Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology

2013, 7(4), 318-325.

Letter
A NEW DIRECTION FOR INTRASEXUAL COMPETITION RESEARCH:
COOPERATIVE VERSUS COMPETITIVE MOTHERHOOD
*

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Maryanne L. Fisher
Department of Psychology, and Women and Gender Studies Program,
St. Marys University
Kimberly R. Moule
Department of Psychology, St. Marys University
Abstract
Recently, there has been increased attention to allomothering and cooperative breeding.
This research seems at odds with some of the existing literature on womens intrasexual
competition, particularly with findings that suggest women may attempt to decrease a
rivals reproductive success in order to increase their own. In this letter, we propose
competitive mothering as a new direction for research. We review the literature on
cooperative versus competitive mothering and incorporate some examples of topics for
future research. We propose that competitive mothering represents an opportunity to
merge evolutionary psychology with feminist science. This conceptual merger challenges
widely conceived socio-cultural stereotypes of women as always being kind-hearted,
caring mothers, while recognizing the functional aspects of diverse mothering behaviors.
Keywords: Motherhood, allomothering, competition, aggression, cooperation
Introduction
Mothering, among humans, is an essential part of childrens survival and
development. It is a laborious task, to the extent that receiving assistance from others is
often welcomed. Recently, there has been an increase in attention to allomothering in
humans, following decades of research into non-human primates, non-primate mammals,
and birds (e.g., Hrdy, 2007; for a review, see Meehan, in press). This work stems from
cooperative breeding, which is a breeding system in which group members other than
the genetic parents (alloparents) help one or both parents care for and provision their
offspring (Hrdy, 2007, p. 41). Due to paternity certainty, Hrdys conceptualization of
cooperative breeding, puts mothers in a central, conceptual frame of reference.
Consequently, allomothers are individuals of either sex who are not the mother. As such,
an allomother may be a male and may include the genetic father of the child (see Hrdy
2007, p. 41). Note that the inclusion of the genetic father violates Hrdys cooperative
AUTHOR NOTE: Please direct correspondence to Maryanne L. Fisher, Department of
Psychology, St. Marys University, 923 Robie Street, Halifax, NS, B3H 3C3. Email:
mlfisher.99@gmail.com
2013 Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology

318

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Cooperative vs. competitive mothering

breeding definition, but refines the focus exclusively to helping the mother.
If one is a genetic relative who is providing assistance to kin, allomothering is
sensible in light of inclusive fitness theory, in that the assistance might improve the
survivability of the child and allow the mother to have subsequent children more quickly.
As will be reviewed, the majority of research shows that kin provide care to mothers.
However, if not genetically related, why would individuals provide support? The primary
benefit for all involved may be the formation of a relationship involving reciprocal
altruism, where resources or support are shared. For example, among vervet monkeys,
Fairbanks (1990) found that mothers benefited from having allomothers help with infant
care. Beneficiaries of allomothering could spend more time away from their infant (with
their infant still receiving care) and they were able to shorten the inter-birth interval,
while allomothers, often juvenile females, benefited by gaining experience. Allomothers
with this experience were more likely to later have offspring that survived. Interestingly,
the author noted that all group members, including those who were not kin, engaged in
allomothering to some extent.
The story is not as simple as one might infer from the above paragraphs. Women
also represent potential rivals for access to mates and any limited resources, including
those required for the survival of offspring. We must remember that women did not
evolve for the betterment of society or the wellbeing of the group; indeed, mothers did
not evolve to benefit the species but rather to translate reproductive effort into progeny
who would survive and later reproduce. Thus, the key is not the benefits that the group
receives but instead the differential reproductive success of individuals, even at the cost
of others in the group (Hrdy, 1999). Herein lies the interesting dichotomy in womens
relationships with other women, who may provide cooperative support, or be competitors
with the goal of maximizing their own reproductive success.
Our examination will proceed by highlighting the role of kin and non-kin in nonhuman primates and mammals. Next, we review studies that indicate the importance of
womens friends. We attempt to establish that friends, who may be considered as
potential allomothers, influence womens reproductive lives and that they, as well as
others, provide allomothering in several ways. We overview competitive mothering, and
present some of the ways in which female friends may harm mothers, perhaps with the
goal of improving their own reproductive outcomes. We also incorporate potential
research ideas to explore.
Non-Human Cooperative Mothering by Kin and Non-Kin
Among non-human species, non-kin participate in cooperative mothering,
although to a far lesser extent than kin. Many articles pertain to the topic of social
bonding for the purposes of providing offspring care among non-great ape primates, with
findings often leading to the conclusion that assistance stems primarily from genetically
related individuals. For example, Silk et al. (2009) examined baboon offspring longevity
as an outcome of social bond strength and found females who formed strong bonds to
their own mothers and their adult daughters experienced the highest rates of offspring
survival. At the same time, there is research that speaks to the role of non-kin in support
of mothering. For example, in baboons, non-kin females will groom mothers of young
infants, possibly to gain access to the infants (Frank & Silk, 2009).
Alternatively, allomothering by non-kin may be an evolutionary by-product. Paul
and Kuester (1996) analyzed non-human primate infant handling by non-kin females and

Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology ISSN 1933-5377 Volume 7(4). 2013.

319

Cooperative vs. competitive mothering

concluded that infant handling is rarely performed for the manipulation of alliance
formation. He instead proposed that it is a non-adaptive by-product of mother-offspring
bonding and that kin selection is the most likely functional explanation.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Friends Influence Reproductive Decisions and Provide Allomothering

Returning to humans, there is some evidence, albeit indirect, that non-kin have
influence on womens reproductive success. In our ancestral past, the strength of the
mothers social support system played an important role in the life quality and the
survival of both the mother and her children (Hrdy, 2009). Non-kin would have been
critical, due to rates of female exogamy, meaning that women would move to a new
group of unrelated individuals once married (e.g., see Lizarralde & Lizarralde, 1991).
Naturally, these support systems frequently included maternal kin, and in promising
circumstances, paternal support. However, women frequently reach out beyond family to
elicit help, often developing strong bonds with same-sex peers. These bonds of friendship
might follow rules of reciprocal altruism, in that there is an exchange of goods, time, and
energy.
Friendship is so important that it may influence womens reproductive decisions.
Bernardi (2003) reported that when deciding on having children, women are affected by
the current life and family circumstances of their friends. She further argued that peer
networks have a contagious effect on the spread of the transition to parenthood. More
recently, Bernardi and colleagues (2007) proposed that individuals are influenced, via
encouragement through interaction with their friends as accelerating family formation
plans. They also report the opposite effect, deceleration, when friends support ones
attitude to postpone family formation. They concluded that social interaction between
peers is of central relevance to fertility decisions.
While most support falls along the lines of emotional and financial support,
advice on raising children and by providing childcare (Balaji et al., 2007; Keim, Klrner,
& Bernardi, 2009), one can also learn vicariously about parenting behavior. Friends,
especially if they are similar in age, sex, and educational background, and already have
children, are important sources for learning about family formation, such as partnership
arrangements after childbirth or reconciling work and caring responsibilities (Keim,
Klrner, & Bernardi, 2009). Furthermore, mothers are able to acquire information on
developmentally appropriate methods of parenting, and networks can serve as buffers
against maladaptive parenting and stressful life situations (Balaji et al., 2007).
There is direct evidence of these benefits. For example, low-income pregnant
women who received more social support had better labor progress and babies with
higher health immediately following delivery, and experienced less postpartum
depression. Also, women with larger social networks gave birth to babies with higher
birth weights (Collins, Dunkel-Schetter, Lobel, & Scrimshaw, 1993). The issue is not so
tidy, though, because despite findings that the numbers of friends providing support is a
predictor of parenting behavior, it could be that a greater numbers of friends may reflect
greater social competence on the part of some mothers (Voight, Hans, & Bernstein,
1996). In other words, the social skills necessary to maintain friendship networks may in
turn be the same skills the mothers applies to her interaction with her child.
A more direct examination of the support that friends provide to mothers was
found by Worth and Fisher (2011). They surveyed currently pregnant women and
examined the phenomenon of synchronous pregnancies among family members and close

Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology ISSN 1933-5377 Volume 7(4). 2013.

