It is important to remember that the original data by Daly and Wilson focused on infanticide and does not apply to all step children. There was a dramatic drop in the deaths of children by step-parents (namely step-fathers) after one year of age. They looked specifically at this age group because infanticide is characteristic in many species of animals when a new male enters a group.
Cheri ----- Original Message ----- From: "Faith Florer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 4:52 PM Subject: Re: Children killed by parents > I would think that the number of children killed or abused by adoptive > parents would be crucial to an argument about the relationship between > biological relatedness and violence towards a child in the household. A > step parent is a parent as a result of marriage. Adoptive parents, like > many biological parents, choose to parent the child. In this country, > becoming an adoptive parent is quite a demanding procedure. I'd be > surprised if the rate of abuse was as high in adoptive parents as in > biological parents. I'd imagine that it's lower. If so, that would refute > the evolutionary perspective. > > I also wonder whether the statistics about the 'biological parents' > inadvertently include adoptive parents because birth records are changed so > that adoptive parents look like the biological ones on paper. > > In general, I have a hard time accepting the evolutionary supposition that > biological relatedness predisposes people to care for a particular child > based on statistics comparing step parents to everyone else. First of all, > step parents end up as parents as a function of another relationship > (marriage). Furthermore, how can you control for the factor of the stress > of the divorce on the second marriage? You would need to compare step > parents with biological parents who were divorced from a previous partner, > who yet had an ongoing relationship withpartner about children, I would > think. > > > > At 2:52 PM -0500 1/2/02, John W. Kulig wrote: > >Not that I remember ... JK > > > >Faith Florer wrote: > > > >> Do the statistics cited on children killed by parents examine parents who > >> have adopted children? > >> > >> At 11:28 AM -0500 12/31/01, John W. Kulig wrote: > >> >"McKinley, Marcia" wrote: > >> > > >> >> Allen: > >> >> Do the statistics cited on children killed by parents distinguish between > >> >> biological parents and step-parents? > >> >> > >> >> Allen, > >> >> This is what the Executive Summary of the National Incidence Study-3 has > >> >>to say about perpetrator/child relationships: > >> >> > >> >> "Perpetrator's Relationship to the Child. The majority of all children > >> >>countable under the Harm Standard (78%) were maltreated by their birth > >> >>parents, and this held true both for children who were abused (62% were > >> >>maltreated by birth parents) and for those who were neglected (91% > >> >>experienced neglect by birth parents). > >> > > >> ><snip> > >> > > >> >This appears to be at odds with the Daly and Wilson references provided by > >> >Michael Ofsowitz that indicate a child is 40X more likely to be abused by > >> >a step parent, and 70-100X more likely to be _killed_ by a step parent > >> >(The fact that the step vs. biological parent ratio is much higher for > >> >death than abuse argues against the old argument that biological parents > >> >hide the abuse better. Since it is easier to hide a bruise than a dead > >> >body, the step:biological ratio for abuse vs death would move in the > >> >opposite direction.). Btw, this data (70-100X more likely to die at hands > >> >of step parents) is the rate _after_ demographics such > >> >as socio-economic status are accounted for - strong evidence for either a > >> >biological or an evolutionary explanation. > >> > > >> >It is my understanding (based on reading Daly and Wilson's summary book > >> >_Homicide_) that Canadian homicide police record whether parents were step > >> >or biological, but the US does not - hence their heavy reliance on > >> >Canadian data. > >> > > >> >The data cited by Marcia may be misleading. The fact that 78% of the > >> >children countable under the Harm Standard had biological parents is not a > >> >surprise since there are far more children raised by biological parents > >> >(the old "base rate" problem). It is the _rate_ of abuse in step vs > >> >biological households that is important (the data reported by Michael). > >> > > >> >Somewhere in Daly and Wilson's book (_Homicide_) they discuss how > >> >primitive societies handle the problem of children after the father dies. > >> >In some the brother assumes responsibility (in a polygamous society he's > >> >marry his former sister-in-law). While this seems barbaric to us moderns > >> >who take personal freedom for granted, the practice may be rooted in the > >> >appreciation that children are better raised by family, not strangers. > >> >Even when death and abuse do not occur, children are often a liability in > >> >the dating that follow a divorce (Susan Smith drowning her children in > >> >order to increase her chance of getting another husband > >> >would be an extreme example). > >> > > >> >Interesting data to collect would be abuse rates for children born in a > >> >family in which the father is not the real father (but doesn't know it). > >> >Here you could separate the pure effects of biological relatedness from > >> >the parenting role which generally co-vary. This data - for obvious > >> >reasons - would be hard to collect! > >> > > >> >-- > >> >--------------------------------------------------------------- > >> >John W. Kulig [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> >Department of Psychology http://oz.plymouth.edu/~kulig > >> >Plymouth State College tel: (603) 535-2468 > >> >Plymouth NH USA 03264 fax: (603) 535-2412 > >> >--------------------------------------------------------------- > >> >"What a man often sees he does not wonder at, although he knows > >> >not why it happens; if something occurs which he has not seen before, > >> >he thinks it is a marvel" - Cicero. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >--- > >> >You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> >To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> phone: 914-738-1147 > >> fax: 914-738-1078 > >> > >> --- > >> You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >-- > >--------------------------------------------------------------- > >John W. Kulig [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Department of Psychology http://oz.plymouth.edu/~kulig > >Plymouth State College tel: (603) 535-2468 > >Plymouth NH USA 03264 fax: (603) 535-2412 > >--------------------------------------------------------------- > >"What a man often sees he does not wonder at, although he knows > >not why it happens; if something occurs which he has not seen before, > >he thinks it is a marvel" - Cicero. > > > > > > > >--- > >You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > phone: 914-738-1147 > fax: 914-738-1078 > > > > --- > You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
