Evolution & Human Behavior Behavioral Changes During Pregnancy Paper 3

Like Paper 1, this assignment presents a collection of related datasets and challenges THE JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
DATASET 2A. Diets of pregnant
you to write a coherent narrative discussing them in an evolutionary framework. women with different levels of NVP.
536
" www.jpeds.com Vol. 155, No. 1
DATASET 2B. Maternal weight gain
J.-I. Lee et al. / Nutrition Research 24 (2004) 531–540 538
with different levels of NVP. J.-I. Lee et al. / Nutrition Research 24 (2004) 531–540

Because I neither expect nor want you to read the primary sources, I have omitted Table II. Comparison of neurodevelopment outcomes, analysis of variance
citations. I will supply references on request after you have submitted your essay. NVP with NVP no diclectin No NVP Significant differences
diclectin (group 1) (group 2) (group 3) (Bonferroni Post Hoc test)

General advice: Children’s tests

WPPSI
Scale/subtest
Verbal IQ 112.2 ! 13.4 112.9 ! 13.57 110.3 ! 17.9 NS
• Do not construct an argument about what is good for humans as a species. Performance IQ 120.9 ! 13.9 112.6 ! 13.1 114.9 ! 14.2 Group 1 vs 2, P = .010
Group 1 vs 3, P = .002
• Do construct an argument about what is good (evolutionarily) for individuals. Full Scale IQ
Object Assembly
118.7 ! 13.4
12.9 ! 2.69
114.6 ! 12.8
12.1 ! 2.81
112.0 ! 15.5
11.3 ! 2.58
NS
NS
• Do not use space on an introduction and conclusion. Do just dive right into your Block Design
Picture Completion
12.1 ! 2.66
13.8 ! 2.50
11.6 ! 2.75
13.0 ! 2.04
10.8 ! 2.79
12.3 ! 2.67
NS
NS
explanation. Comprehension
Information
12.86 ! 2.53
12.60 ! 2.17
11.43 ! 2.31
13.33 ! 2.37
12.00 ! 2.92
12.53 ! 2.65
NS
NS
• Do support assertions by referring explicitly to the datasets by number and letter. Vocabulary 12.39 ! 2.60 11.97 ! 2.29 11.27 ! 3.21 NS
Similarities 10.70 ! 2.49 11.15 ! 2.82 11.76 ! 3.06 NS
• Be Darwinian (that is, assume that common behavioral traits became common NEPSY Verbal Fluency 11.85 ! 2.57 11.55 ! 2.50 9.93 ! 3.06 Group 1 vs 3, P = .013

because in previous generations they helped people have more grandchildren). Phonological Processing 11.02 ! 2.81
NVP:
10.75 ! 3.31 9.07 ! 3.44
Group 2 vs 3, P = .047
Group 1 vs 3, P = .033
• Do try to use all of the data and address all of the suggested questions. Visuomotor Precision
Comprehension/Instructions
9.49 ! 3.00 9.60 ! 2.56
12.60 ! 2.46 Fig. 2. Maternal11.61
weight! 2.46
gain
8.72 ! 2.85
11.24 of!pregnancy
during the first trimester
NS
2.86 by degree of morning sickness.
NS Values with
• If you are having trouble interpreting the data, do please see me. Visual Attention
Sentences
11.37 ! 1.99 different letters11.51
10.98 ! 2.70
(a, b) are
11.02 ! 2.20
2.59
!significantly different11.75 ! 1.90
(P ! 0.05).
11.37 ! 2.17
NS
NS