320

Cooperative vs. competitive mothering

friends. They argued that women are affected by others who have been recently pregnant
and who will potentially provide the benefits of resource sharing and parenting
responsibilities. For example, if a friend has a young child, it is easier to arrange playdates and share clothing and other resources that are developmentally (i.e., age, growth
rate) related. Therefore, women consider the support non-kin allomothers may provide,
but also what they can exchange. We note, though, that the effect could be influenced by
new mothers seeking women in similar parenting situations to become friends.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Competitive Mothering
While some non-kin individuals may provide allomothering, other non-kin
women represent potential rivals for resources that may be relevant to reproductive
success and offspring wellbeing.
We propose that competitive mothering can take many forms. Using a
sociological angle, Barash (2006) writes about how society considers mothering an
integral part of female identity and encourages women to compete in regard to
children: fertile versus infertile, mothers versus childless women, working mothers versus
soccer moms, mothers of high-achieving kids versus mothers whose kids are average or
troubled (p. 133). Relying on interview data, she reported that mothers often competed
against close female friends. Some of her interviewees expressed jealousy towards
friends who became pregnant easily, feelings of envy towards mothers who work (or do
not work), or concerns over who is a better mother, who does more (p. 145). Her
interviewees talked about rivalry with friends who bragged about their baby sleeping
through the night, or that their child had been accepted to a better school than ones own
child (p. 145).
Although highly interesting, there appears to be no evolutionary-based
investigation of competitive mothering, and thus far, the only evidence to our knowledge
is from work like Barashs (2006). This dearth of empirical research is significant when
one considers that, from an evolutionary standpoint, there are fitness tradeoffs during
motherhood, in that a mother must adjust her maternal investment to be in keeping with
local ecological and social conditions. For example, among rats, Rogowitz (1996)
demonstrated that mothers must balance maternal energy and offspring requirements
during lactation, by considering litter size and maternal food intake.
There are numerous studies that could be performed to explore competitive
mothering. Researchers could turn to the literature on womens intrasexual competition
(e.g., for a review see Fisher, 2013) and begin to examine differences between mothers
and women who are not mothers. Take, for example, the issue of friendship and
attractiveness. There are differences in competitiveness among young adult female
friends who are similarly attractive, as perceived by both themselves and others.
Although similar, friends are not entirely the same in their levels of attractiveness,
resulting in the less-attractive members within friendship pairs perceiving more mating
rivalry in their friendship than their more attractive counterpart (Bleske-Rechek &
Lighthall, 2010). We suspect mothers who perceive themselves as being less attractive
compared to other mothers of a similar age and background may likewise experience
greater rivalry and less allomothering behavior. Female attractiveness is a critical
component of womens intrasexual competition (e.g., Fisher, 2004), as it is a
characteristic highly desired by men in their mates. Note that simply being mated does
not imply that women stop competing with other women (see Fisher, 2013 for a review).

Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology ISSN 1933-5377 Volume 7(4). 2013.

