Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31303159›Full record

ArticlePhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2019

Differences between sons and daughters in the intergenerational transmission of wealth.

Monique Borgerhoff Mulder, Mary C Towner, Ryan Baldini, Bret A Beheim, Samuel Bowles, Heidi Colleran, Michael Gurven, Karen L Kramer, Siobhán M Mattison, David A Nolin and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Inheritance and inequality among nomads of South Siberia.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023
    Article
  3. Contributions of evolutionary anthropology to understanding climate-induced human migration.American journal of human biology : the official journal of the Human Biology Council · 2021
    Review
  4. Article
  5. The evolution of female-biased kinship in humans and other mammals.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2019
    Article
  6. 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

16 authors.

Monique Borgerhoff Mulder1 Department of Anthropology, University of California Davis , Davis, CA , USA.
Mary C Towner3 Department of Integrative Biology, Oklahoma State University Stillwater , Stillwater, OK , USA.
Ryan Baldini2 Graduate Group in Ecology, University of California Davis , Davis, CA , USA.
Bret A Beheim4 Department of Human Behavior, Ecology, and Culture, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology , Leipzig, Sachsen , Germany.
Samuel Bowles5 Santa Fe Institute , Santa Fe, NM , USA.
Heidi Colleran6 Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution, Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History , Jena, Thüringen , Germany.
Michael Gurven7 Department of Anthropology, University of California Santa Barbara , Santa Barbara, CA , USA.
Karen L Kramer8 Department of Anthropology, University of Utah , Salt Lake City, UT , USA.
Siobhán M Mattison9 Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico , Albuquerque, NM , USA.
David A Nolin10 Department of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University , University Park, PA , USA.
Brooke A Scelza11 Department of Anthropology, University of California Los Angeles , Los Angeles, CA , USA.
Eric Schniter12 Economic Science Institute Chapman University , CA 92866.
Rebecca Sear13 Department of Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine , London , UK.
Mary K Shenk10 Department of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University , University Park, PA , USA.
Eckart Voland14 Institut fur Philosophie, Justus Liebig Universitat Giessen , Giessen, Hessen , Germany.
John Ziker15 Department of Anthropology, Boise State University , Boise, ID , USA.

Funding

Medical Research Council MCA760-5QX00
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Persistent interest lies in gender inequality, especially with regard to the favouring of sons over daughters. Economists are concerned with how privilege is transmitted across generations, and anthropologists have long studied sex-biased inheritance norms. There has, however, been no focused cross-cultural investigation of how parent-offspring correlations in wealth vary by offspring sex. We estimate these correlations for 38 wealth measures, including somatic and relational wealth, from 15 populations ranging from hunter-gatherers to small-scale farmers. Although small sample sizes limit our statistical power, we find no evidence of ubiquitous male bias, at least as inferred from comparing parent-son and parent-daughter correlations. Rather we find wide variation in signatures of sex bias, with evidence of both son and daughter-biased transmission. Further, we introduce a model that helps pinpoint the conditions under which simple mid-point parent-offspring wealth correlations can reveal information about sex-biased parental investment. Our findings are relevant to the study of female-biased kinship by revealing just how little normative descriptors of kinship systems, such as patrilineal inheritance, capture intergenerational correlations in wealth, and how variable parent-son and parent-daughter correlations can be. This article is part of the theme issue 'The evolution of female-biased kinship in humans and other mammals'.

Indexed as

Sex FactorsFemaleHumansMaleNuclear FamilyParentsSocioeconomic FactorsWillsparental investmentson biaswealth transmission

Identifiers

PMID31303159
PMCPMC6664137

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.