| Literature DB >> 29494690 |
Kai Pierre Willführ1,2, Johannes Johow3, Eckart Voland4.
Abstract
Motivated by the cooperative breeding hypothesis, we investigate the effect of having kin on the mortality of reproductive women based on family reconstitutions for the Krummhörn region (East Frisia, Germany, 1720-1874). We rely on a combination of Cox clustered hazard models and hazard models stratified at the family level. In order to study behavior-related effects, we run a series of models in which only kin who lived in the same parish are considered. To investigate structural, non-behavior-related effects, we run a different model series that include all living kin, regardless their spatial proximity. We find that women of reproductive age who had a living mother had a reduced mortality risk. It appears that having living sisters had an ambivalent impact on women's mortality: i.e., depending on the socioeconomic status of the family, the effect of having living sisters ranged between representing a source of competition and representing a source of support. Models which are clustered at the family level suggest that the presence of a living mother-in-law was associated with reduced mortality among her daughters-in-law especially among larger-scale farm families. We interpret this finding as a consequence of augmented consanguineous marriages among individuals of higher social strata. For instance, in first cousin marriages, the mother-in-law could also be a biological aunt. Thus, it appears that among the wealthy elite, the genetic in-law conflict was neutralized to some extent by family solidarity. This result further suggests that the tipping point of the female trade-off between staying with the natal family and leaving the natal family to join an economically well-established in-law family might have been reached very quickly among women living under the socioeconomic conditions of the Krummhörn region.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29494690 PMCID: PMC5832229 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0193252
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Descriptive statistics: Number of cases and failures, and mean ages at important events.
| N girls born to marriages contracted between 1720 and 1850 | |
| N cases deleted because of missing info. on parents’ start and end dates of marriage | -6,473 |
| N cases deleted because ID never married or the date of marriage is unknown | -8,130 |
| N cases deleted because ID’s age at first marriage was higher than 45 | -49 |
| N cases deleted because ID married after January 1, 1874 | -115 |
| N cases deleted because ID out-migrated immediately after marriage | -610 |
| N cases remaining in the sample | |
| Born to N families | 3,201 |
| N died before reaching age 45 | 922 |
| N died within a postpartum period | 182 |
| 1st birth related | 62 |
| 2nd birth related | 28 |
| 3rd birth related | 20 |
| 4th and higher birth orders | 72 |
| Mean age at death of IDs who died before reaching age 45 (standard deviation) | 34.59 (±6.39) |
| N censored before reaching age 45 | 1,578 |
| Mean age at censoring of these IDs (standard deviation) | 35.17 (±6.20) |
| N IDs who survived to age 45 | 2,414 |
| Total N episodes (on average per ID) | 178,636 (36,35) |
| Mean age at first marriage = mean age at entry] (standard deviation) | 25.99 (±4.59) |
| Mean age at exit (standard deviation) | 39.10 (±6.50) |
| N IDs who experienced the death of the 1st husband before the age of 45 | 660 |
| N IDs who married a 2nd time before the age of 45 | 318 |
| N IDs who experienced the death of the 2nd husband before the age of 45 | 32 |
| N IDs who married a 3rd time before the age of 45 | 15 |
| N IDs who experienced the death of the 3rd husband before the age of 45 | 1 |
| N IDs who married a 4th time before the age of 45 | 1 |
| Birth cohort | |
| 1720–9 | 9 |
| 1730–9 | 123 |
| 1740–9 | 276 |
| 1750–9 | 296 |
| 1760–9 | 282 |
| 1770–9 | 397 |
| 1780–9 | 392 |
| 1790–9 | 506 |
| 1800–9 | 582 |
| 1810–9 | 530 |
| 1820–9 | 683 |
| 1830–9 | 473 |
| 1840–9 | 287 |
| 1850–9 | 78 |
| Birth order (1 = first born) | |
| 1 | 1,158 |
| 2 | 966 |
| 3 | 804 |
| 4 | 655 |
| 5 | 507 |
| 6 | 365 |
| 7 | 219 |
| 8 | 128 |
| 9 | 56 |
| 10 | 26 |
| 11 | 12 |
| 12 | 9 |
| 13 | 6 |
| 14 | 2 |
| 15 | 1 |
*—as used in the models
Results of the Cox regression estimating the impact of blood kin on the mortality of reproductive women.