321

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Cooperative vs. competitive mothering

Perhaps some mothers try to outcompete rivals with respect to appearance, showing that
they can take care of their children and also look beautiful.
Another example of a potential area to explore is dominance. Non-human
primate models show that allomothering is not the same experience for all individuals of
a group if there is more than one fertile female. While shared care and provisioning
clearly enhances maternal success, dominant tamarin and marmoset females, especially if
pregnant, are highly infanticidal, and target offspring produced by competing breeders
(Hrdy, 2009). Thus, perhaps socially dominant pregnant women engage in more
competitive behaviors than other women, and especially target fertile women.
Although speculative at this point, competitive motherhood may also take a more
direct form via reproductive suppression, which has immediate and long-term adaptive
benefits (for a review of status and reproduction in non-human primates, see Drea, 2005).
These benefits include increased resources that can be used to raise the number and/or
quality of offspring produced. Another benefit is that it may also lead to more
allomothering; for example one may monopolize available helpers or coerce the females
that are being suppressed into investing in the suppressors offspring. Moreover,
suppression of other fertile females may function in the longer term as a way to ensure
there are sufficient available resources for the descendants of reproducing females. As a
consequence of this possibility, suppression of competitors reproduction may be viewed
as a form of lineage competition (Stockley & Bro-Jorgensen, 2011). Whether women
engage in reproductive suppression within the context of mothering needs to be explored,
however, there is partial support in that stress from intrasexual competition among
adolescents has been documented with respect to reproductive suppression via eating
disorders (Salmon, Crawford, & Walters, 2008).
Explaining the Tension Between Cooperation and Competition
Apparently the issue of cooperative versus competitive mothering has not been
previously addressed by evolutionary psychology, which is intriguing in that it directly
poses an interesting problem related to allomothering. We first need to determine the
extent of non-kin allmothering. If allomothers are kin, then the situation is simply that
cooperative mothering is a way to be altruistic towards ones genetic relatives, with
competition against those who might detract from kins reproductive success. If
allomothering is not performed by kin, then the issue becomes more complex.
How is it that a mother might be competitive against some women and yet still
rely on female friends for support and resources? Drawing upon the link between
competition and indirect aggression, which is particularly used by women, it is key to
realize that indirect aggression is not necessarily at odds with prosociality. In their
preface for a special issue on aggression and adaptive function, Hawley and Vaugh
(2003) reviewed how aggressive individuals might actually be socially attractive to
peers rather than repellent (p. 239). They clarified that this conjecture does not imply
that aggression is attractive per se, but rather that some aggressive individuals remain
central to their social group, obtaining personal gains with minimal personal cost. Hawley
(2003) discussed that living in social groups has led to the acquisition of resources that
would not otherwise be attainable by an individual, but results in competition among
group members. She proposed that various strategies for competition arose due to the
need to be able to be an effective competitor, leading some individuals to become
prosocial (i.e., indirect and cooperative), and others to become coercive (i.e., direct and

Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology ISSN 1933-5377 Volume 7(4). 2013.

322

Cooperative vs. competitive mothering

assertive). Moreover, social competence may entail a balancing act of the needs to get
along (being liked, accepted) and to get ahead (effectiveness, power) (p. 281).
Being bi-strategic, scoring high on both prosociality and coerciveness, may be
the best approach. These individuals display high social competence in that they can get
away with high levels of aggression and yet retain their status in a peer group. While
Hawley (2003) studied preadolescents and adolescents, the same might be true of adults.
Returning to mothering, being bi-strategic would enable one to effectively have support
from others, yet be able to acquire necessary resources for reproductive success.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Potential Avenues for Further Research

