Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138
Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138
Parent-Offspring Conflict
ROBERT L. TRIVERS
In classical evolutionary theory parent- tive success (RS) would presumably want
offspring relations are viewed from the more investment than the parent is selected
standpoint of the parent. If parental in- to give. But unlike conflict between unre-
vestment (PI) in an offspring is denned as lated individuals, parent-offspring conflict
anything done by the parent for the off- is expected to be circumscribed by the close
spring that increases the offspring's chance genetic relationship between parent and
of surviving while decreasing the parent's offspring. For example, if the offspring
ability to invest in other offspring (Trivers, garners more investment than the parent
1972), then parents are classically assumed has been selected to give, the offspring
to allocate investment in their young in thereby decreases the number of its sur-
such a way as to maximize the number viving siblings, so that any gene in an off-
surviving, while offspring are implicitly spring that leads to an additional invest-
assumed to be passive vessels into which ment decreases (to some extent) the number
parents pour the appropriate care. Once of surviving copies of itself located in sib-
one imagines offspring as actors in this lings. Clearly, if the gene in the offspring
interaction, then conflict must be assumed exacts too great a cost from the parent,
to lie at the heart of sexual reproduction that gene will be selected against even
itself—an offspring attempting from the though it confers some benefit on the off-
very beginning to maximize its reproduc- spring. To specify precisely how much cost
an offspring should be willing to inflict
I thank I. DeVore for numerous conversations on its parent in order to gain a given bene-
and for detailed comments on the manuscript. For
additional comments I thank W. D. Hamilton, J.
fit, one must specify how the offspring is
Roughgarden, T. W. Schoener, J. Seger, and G. C. expected to weigh the survival of siblings
Williams. For help with the appendix I thank J. D. against its own survival.
Weinrich. Finally, for help with the references I The problem of specifying how an indi-
thank my research assistant, H. Hare, and the Harry vidual is expected to weigh siblings against
Frank Guggenheim Foundation, which provides her
salary. Part of this work was completed under an itself (or any relative against any other) has
N.I.H. postdoctoral fellowship and partly supported been solved in outline by Hamilton (1964),
by N.I.M.H. grant MH-13611 to I. DeVore. in the context of explaining the evolution
249
250 ROBERT L. TRIVERS
of altruistic behavior. An altruistic act can is at all times capable of an active role in
be denned as one that harms the organism its relationship to its parents. The form of
performing the act while benefiting some the argument applies equally well to hap-
other individual, harm and benefit being lodiploid species, but for simplicity the
denned in terms of reproductive success. discussion is mostly limited to diploid spe-
Since any gene that helps itself spread in a cies. Likewise, although many of the
population is, by definition, being selected arguments apply to any sexually repro-
for, altruistic behavior in the above sense ducing species showing parental investment
can be selected only if there is a sufficiently (including many plant species), the argu-
ture sibs are expected to be full-sibs, then identical copies of each other. Conflict near
the calf should nurse until the cost to the the end of the period of PI over the con-
mother is more than twice the benefit to tinuation of PI is expected in all such spe-
himself. Once the cost to the mother is cies. The argument applies to PI in general
more than twice the benefit to the calf, or to any subcomponent of PI (such as feed-
continued nursing is opposed by natural ing the young, guarding the young, carry-
selection acting on both the mother and the ing the young) that can be assigned a more
calf. As long as one imagines that the or less independent cost-benefit function.
benefit/cost ratio of a parental act changes Weaning conflict in mammals is an ex-
adjustment (that is, to reduce later invest- will also be a strong difference in the par-
ment below what otherwise would have ent's inclusive fitness, so that both parent
been given). In short, the offspring may and offspring will simultaneously be
gain a temporary benefit but suffer a later strongly motivated to achieve their respec-
cost. This self-inflicted cost is subsumed in tive optimal values of PI. (This technique
the benefit function (B) of Figure 2, because of comparing cost-benefit graphs can be
it decreases the benefit the infant receives. used to make other predictions about
It is not subsumed in the cost function (C) parent-offspring conflict, for example that
because this function refeib only to the such conflict should decrease in intensity
mother's net
RS o t y
mother's max
net RS
O
young's ;£
o • max O
m IF 1/2 C m
m m
(a) PI (b) PI
FIG. 3. The benefit and cost of a parental act (as mother: she will produce fewer future offspring
in Fig. 2) toward (a) an offspring born to a young anyway. The difference between the mother's in-
female and (b) an offspring born to an old female. clusive fitness at m and y is greater for (a) than for
One assumes that the benefit to the offspring of a (b). The same is true for the offspring. Conflict
given amount of PI does not change with birth should be correspondingly more intense between
order but that the cost declines as a function of the early born young and their mothers than between
declining reproductive value (Fisher, 1930) of the late born young and their mothers.