Hazard ratios are presented together with indicators of statistical significance (** p<0.01, * p<0.05, + p<0.1). Robust standard errors are given in parentheses. All models control for ID’s birth cohort, birth order, marital status (husband alive), postpartum period, number of births, number of living offspring, and socio-economic status of the current marriage. Full models are presented in S1 and S3 Tables.
| Spatial | Alive | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clustered | Fixed-effect | Clustered | Fixed-effect | |
| 0.801* | 0.692 | 0.874+ | 0.919 | |
| (0.078) | (0.185) | (0.062) | (0.292) | |
| 1.130 | 0.916 | 0.979 | 0.969 | |
| (0.116) | (0.275) | (0.075) | (0.308) | |
| 0.951 | 1.564** | 0.968 | 4.912** | |
| (0.061) | (0.256) | (0.039) | (1.018) | |
| 1.003 | 0.831 | 0.932+ | 0.345* | |
| (0.056) | (0.150) | (0.037) | (0.152) | |
| 1.104 | 0.988 | 1.090 | 0.914 | |
| (0.134) | (0.414) | (0.066) | (0.339) | |
| 1.083 | 0.837 | 1.032 | 1.334 | |
| (0.085) | (0.181) | (0.035) | (0.500) | |
| 1.032 | 0.999 | 1.009 | 0.359* | |
| (0.088) | (0.341) | (0.037) | (0.169) | |
| 1.015 | 1.197 | 0.908 | 0.367* | |
| (0.113) | (0.440) | (0.065) | (0.157) | |
| 0.973 | 1.158 | 0.978 | 0.594 | |
| (0.072) | (0.262) | (0.037) | (0.249) | |
| 1.053 | 1.662 | 0.908* | 0.504 | |
| (0.080) | (0.596) | (0.039) | (0.313) | |
| 1.166 | 1.056 | 1.085 | 1.145 | |
| (0.167) | (0.403) | (0.073) | (0.698) | |
| 1.139 | 1.136 | 0.976 | 0.920 | |
| (0.097) | (0.290) | (0.040) | (0.551) | |
| 1.007 | 1.058 | 0.978 | 1.247 | |
| (0.118) | (0.320) | (0.043) | (0.662) | |
| 1.061 | 1.569 | 0.946 | 1.111 | |
| (0.140) | (0.701) | (0.072) | (0.609) | |
| 0.939 | 0.953 | 0.923* | 0.727 | |
| (0.074) | (0.207) | (0.036) | (0.445) | |
| 0.988 | 0.705 | 1.026 | 0.288 | |
| (0.083) | (0.197) | (0.039) | (0.239) | |
| 4,914 | 2,908 | 4,914 | 2,908 | |
| 922 | 535 | 922 | 535 | |
| 3,201 | 1,195 | 3,201 | 1,195 | |
| 178,636 | 114,353 | 178,636 | 114,353 | |
| -7107.63 | -284.19 | -7104.85 | -246.76 | |
1 –dummies only consider living kin who were residing in the same parish as the ID
2 –dummies consider all living kin regardless their place of residence
3 –each individual is compared to all other reproductive women in the sample
4 –each individual is compared to her reproductive sisters
5 –Due to the problem of collinearity, the hazard ratio has been estimated in a separate model
Results of the Cox regression estimating the impact of in-law kin on the mortality of reproductive women.