One issue worthy of attention is to what extent information sharing overlaps with
competition for status. Similar to the quandary of how to test self-promotion as a
competitive strategy in that it can easily be disguised as merely self-improvement (Fisher,
2013), how does one document that sharing information with other mothers (which seems
cooperative) is actually simultaneously showing other mothers that one is superior?
It would also be interesting to determine what commodities are being competed
for by mothers. Competition involves scarcity of particular tangible and intangible goods,
so mothers are potentially competing over status and resources that might secure their
own wellbeing, as well as the future health of their children. Relatedly, given that
mothers invest time and energy into their children, how much effort are they allocating
towards competition for mate retention? Further, does the quality of a mate influence the
level of competition and what are the direct and indirect benefits (see Rosvall, 2011) that
mates are providing that become the commodity for which mothers compete? We predict
women express a desire to become a mother when partnered to a high quality mate, and,
later on, are competitive by showing him (and rival women) their mothering skills.
Recent work on jealousy and infidelity indirectly raised an additional point.
Chronically jealous men and women expressed less interest in infants (as measured by a
survey on reproductive readiness), and are less pleased with finding out about pregnancy
and impending parenthood (Hill & DelPriore, 2013). However, womens jealousy did not
impact on how much time and energy they would invest in their baby, whereas jealous
men stated they would invest substantially less than their non-jealous counterparts.
Therefore, when women (and men) perceive themselves as having a mate who they
believe is not engaged in infidelity, they should compete more to keep the mate,
especially if both parties score high on measures of reproductive readiness. Once a child
is born, though, women as primary caregivers may opt towards being bi-strategic, starting
to rely more on others for assistance, competing more for resources and status that impact
on their own and their childrens wellbeing, and competing less for mating access.
Conclusion
Although the recent work on cooperative mothering in humans has been
intriguing, particularly in terms of the evolutionary advantages of allomothering, there
remains much to be explored. As we discussed throughout this article, researchers need to
more fully address whether, among humans, non-kin individuals allomother, or whether
allomothering is primarily performed by genetic relatives. Once this issue is resolved, we
can then begin to make in-roads to study situations in which non-kin may serve as
allomothers versus compete with mothers. Consequently, we propose that competitive

Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology ISSN 1933-5377 Volume 7(4). 2013.

323

Cooperative vs. competitive mothering

mothering represents a large area that warrants future investigation. There are many
avenues such research could take, such as examining the commodities being competed
over by mothers, or how mate quality impacts on competition. In any case, competitive
mothering is a novel research topic, and one that should inspire researchers to merge
evolutionary-based explanations with ones that incorporate a feminist perspective.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Received September 3, 2013; Revision received November 25, 2013; Accepted November 27,
2013

Acknowledgements
A very sincere thanks to the two anonymous reviewers who offered extensive comments
and suggestions for improving this article, as well as to Daniel OBrien and Christopher
Moule for their assistance.
References
Balaji, A. B., Claussen, A. H., Smith, D., Visser, S. N., Morales, M., & Perou, R. (2007).
Social support networks and maternal mental health and well-being. Journal of
Women's Health, 16, 1386-1396. doi:10.1089/jwh.2007.CDC10
Barash, S. S. (2006). Tripping the Prom Queen: The Truth about Women and Rivalry.
New York: St. Martins Griffin.
Bernardi, L. (2003). Channels of social influence on reproduction. Population Research
and Policy Review, 22, 52755.
Bernardi, L., Keim, S., & von der Lippe, H. (2007). Social influences on fertility a
comparative mixed methods study in Eastern and Western Germany. Journal of
Mixed Methods Research, 1, 2347.
Bleske-Rechek, A., & Lighthall, M. (2010). Attractiveness and rivalry in womens
friendships with women. Human Nature, 21, 8297.
Collins, N. L., Dunkel-Schetter, C., Lobel, M., & Scrimshaw, S. C. (1993). Social
support in pregnancy: psychosocial correlates of birth outcomes and postpartum
depression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1243.
Drea, C. M. (2005). Bateman revisited: The reproductive tactics of female primates.
Integrative and Comparative Biology, 45, 915-923.
Fairbanks, L. A. (1990). Reciprocal benefits of allomothering for female vervet monkeys.
Animal Behavior, 40, 553-562.
Fisher, M. (2013). Womens intrasexual competition. In M. Fisher, J. Garcia, & R. Chang
(Eds.), Evolutions Empress: Darwinian perspectives on the nature of women
(pp. 19-42). New York: Oxford University Press.
Fisher, M. (2004). Female intrasexual competition decreases female facial attractiveness.
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B (Supplemental), 271, S283285.
Frank, R. & Silk, J. B. (2009). Grooming exchange between mothers and non-mothers:
the price of natal attraction in wild baboons (Papio anubis). Behaviour, 136, 889906.
Hawley, P. H. (2003). Prosocial and coercive configurations of resource control in early

Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology ISSN 1933-5377 Volume 7(4). 2013.