FORMAT: Printed to a PDF file, set in Times New Roman 11 points, double spaced, PLS
Narrative
Total
11.47 ! 2.97 Severe group10.54
116.7 ! 10.3 sickness may116.5 Fetus may benefit from this,
had all 2.90 food groups
! major
! 14.2
interfere
10.77
111.2 !
with dietary diversity
! 2.98
sharply reduced to 6.7%, suggesting
by16.6
NS that morning
NS
causing pregnant women eliminate certain
on 8 1/2 by 11 inch pages, with at least 1 inch margins. I will not read past the end of Expressive
Auditory Comprehension
114.2 ! 11.8 foods from 115.4
115.3 ! 11.8 frequently eliminated, absorbing less nutrients
! 14.9
their diets.
114.2 ! 14.9
Among the five
which suggests
108.5
113.4
! 17.7
major
that !
NS were most
food groups, meat and dairy
13.8 women who sufferNSfrom morning
pregnant
the second page of body text. Beery
WRAVMA
Visual Motor Integration
Pegs
102.9 ! 25.2 sickness may106.9
105.31 ! 14.37the conclusion 105.70
! 12.57 to meat 103.26
have aversions
of Flaxman
! 14.62and Sherman
and dairy
100.15
10.10which would be consistent
!foods,
[2] that
NS partly with
the greatest aversions induced
! 4.57 NS by morning
Matching 109.8 ! 10.65sickness are109.6 to meats, fish, poultry, and
! 11.00 eggs.! 17.16
105.4 NS
DUE: Monday 13 February at 6:00 pm McCarthy Pictorial Memory 12.43 ! 2.97 That the impact 10.37 of ! morning
3.32 sickness10.62 on DVS and DFS was greater than on DDS implies
! 3.21 Group 1 vs 2, P = .017
that morning sickness might decrease the frequency of food intakes and diversity of foods
Numerical Memory(Forwards) 11.68 ! 2.21 within each 11.39 ! 2.30 9.77 ! 2.32 Group 1 vs 3, P = .004
food group. These results may be due to changing food preferences, reduced
Group 2 vs 3, P =to .018
Dataset 1: The puzzle of NVP Numerical Memory (Backwards)
appetite, nausea, or vomiting [1,2]. Decreases in dietary diversity
10.37 ! 3.00 nutrient intakes. 9.89 It ! 2.76known that10.36
is well
inevitably
2.45 guarantees the quality
dietary!diversity
lead reduce
NS of diets [10].
Mother’s tests DFS was higher in the pregnant women in this study who had no symptoms (18.8) or with
WASI NVP:
Many pregnant women experience changes in their reactions to various foods. The Full Scale IQ 107.5 ! 8.8 mild symptoms
108.9 ! 11.7
(15.8) 106.3but!lower
of morning sickness, 11.6 in those with moderateNS
(14.3) or severe
(10.7) morning sickness compared with the DFS (14.7) of nonpregnant women [17]. This
condition commonly known as pregnancy sickness or morning sickness is most Fig. 1. Comparison of nutrient intakes by degree of morning sickness. provides further evidence that most pregnant women try to have balanced meals, but morning
sickness may interfere with their efforts.

objectively described as Nausea and Vomiting of Pregnancy, or NVP. Note that in DATASET
either the group 2C. Birth
the child weights,
belonged in two
to or the NVP studies,
severity var- of infants
6.9%). The latterof mothers
finding, with
although different
indicating a non-statisti-
this assignment we are concerned with ordinary NVP, not the rare and more extreme levels of NVP.
iable (Table III). Adjustment for age and sex did not change cally significant difference, may have clinical relevance. No
the significance of the predictors. However, maternal IQ, differences were seen in the proportions of children having
condition called hyperemesis gravidarum. child’s 4000
age at testing, and severity of NVP were significant pre- high PIQ scores
4000 (>2 SD) when mothers took diclectin

Infant birth weight (g)

Infant birth weight (g)

The graph at right, from a study of studies,
indicates that the proportion of women who
dictors of McCarthy Numerical Memory Forward test results. (24.4%) or not (17%).
0.32
We also considered the outcomes by comparing 2 groups, Within the NVP group, results demonstrated that children
3000 3000 children scored significantly higher on
Proportion of studies