Hazard ratios are presented together with indicators of statistical significance (** p<0.01, * p<0.05, + p<0.1). Robust standard errors are given in parentheses. All models control for ID of interest’s birth cohort, birth order, marital status (husband alive), postpartum period, number of births, number of living offspring, and socio-economic status of the current marriage. Full models are presented in S5 and S7 Tables.
| Spatial | Alive | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clustered | Fixed-effect | Clustered | Fixed-effect | |
| 0.643** | 0.909 | 0.866 | 0.928 | |
| (0.079) | (0.241) | (0.078) | (0.189) | |
| 1.087 | 0.849 | 1.132 | 1.014 | |
| (0.133) | (0.243) | (0.108) | (0.231) | |
| 0.970 | 1.234 | 0.967 | 1.012 | |
| (0.067) | (0.199) | (0.045) | (0.110) | |
| 0.932 | 0.862 | 0.933 | 0.894 | |
| (0.061) | (0.130) | (0.044) | (0.097) | |
| 0.996 | 0.961 | 0.986 | 1.289 | |
| (0.167) | (0.444) | (0.072) | (0.235) | |
| 1.000 | 0.608+ | 1.015 | 0.899 | |
| (0.097) | (0.166) | (0.041) | (0.100) | |
| 1.141 | 1.052 | 1.109** | 1.062 | |
| (0.097) | (0.234) | (0.036) | (0.113) | |
| 1.086 | 0.524+ | 1.003 | 0.578* | |
| (0.166) | (0.196) | (0.088) | (0.137) | |
| 0.997 | 0.740 | 1.002 | 0.991 | |
| (0.094) | (0.232) | (0.044) | (0.116) | |
| 0.916 | 0.724 | 0.947 | 0.947 | |
| (0.120) | (0.210) | (0.053) | (0.121) | |
| 1.477* | 1.271 | 1.023 | 1.070 | |
| (0.232) | (0.387) | (0.095) | (0.197) | |
| 1.187* | 1.070 | 1.011 | 1.032 | |
| (0.095) | (0.197) | (0.060) | (0.110) | |
| 1.025 | 0.907 | 1.032 | 1.041 | |
| (0.115) | (0.226) | (0.063) | (0.129) | |
| 0.767 | 0.950 | 0.857 | 0.848 | |
| (0.139) | (0.444) | (0.091) | (0.197) | |
| 1.016 | 1.134 | 0.982 | 0.976 | |
| (0.095) | (0.244) | (0.046) | (0.104) | |
| 0.944 | 1.552 | 0.994 | 1.129 | |
| (0.104) | (0.449) | (0.048) | (0.111) | |
| 4,638 | 2,653 | 4,638 | 2,653 | |
| 754 | 430 | 754 | 430 | |
| 3,085 | 1,100 | 3,085 | 1,100 | |
| 162,755 | 106,980 | 162,755 | 106,980 | |
| -6332.78 | -244.39 | -6341.01 | -244.45 | |
1 –dummies only consider living kin who were residing in the same parish as the ID
2 –dummies consider all living kin regardless their place of residence
3 –each individual is compared to all other reproductive women in the sample
4 –each individual is compared to her reproductive sisters
5 –Due to the problem of collinearity, the hazard ratio has been estimated in a separate model
Summary of individual kin effects on the mortality of reproductive women.
Effects of kin belonging to the extended natal and in-law families are only given (and printed in italics), if at least one model suggests that there is a significant (p<0.1) association.
| Kin | Effect on the mortality of reproductive women | Interaction with SES | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kin is present in the parish | Kin is alive (not necessarily present in the parish) | ||
| Reduces mortality | Tend to reduce mortality | No | |
| No significant effect | No significant effect | - | |
| Increase mortality | Strongly increase mortality | Yes | |
| No significant effect | Decrease mortality | No | |
| Reduces mortality | No significant effect | Yes, effect is stronger among the large-scale farmers | |
| No significant effect | No significant effect | - | |
| No significant effect | No significant effect | No | |
| No significant effect | No significant effect | - | |
1—Socio-economic status
*—The results of the models investigating SES interaction of kin belonging to the extended families are bulky due to low sample size. An interpretation is therefore difficult. Please see also section 3.4
Results of the Cox regression estimating the impact of the absolute size of the lineages on the mortality of reproductive women.