324

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Cooperative vs. competitive mothering

adolescence: A case for the well-adapted Machiavellian. Merrill-Palmer

Quarterly, 49(3), 279-309.
Hawley, P. H., & Vaugh, B. E. (2003). Aggression and adaptive functioning: The bright
side to bad behavior. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 49(3), 239-242.
Hill, S. E., & DelPriore, D. J. (2013). (Not) bringing up baby: The effect of jealousy on
mens and womens parenting interest and investment expectations. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 78-90.
Hrdy, S. B. (1999). Mother nature. New York: Pantheon Books.
Hrdy, S. B. (2007). Evolutionary context of human development: The cooperative
breeding model. In C. A. Salmon & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.), Family
relationships: An evolutionary perspective (pp. 39-68). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Hrdy, S. B. (2009). Mothers and others: The evolutionary origins of mutual
understanding. Cambridge, MA: First Harvard University Press.
Keim, S., Klrner, A., & Bernardi, L. (2009). Qualifying social influence on fertility
intentions composition, structure and meaning of fertility-relevant social
networks in Western Germany. Current Sociology, 57, 888907.
doi:10.1177/0011392109342226
Lizarralde. M., & Lizarralde, R. (1991). Bari exogamy among their territorial groups:
Choice and/or necessity. Human Ecology, 19, 453-67.
Meehan, C. L. (in press). Allomothers and child well-being. In A. Ben-Arieh, F. Casas, I.
Frones, & J. E. Krobin (Eds.), Handbook of child well-being: Theories, methods
and policies in global perspective (pp. 1787-1816). New York: Springer.
Paul, A., & Kuester, J. (1996). Infant handling by female Barbary macaques (Macaca
sylvanus) at Affenberg Salem: testing functional and evolutionary hypotheses.
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 39, 133-145.
Rogowitz, G. L. (1996). Trade-offs in energy allocation during lactation. American
Zoologist, 36, 197-204
Rosvall, K. A. (2011). Intrasexual competition in females: Evidence for sexual selection?
Behavioral Ecology, 22, 1131-1140.
Salmon, C., Crawford, C., & Walters, S. (2008). Anorexic behavior, female competition
and stress: Developing the female competition stress test. Evolutionary
Psychology, 6, 96-112.
Silk, J. B., Beehner, J. C., Bergman, T. J., Crockford, C., Engh, A. L., Moscovice, L. R.,
et al. (2009). The benefits of social capital: close social bonds among female
baboons enhance offspring survival. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London,
Series B, 276, 3099-3104.
Stockley, P., & Bro-Jorgensen, J. (2011). Female competition and its evolutionary
consequences in mammals. Biological Reviews, 86, 341-366.
Taylor, S. E., Klein, L., Lewis, B. P., Gruenewald, T. L., Gurung, R. R., & Updegraff, J.
A. (2000). Biobehavioral responses to stress in females: Tend-and-befriend, not
fight-or-flight. Psychological Review, 107, 411-429. doi:10.1037/0033295X.107.3.411
Voight, J. D., Hans, S. L., & Bernstein, V. J. (1996). Support networks of adolescent
mothers: Effects on parenting experience and behavior. Infant Mental Health
Journal, 17, 58-73.
Worth, K., & Fisher, M. L. (2011). A preliminary investigation of synchronous
pregnancies in women. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 9, 309326.

Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology ISSN 1933-5377 Volume 7(4). 2013.

325