children with NVP (with and without diclectin) and children exposed to diclectin
0.24 without NVP (Table IV). Analyses revealed significantly WPPSI-R/III PIQ and McCarthy Pictorial Memory tests
experience NVP varies from sample to sample. higher 2000
scores from the NVP than no-NVP group on 4 indices. than did children
2000 of mothers with NVP but no diclectin.
In most studies, however, NVP is common. 0.16 Close examination of the PIQ scores from the NVP and no- For the tests differentiating diclectin-exposed and no diclec-
Note that most of the studies summarized in the NVP groups indicated a rightward shift in distribution of tin NVP groups (via PIQ and Pictorial Memory tests), we
scores 1000
for the children exposed to NVP because of their in- 1000
performed regression analyses (adjusted for age and sex)
graph are from modern Western cultures. 0.08
creased frequency of upper-end scores. A comparison of with group (diclectin versus no diclectin), severity of NVP,
groups by number of cases with low scores (1 SD below the cigarette exposure,
0 maternal IQ, and SES as predictors.
Think about the basic biological processes 0 0
mean) revealed no Nogroup
NVPdifference
Mild (1.1%
Moderate Severe
versus 3.4%); in Diclectin affiliation wasWithout NVP predictor
a significant With NVP
for PIQ,
going on during pregnancy. Why is NVP 0 20 40 60 80 100 contrast, in cases with high scores, more children in the (B = –10.29, SE = 3.53, P = .005) and McCarthy Pictorial
DATASET 2D. Functional tests of neurological development of infants born to
puzzling from a biological prospective? What Percentage of women experiencing NVP NVP group than children in the no-NVP group had PIQ Memory (B = –17.14, SE =6.55, P = .011; Table V; available
moms
scores >1with versus
SD (53.3% versuswithout
37.9%) andNVP. Higher
>2 SD (20.7% versusnumbers are better:
at www.jpeds.com).
are some possible solutions to the puzzle?
Dataset 2: Is NVP pathological? Table IV. Neurocognitive outcomes of children exposed to nausea and vomiting of pregnancy versus not exposed to
nausea and vomiting of pregnancy
NVP is often treated as a bothersome symptom or even as a pathological condition. Test Scale/subtest NVP (n = 92) Mean ± SD No NVP (n = 29) Mean ± SD P value
In the U.S., physicians write over 100,000 prescriptions each month to alleviate WPPSI Performance IQ 116.7 ! 14.1 109.6 ! 13.4 .02
NEPSY Verbal Fluency 11.7 ! 2.5 9.93 ! 3.1 .003
NVP. (The vast majority of these prescriptions are for drugs not labelled for NEPSY Phonological Processing 10.9 ! 3.0 9.1 ! 3.4 .004
McCarthy Numerical Memory Forwards 11.5 ! 2.2 9.8 ! 2.3 .004
pregnancy. In 2013, the FDA approved a drug mixture, previously sold as Bendectin
and now sold as Diclegis, for use in the treatment of NVP.) 48 Nulman et al
How strongly do the data support the notion that NVP is pathological (that is, bad
If NVP is pathological—if, for example, it is a disease of civilization—what patterns for the baby, the mother, or both)? Are studies of Western cultures adequate for
might we see in pregnancies that include NVP versus those that do not? assessing whether NVP is pathological?
Evolution & Human Behavior Behavioral Changes During Pregnancy Paper 3

Percentage of women experiencing NVP

Dataset 3: Is NVP cross-cultural? Dataset 5: Is NVP the mother’s attempt to protect herself and baby?
The graph at right is from a study of 80 During pregnancy the mother’s immune system is suppressed—so that it does not
studies published in 2015. It compares the attack the fetus. This makes the mother more vulnerable to infectious disease. In
percentage of women experiencing NVP in addition, early in pregnancy the baby is vulnerable to toxins that can disrupt its
Non-Western countries, Western countries, 60 development. Based on these considerations, biologists have suggested another
and Yasawa Islanders, a traditional society hypothesis: NVP leads to changes in the mother’s diet that protect both her and the
in Fiji. fetus from pathogens and natural toxins in food.
Does NVP appear to be a disease of 40 If this “pathogen and toxin protection” hypothesis is correct, what kinds of foods
civilization? What other hypotheses should should NVP induce pregnant women to avoid? How might NVP be related to
we consider about why women have NVP? NonWestern Western Yasawa Islanders
pregnancy outcome?
countries countries of Fiji
Dataset 4: Is NVP the fetus’s DATASET 5A - The graph below is for DATASET 5B - This graph is from two
attempt to manipulate the mother? Yasawa Islanders. The frequency of different studies of studies (on Western
novel aversions to foods is plotted women), summarizing the rates of

