How infidelity helps nieces and nephews: Men may share more genes with sisters' kids than with cheating wife's kids

November 27, 2012

A University of Utah study produced new mathematical support for a theory that explains why men in some cultures often feed and care for their sisters' children: where extramarital sex is common and accepted, a man's genes are more likely to be passed on by their sister's kids than by their wife's kids.

The theory previously was believed valid only if a man was likely to be the biological father of less than one in four of his wife's children – a number that found improbably low.

But in the new study, University of Utah anthropology Professor Alan Rogers shows mathematically that if certain assumptions in the theory are made less stringent and more realistic, that ratio changes from one in four to one in two, so the theory works more easily.

In other words, a man's are more likely to be passed by his sisters' children if fewer than half of his wife's kids are biologically his – rather than the old requirement that he had to sire fewer than a quarter of his wife's kids, according to the study published online Nov. 28 in the journal .

"Imagine a mutation that encourages its bearers, if they are , to be helpful and invest resources in the children of their sisters," Rogers says. "If that man lives in a society where most of his wife's children were fathered by other men, then this gene may not be in many of his wife's children. A man really doesn't know if any of his wife's kids were fathered by him, but he knows he and his sister have the same mom. So this gene may, in fact, be in more of his sisters' children."

"Thus, over time, the frequency of this gene increases because men are increasing the survival and fitness of their sisters' children – the ones more likely to carry the gene," he adds.

The new study "shows that it is much easier than we thought for your niece to be a closer relative than your wife's daughter," Rogers says.

The research was funded by the University of Utah.

Why Men Help their Sisters' Kids: Theory and Debate

"Men invest in children in many ways; they care for them, feed them and leave them resources when the men die," Roger says. "But in some human societies, these are the children of sisters rather than those of wives. For decades, anthropologists have wondered why."

Extramarital mating is common in some , including in central Africa and South America, he says, but not in the U.S. or other Western societies where infidelity, as prevalent as seems, much is less common by comparison.

"In some societies it is expected; it isn't seen as cheating," Rogers says. "And it isn't really just about promiscuity. Even where extramarital sex isn't common, women get divorced and remarried and have households with offspring from several men."

Rogers says: "In many societies where extramarital mating is the norm, men may not share genes with the children of wives. There is less doubt about relatedness to sisters' children. This suggests an interesting hypothesis: perhaps has shaped this practice, by encouraging males to direct investment toward genetic relatives."

"There was great enthusiasm for this idea during the 1970s, until a problem came to light," he continues. "Simple calculations suggested that the explanation collapses unless men father fewer than about one in four of their wife's children. Many have doubted that the number – the paternity threshold number – could really be this low."

Rogers' new study shows it is much easier than that for the idea to be true – for natural selection to favor men who help their sisters' kids. He shows the theory holds true if men father fewer than half their wife's kids rather than fewer than one-quarter of those kids – something much more likely to happen in reality.

The study shows this mathematically by relaxing assumptions previously made as part of the uncle-caretaker theory.

Rogers says it isn't enough to take into account the probability of paternity – the odds that a child's biological father also is his mother's husband. The new study shows that if the assumptions made in old studies are relaxed, another parameter also must be measured: "the probability a brother and sister had the same . The higher that probability, the more closely related a man is to his sister and his sister's kids."

Making Old Assumptions More Realistic

Rogers examined four assumptions made in previous studies and changed them to be more realistic. In this more realistic theory, men are more likely to share genes with their sister's children than under the old theory.

The first two assumptions of the existing theory were that "women are equally receptive to extramarital affairs and that each has an infinite number of paramours," says Rogers. "These both lower estimates of relatedness between men and the children of their sisters. Relaxing either assumption increases our estimate of the fitness payoff to men who invest in children of sisters."

[Rogers notes the theory applies to a man's sisters' children, but not to his brothers' children "because your brother has no more confidence than you do about the paternity of his wife's children. Sisters are a better bet, because they know who their kids are."]

"Previous calculations assume every woman in the population is equally promiscuous," Rogers says. "If you relax that assumption and instead assume some women are more promiscuous than others, it means men are more likely to share genes with their sisters' children."

"The earlier theory also assumed women each woman had an infinite number of boyfriends," instead of a range from one to infinity, he adds. "It made the math simple – and it gave you a wrong answer."

The new study showed mathematically that a man's relatedness to his sister's kids increases if his wife has fewer rather than more extramarital partners and if she allocates sex – and thus having children – unevenly among them.

A third problem with previous studies is that they assumed resources given to any child were equally valuable. Rogers says that didn't account for the fact that giving your wife's kids twice as many resources isn't necessarily twice as good – once the kids have what they need – but may be only half again as good for them. So the man may be better off also giving resources to his sisters' kids.

"The old model didn't account for that, and because of that, it biased things in favor of the wife's children. When the nieces and nephews share fewer genes, they end up getting zero resources rather than some reduced share, as they should."

