The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Intrafamilial conflict and parental investment: a synthesis
Open accessAbstract
We outline and develop current theory on how inherent genetic conflicts of interest between the various family members can affect the flow of parental investment from parents to offspring, and discuss the problems for empirical testing that this generates. The parental investment pattern realized in nature reflects the simultaneous resolution of all the conflicts between the family players. This depends on the genetic mechanism, the mating system and reproductive constraints, on whether extra demand by progeny affects current or future sibs, and particularly on the behavioural mechanisms underlying demand (begging or solicitation) and supply (provision of parental investment by parents). The direction of deviation from the optimal parental investment for the parent(s) depends on the slope of what we term the ‘effect of supply on demand’, the mechanism that determines how changes in food supply affect begging levels. If increasing food increases begging (positive slope), less parental investment is supplied than the parental optimum and if increasing food decreases begging (negative slope), more parental investment is supplied. The magnitude of deviation depends on both the ‘effect of supply on demand’ and on the ‘effect of demand on supply’ (the mechanism determining how changes in begging affect food supply, which always has a positive slope). We conclude that it will often be impossible to deduce the extent of underlying conflict by establishing the amount of parental investment given relative to the ideal optimum for the parent. Some possible directions for future research are discussed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The genetical evolution of social behaviour. I
Hamilton, W. D. (1964) · Journal of Theoretical Biology · doi:10.1016/0022-5193(64)90038-4 · Cited by 15,725
Optimal foraging, the marginal value theorem
Charnov, E. L. (1976) · Theoretical Population Biology · doi:10.1016/0040-5809(76)90040-x · Cited by 5,374
Cited by
When is a maternal effect adaptive?
J. Marshall, D., & Uller, T. (2007) · Oikos · doi:10.1111/j.2007.0030-1299.16203.x · Cited by 855
The Evolution of Multicellularity: A Minor Major Transition?
Grosberg, R. K., & Strathmann, R. R. (2007) · Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.36.102403.114735 · Cited by 732
Developmental plasticity and the evolution of parental effects
ULLER, T. (2008) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2008.04.005 · Cited by 624
Sex, attachment, and the development of reproductive strategies
Del Giudice, M. (2009) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x09000016 · Cited by 598
Conflict between parents over care
HOUSTON, A., SZEKELY, T., & MCNAMARA, J. (2005) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2004.10.008 · Cited by 401
Metadata
- Authors
- Parker, G. A., Royle, N. J., & Hartley, I. R.
- Venue
- Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences
- Publisher
- The Royal Society
- Published
- 2002-03-29
- Volume
- 357
- Issue
- 1419
- Pages
- 295-307
- ISSN
- 0962-8436 (ISSN-L)
- 1471-2970
- OpenAlex
- W2046653119
- Cited by
- 335
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 7.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Intrafamilial conflict and parental investment: a synthesis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1098/rstb.2001.0950
- The paper
- Parker, G. A., Royle, N. J., & Hartley, I. R. (2002). Intrafamilial conflict and parental investment: a synthesis. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2001.0950
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.