and the dynamic evolution of preferences," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 311-320.
    18. Florian Gauer & Christoph Kuzmics, 2020. "Cognitive Empathy In Conflict Situations," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 61(4), pages 1659-1678, November.
    19. Sivan Frenkel & Yuval Heller & Roee Teper, 2018. "The Endowment Effect As Blessing," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 59(3), pages 1159-1186, August.
    20. Carrasco, José A. & Harrison, Rodrigo & Villena, Mauricio, 2018. "Interdependent preferences and endogenous reciprocity," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 68-75.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0007345. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.