competition and cooperation i motherhood.pdf

Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology 2013, 7(4), 318-325.

©2013 Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology

318

Letter

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

* Maryanne L. Fisher

Department of Psychology, and Women and Gender Studies Program, St. Mary’s University

Kimberly R. Moule

Department of Psychology, St. Mary’s 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 women’s intrasexual competition, particularly with findings that suggest women may attempt to decrease a rival’s 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 children’s 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, Hrdy’s 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 Hrdy’s cooperative

AUTHOR NOTE: Please direct correspondence to Maryanne L. Fisher, Department of Psychology, St. Mary’s University, 923 Robie Street, Halifax, NS, B3H 3C3. Email: [email protected]

This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e Am

eric

an P

sych

olog

ical

Ass

ocia

tion

or o

ne o

f its

alli

ed p

ublis

hers

.Th

is a

rticl

e is

inte

nded

sole

ly fo

r the

per

sona

l use

of t

he in

divi

dual

use

r and

is n

ot to

be

diss

emin

ated

bro

adly

.

Cooperative vs. competitive mothering

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

319

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 women’s 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 non-human primates and mammals. Next, we review studies that indicate the importance of women’s friends. We attempt to establish that friends, who may be considered as potential allomothers, influence women’s 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

This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e Am

eric

an P

sych

olog

ical

Ass

ocia

tion

or o

ne o

f its

alli

ed p

ublis

hers

.Th

is a

rticl

e is

inte

nded

sole

ly fo

r the

per

sona

l use

of t

he in

divi

dual

use

r and

is n

ot to

be

diss

emin

ated

bro

adly

.



320

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.

Friends Influence Reproductive Decisions and Provide Allomothering

Returning to humans, there is some evidence, albeit indirect, that non-kin have influence on women’s reproductive success. In our ancestral past, the strength of the mother’s 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 women’s 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 one’s 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, Klärner, & 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, Klärner, & 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

This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e Am

eric

an P

sych

olog

ical

Ass

ocia

tion

or o

ne o

f its

alli

ed p

ublis

hers

.Th

is a

rticl

e is

inte

nded

sole

ly fo

r the

per

sona

l use

of t

he in

divi

dual

use

r and

is n

ot to

be

diss

emin

ated

bro

adly

.



321

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 play-dates 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.

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 one’s 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 Barash’s (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 women’s 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 women’s 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).

This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e Am

eric

an P

sych

olog

ical

Ass

ocia

tion

or o

ne o

f its

alli

ed p

ublis

hers

.Th

is a

rticl

e is

inte

nded

sole

ly fo

r the

per

sona

l use

of t

he in

divi

dual

use

r and

is n

ot to

be

diss

emin

ated

bro

adly

.



322

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 suppressor’s 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 one’s genetic relatives, with competition against those who might detract from kin’s 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

This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e Am

eric

an P

sych

olog

ical

Ass

ocia

tion

or o

ne o

f its

alli

ed p

ublis

hers

.Th

is a

rticl

e is

inte

nded

sole

ly fo

r the

per

sona

l use

of t

he in

divi

dual

use

r and

is n

ot to

be

diss

emin

ated

bro

adly

.



323

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.

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, women’s 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 children’s 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

This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e Am

eric

an P

sych

olog

ical

Ass

ocia

tion

or o

ne o

f its

alli

ed p

ublis

hers

.Th

is a

rticl

e is

inte

nded

sole

ly fo

r the

per

sona

l use

of t

he in

divi

dual

use

r and

is n

ot to

be

diss

emin

ated

bro

adly

.



324

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. 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 O’Brien 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. Martin’s Griffin.

Bernardi, L. (2003). Channels of social influence on reproduction. Population Research and Policy Review, 22, 527–55.

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, 23–47.

Bleske-Rechek, A., & Lighthall, M. (2010). Attractiveness and rivalry in women’s friendships with women. Human Nature, 21, 82–97.

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). Women’s intrasexual competition. In M. Fisher, J. Garcia, & R. Chang (Eds.), Evolution’s 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, S283-285.

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, 889-906.

Hawley, P. H. (2003). Prosocial and coercive configurations of resource control in early

This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e Am

eric

an P

sych

olog

ical

Ass

ocia

tion

or o

ne o

f its

alli

ed p

ublis

hers

.Th

is a

rticl

e is

inte

nded

sole

ly fo

r the

per

sona

l use

of t

he in

divi

dual

use

r and

is n

ot to

be

diss

emin

ated

bro

adly

.



325

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 men’s and women’s 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., Klärner, 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, 888–907. 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:10.1037/0033-295X.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, 309–326.

This

doc

umen

t is c

opyr

ight

ed b

y th

e Am

eric

an P

sych

olog

ical

Ass

ocia

tion

or o

ne o

f its

alli

ed p

ublis

hers

.Th

is a

rticl

e is

inte

nded

sole

ly fo

r the

per

sona

l use

of t

he in

divi

dual

use

r and

is n

ot to

be

diss

emin

ated

bro

adly

.

Documents

competition and cooperation i motherhood.pdf