The fourth problem with most previous calculations was that they didn't account for a simple reality: "The best thing for a man to do depends on how his wife is going to respond," Rogers says. "If wives punish their husbands one way or another for delivering goods to their nieces and nephews, it's not just the husband deciding what is best for the husband. Women have an active role in all of these decisions and that role was ignored in the previous model."

Another study published recently took that into account, making it easier to understand how natural selection might favor men who invest in their sisters' offspring.

Rogers believes that natural selection and genetics ultimately contributes to people helping their relatives in most cultures, even if the primary motivation may be tax breaks for those who provide cash gifts to relatives rather than passing on one's genes.

"People are nice to relatives all over the world, and I think selection has something to do with that," he says.

Explore further: Multiple fathers prevalent in Amazonian cultures

Related Stories

Multiple fathers prevalent in Amazonian cultures

November 10, 2010

In modern culture, it is not considered socially acceptable for married people to have extramarital sexual partners. However, in some Amazonian cultures, extramarital sexual affairs were common, and people believed that when ...

Late motherhood boosts family lifespan

May 4, 2009

Women who have babies naturally in their 40s or 50s tend to live longer than other women. Now, a new study shows their brothers also live longer, but the brothers' wives do not, suggesting the same genes prolong lifespan ...

Having brothers delays sexual maturation in women

August 19, 2010

( -- Scientists in Perth, Western Australia, investigating the costs of brothers and sisters in contemporary Australian society, have discovered that girls with older brothers tend to start menstruation later, ...

Recommended for you

Mating induces sexual inhibition in female jumping spiders

October 18, 2017

After mating for the first time, most females of an Australian jumping spider are unreceptive to courtship by other males, and this sexual inhibition is immediate and often lasts for the rest of their lives, according to ...

Understanding the coevolving web of life as a network

October 18, 2017

Coevolution, which occurs when species interact and adapt to each other, is often studied in the context of pair-wise interactions between mutually beneficial symbiotic partners. But many species have mutualistic interactions ...


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

3 / 5 (6) Nov 27, 2012
what a crock.
2.3 / 5 (6) Nov 27, 2012
what a crock.

Of course you would think that, johnnyboy, being the illegitimate child of the milkman.
3 / 5 (4) Nov 27, 2012
You can learn a lot about life on earth from DNA sequences in all organisms, including humans.
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the headline.
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 27, 2012
Well, the "crock" would involve the part about one gene leading to such a complex behavior, but models are simplified in science for purposes of, well, simplification.

In reality, such a behavior, if it exists, would be built up upon many generations, layers and textures of evolved social behavior involving complicated epigenetics-- not just one single gene that suddenly appeared overnight and produced the behavior.

One can easily see it emerging from an evolved general tendency to care for and protect females in the group, including of course one's sisters and their daughters. Also, promiscuity is the order of the day with our nearest ape ancestors so it could be that "marriage" is a very late arrival to the human behavioral tool kit anyway.

All that being said, the hypothesis is most certainly not by any stretch of the imagination an unqualified "crock".
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 27, 2012
This is madness. Sorry this really sounds like an effort to genetically mainstream the results of incestuous polygamy.
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 28, 2012
It is a theory not a moral comment.
Sounds like a very reasonable theory to me.
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 28, 2012
The logical extension of this argument is a genetic defense of incest.
4 / 5 (4) Nov 28, 2012
""The logical extension of this argument is a genetic defense of incest.""

Where did you get this idea, certainly not from the article.
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 28, 2012
""The logical extension of this argument is a genetic defense of incest.""

Where did you get this idea, certainly not from the article.

I am wondering the same thing. This is either an indication of where their minds automatically go or a statement as to the level of their reading comprehension skills.

There is absolutely nothing in this article to remotely suggest what their minds are telling them it does. Either they didn't even read the article, or they are so paranoid and pathological that they are beyond rational discourse.

My suspicion is that they might also be followers of some blogger who has distorted the meaning of the research and then directed his two followers to the comments here. That even one person could so misconstrue what is being said in such a way is amazing. That two could suggests some level of collaboration.

In any case, Dunning/Kruger syndrome is alive and well.
5 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2012
"A University of Utah study produced new mathematical support for a theory"

Why are people jumping to such base conclusions when this article is only about showing mathematical support for a theory.

It isn't encouraging polygamy nor did it even mention incest(I'm guessing people misread the article).
1 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2012
Those who think this piece has anything to do with incest are living proof that siblings shouldn't mate.
not rated yet Nov 28, 2012
I see that many of the whiners actually avoided reading the article and didn't have enough smarts to comprehend the title or preamble.

Most likely Romney supporters.
not rated yet Nov 28, 2012
Doesnt this just seem like common sense? Humans make conscious decisions, and they are often logical. Any man could tell you this, we (usually) take care of our own bloodlines, and if children are not our blood then obviously we will focus our attention on the blood relative. Since women give birth, it is absolutely certain that her child is of your bloodline and needs to be taken care of. It is also instinctive, since the bond is stronger with direct relatives. Sometimes people study the strangest things....

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.