Hazard ratios are presented together with indicators of statistical significance (** p<0.01, * p<0.05). Robust standard errors are given in parentheses. All models control for ID of interest’s birth cohort, birth order, marital status (husband alive), postpartum period, number of births, number of living offspring, and socio-economic status of the current marriage. Full models are presented in S9 Table.
| Spatial | Alive | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unweighted | Weighted | Unweighted | Weighted | |||||
| 0.968 | 0.986 | 0.936 | 0.948 | 0.963 | 2.029** | 0.929 | 4.147** | |
| (0.026) | (0.067) | (0.051) | (0.130) | (0.022) | (0.286) | (0.043) | (1.171) | |
| 1.016 | 0.994 | 1.090 | 1.127 | 0.995 | 0.837 | 0.969 | 0.473 | |
| (0.018) | (0.056) | (0.100) | (0.344) | (0.008) | (0.100) | (0.046) | (0.234) | |
| 0.895** | 0.961 | 0.807** | 0.940 | 0.951* | 0.965 | 0.910* | 0.953 | |
| (0.029) | (0.073) | (0.052) | (0.144) | (0.023) | (0.058) | (0.043) | (0.114) | |
| 1.020 | 0.956 | 1.076 | 0.715 | 1.005 | 1.005 | 1.005 | 0.951 | |
| (0.021) | (0.046) | (0.126) | (0.194) | (0.010) | (0.022) | (0.058) | (0.128) | |
| 4,914 | 2,908 | 4,914 | 2,908 | 4,914 | 2,908 | 4,914 | 2,908 | |
| 833 | 494 | 833 | 494 | 833 | 494 | 833 | 494 | |
| 3,201 | 1,195 | 3,201 | 1,195 | 3,201 | 1,195 | 3,201 | 1,195 | |
| 167,699 | 106,980 | 167,699 | 106,980 | 167,699 | 106,980 | 167,699 | 106,980 | |
| -6339.73 | -247.61 | -6339.98 | -247.24 | -6342.29 | -233.20 | -6342.33 | -233.07 | |
1 –dummies only consider living kin who were residing in the same parish as the ID
2 –dummies consider all living kin regardless their place of residence
3 –each individual is compared to all other reproductive women in the sample
4 –each individual is compared to her reproductive sisters
Results of the Cox regression estimating the impact of the relative size of the lineages on the mortality of reproductive women.
Hazard ratios are presented together with indicators of statistical significance (* p<0.05, + p<0.1). Robust standard errors are given in parentheses. All models control for ID of interest’s birth cohort, birth order, marital status (husband alive), postpartum period, number of births, number of living offspring, and socio-economic status of the current marriage. Full models are presented in S10 Table.
| Spatial | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unweighted | Weighted | |||
| Clustered | Fixed-effect | Clustered | Fixed-effect | |
| 1.078 | 1.274 | 1.118 | 1.263 | |
| (0.128) | (0.370) | (0.128) | (0.354) | |
| 1.074 | 1.117 | 1.503* | 2.201 | |
| (0.181) | (0.418) | (0.297) | (1.101) | |
| 0.902 | 0.822 | 0.781+ | 0.703 | |
| (0.122) | (0.258) | (0.103) | (0.206) | |
| 0.907 | 1.196 | 0.906 | 1.237 | |
| (0.080) | (0.264) | (0.080) | (0.275) | |
| 4,914 | 2,908 | 4,914 | 2,908 | |
| 833 | 494 | 833 | 494 | |
| 3,201 | 1,195 | 3,201 | 1,195 | |
| 167,699 | 106,980 | 167,699 | 106,980 | |
| -6345.03 | -247.62 | -6341.04 | -245.72 | |
1 –dummies only consider living kin who were residing in the same parish as the ID
2 –each individual is compared to all other reproductive women in the sample
3 –each individual is compared to her reproductive sisters