254 ROBERT L. TRIVERS
inflicted cost will, other things being equal, example, that weight at birth in a mammal
predispose parent and offspring to increas- such as humans is strongly associated with
ing conflict during the period of PI. the offspring's survival in subsequent
2) Imperfect replenishment of parental weeks, but that the cost to the mother of
resources. If the parent is unable on a daily bearing a large offspring is considerably
basis to replenish resources invested in the greater than some of her ensuing invest-
offspring, the parent will suffer increasing ment. In such circumstances, conflict prior
depletion of its resources, and, as time goes to birth over the offspring's weight at
on, the cost of such depletion should rise birth may be more intense than conflict
often than it approaches her, but as time spring is expected to disagree with its par-
goes on the initiative in maintaining ents over whether it should become a male
mother-offspring proximity shifts to the or a female. Since one can not assume that
offspring. This leads to the superficially potential offspring are powerless to affect
paradoxical result that as the offspring be- their sex, sex ratios observed in nature
comes increasingly active and independent, should to some extent reflect the offspring's
spending more and more time away from preferred value as well as the parents'.
its mother, its initiative in maintaining Fisher (1930) showed that (in the ab-
mother-offspring proximity increases (that
initially only a trivial decrease in RS, so in the Appendix. Parent and offspring
that initially any gene in the offspring tend- equilibrial sex ratios for different values
ing to make it a male against its parents' of r0 and different values of x (PI in a
efforts would spread rapidly. typical son/PI in a typical daughter) are
As a hypothetical gene for offspring con- plotted in Figure 4. For example, where
trol of sex begins to spread, the number the r0 between siblings is i/2 and where
of males produced increases, thereby lower- parents invest twice as much in a son as in
ing the expected RS of each male. This a daughter (x = 2), the parents' equilibrial
decreases the gain (in inclusive fitness) to sex ratio is 1:2 (males:females) while that
One consequence of the argument ad- apprize the parent of the offspring's condi-
vanced here is that there is an automatic tion. In short, the offspring cries when
selective agent tending to keep maternal hungry or in danger and the parent re-
investment in a son similar to that in a sponds appropriately. Conversely, the off-
daughter, for the greater the disparity be- spring signals its parent (by smiling or wag-
tween the investment in typical individuals ging its tail) when its needs have been well
of the two sexes, the greater the loss suffered met. Both parent and offspring benefit from
by the mother in competitive interactions this system of communication. But once
with her offspring over their preferred sex such a system has evolved, the offspring can
from a parent in poor condition has a dif- the infant was removed for 6 days from
ferent meaning than low investment coming its mother, leaving her in the home cage,
from a parent in good condition. This sug- and the same behavioral data were gath-
gests that from an early age the offspring ered (see point 3 below). The main findings
is expected to be a psychologically so- can be summarized as follows:
phisticated organism. The offspring should 1) Separation of mother from her off-
be able to evaluate the cost of a given spring affects their relationship upon re-
parental act (which depends in part on union. After reunion with its mother, the
the condition of the parent at that moment) infant spends more time on the mother
genetic self-interest. One need merely as- plained in terms of the present argument.
sume that the nonreproducer thereby in- Assuming that parent and offspring agree
creases the reproductive success of relatives that the offspring should reproduce, dis-
by an amount which, when devalued by the agreement is still possible over the form of
relevant degrees of relatedness, is greater that reproduction. Whether an individual
than the nonreproducer would have attempts to produce few offspring or many
achieved on his own. This kind of explana- is a decision that affects that individual's
tion has been developed in some detail to opportunities for kin-directed altruism, so
explain nonreproductives in the haplo- that parent and offspring may disagree over
additional offspring (or help those offspring ing the benefits and costs associated with
to reproduce), the parent may be selected some offspring behavior, both the parent
to give additional investment in order to and the offspring are selected to alter the
tie the offspring to the parent. In this situ- offspring's behavior appropriately. That is,
ation, selection on the offspring may favor the parent is selected to mold the appro-
any urge toward independence which over- priate change in the offspring's behavior,
comes the offspring's impulse toward addi- and if parental molding is successful, it
tional investment (with its hidden cost of will strongly reduce the selection pressure
additional dependency). In short, in species on the offspring to change its behavior