Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29657778›Full record

ArticleRoyal Society open science2018

Adopted daughters and adopted daughters-in-law in Taiwan: a mortality analysis.

Siobhán M Mattison, Edmond Seabright, Adam Z Reynolds, Jingzhe Bill Cao, Melissa J Brown, Marcus W Feldman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Royal Society open science, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Adoption, Fostering, and Parental Absence in Vanuatu.Human nature (Hawthorne, N.Y.) · 2023
    Article
  2. The expendable male hypothesis.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2019
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Siobhán M MattisonDepartment of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9537-5459
Edmond SeabrightDepartment of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA.
Adam Z ReynoldsDepartment of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA.
Jingzhe Bill CaoDepartment of Biology, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA.
Melissa J BrownHarvard-Yenching Institute, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Marcus W FeldmanDepartment of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0664-3803

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Adoption is sometimes considered paradoxical from an evolutionary perspective because the costs spent supporting an adopted child would be better spent on rearing one's own. Kin selection theory is commonly used to solve this paradox, because the adoption of closely related kin contributes to the inclusive fitness of the adoptive parent. In this paper, we perform a novel test of kin selection theory in the context of adoption by asking whether adopted daughters-in-law, who contribute directly (i.e. genealogically) to the perpetuation of their adoptive families' lineages, experience lower mortality than daughters adopted for other purposes in historical Taiwan. We show that both classes of adopted daughter suffer lower mortality than biological daughters, but that the protective effect of adoption is stronger among daughters who were not adopted with the intention of perpetuating the family lineage. We speculate as to the possible benefits of such a pattern and emphasize the need to move beyond typological definitions of adoption to understand the specific costs and benefits involved in different forms of caring for others' children.

Indexed as

alloparentingevolutionary demographyfictive kinshipminor marriage

Identifiers

PMID29657778
PMCPMC5882702

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.