women with NVP

60

Poercentage of
DATASET 4A - Perhaps NVP is adaptive. against an index of how likely the foods miscarriage and fetal death in
One clue comes from NVPs timing during 40
are to contain pathogens and/or toxins. pregnancies by levels of NVP.
pregnancy (right). 100
Ignore the strange numerical scales.
L. Mckerracher et al. / Evolution and Human Behavior 36 (2015) 95–102
20 JUNE 2000 MORNING SICKNESS
Some biologists have proposed that NVP is
0.08 - 100 women, 62 experienced such av
induced by the fetus to manipulate the 0 MISCARRIAGES (a)
Schwab and Axelson (1984) followed
0 10 20 30 40
mother. In an evolutionary sense, the infant Post-menstrual week of pregnancy
0.06 - and Trethowan's protocol and def
places more value on its own survival than 0.04-
and obtained similarresults:of60 wom
interviewed, 37 (62%) experienced ge
does the mom—who may have other aversions.A numberofadditional stud
children to invest in now or later. By inducing mild starvation in the mother early in t 0.02- reported connections between gast
nal distressduring pregnancyand av
the pregnancy, the fetus forces the mother to grow a larger placenta—lest she lose Q 0.00 of the offendingfoods (e.g., Nobma
the baby altogether. In the long run, a larger placenta delivers more nutrition to the ' 0.20 Adams 1970; Hook 1976, 1978; Ojof
FETAL DEATHS (b) al. 1982; Finleyet al. 1985; Brown an
baby. The baby thus extracts a larger investment than mom would prefer to make. 1986; Al-Kanhaland Bani 1995).
', 0.15-
If this “placental growth” hypothesis is correct, what kinds of foods should NPV Foods avoidedor cravedthroughout pr
, 0.10-
induce pregnant women to avoid? Pregnantwomen mostoftenrepor
sions to "meat,fish,poultry,and eggs"
DATASET 4B - The graph 0.05- 7). Per capita aversionsto these anim
ucts (0.28/woman) were nearlydoub
at right is from a study of 0.00 of thesecond mostaversivefood catego
Yasawa Islanders. It shows NVP absent Nauseaonly Vomiting alcoholic beverages" (0.16 aversions/
and more than triplethe aversionsto
the number of women who Symptoms bles" (0.08/woman). Per capitaaversio
report experiencing, during FIGURE 6. ASSOCIATION OF NVP SYMPTOMS coholic beverages"and "ethnic,stronga
foods" were only 0.04/woman, and a
pregnancy, aversions to, Are these data consistent with the idea that mom is protecting herself and the baby?
WITH MISCARRIAGES
FETAL DEATHS.
AND
to "dairyand ice cream,"and "sweets,
and cravings for, a variety Increased severityof NVP symptomsare signifi- and chocolate" were even less freque
Questions around which to build your essay: cantlyassociated withdecreased chances of (a) mis- sions to "grainsand starches"and "f
of different foods. carriages(P < 0.001: Weigel and Weigel 1989a), and fruitjuice"were veryrare (< 0.02/wo
Additional analyses show 1. What is NVP? How common is it? Why is its existence puzzling to an (b) fetaldeaths (P < 0.001: Tierson et al. 1986). Data In contrast,pregnantwomen most
wereextractedfromtheoriginalpapersand replotted. ported cravingsfor"fruitand fruitjui
no association between a evolutionary biologist—at least at first glance? cravings/woman) and "sweets,desse
foods’ contribution to the 2. Does NVP appear to be a disease? Is it associated with life in modern Western chocolate" (0.17/woman). Per capita
cultures? If not, what kind of alternative explanations should we consider? were slightlyless common for "dairy
protein, fat, and energy in a 21 studies of food cravingsof 6,239 women cream" (0.12/woman), "meat, fish,
typical Yasawan diet and 3. Is NVP an attempt by the fetus to manipulate the mother? What is the evidence? (see Table 1). The majorityofwomen (65% + and eggs" (0.12/woman), and "gra
15) experienced at least one aversion during starches"(0.08/woman). Pregnantwo
the number of women reporting aversion to the food. Nor is there an association 4. Is NVP an attempt by the mother to protect herself and the fetus?What is the pregnancy;similarly,67% ? 15 experienced dom craved "vegetables"(0.06/woma
between a foods’ dietary contribution and the number of women who crave the food. evidence? at least one craving. Corresponding median nic, strong and spicy foods" (0.04/w
proportionswere 66% foraversionsand 68% and "nonalcoholic beverages" (0.03/w
5. What questions remain and how might they be addressed? (Ask a question forcravings.Cravingswere thus slightlymore Very few pregnant women craved a
Are these data consistent with the notion that the fetus is trying to mildly starve its
related to NVP, state a hypothesis, design a study, and predict the results under common than aversions (P < 0.05). beverages (< 0.01/woman).
mother? Interestingly,patterns of gestatio
your hypothesis and the null. Illustrate with your own graphs or tables.) Ontogeny
ings and aversions were virtuallymi
Food aversionsexpressedduringpregnancy ages (Figure 7). Per capita aversionsw
were apparentlynovel developmentsin wom- nificantly greater than cravingsfor"m
Fig. 2. Relationships between rates at which women develop novel aversions to food categories and characteristics of those food categories. (A) Added variable plot of rate of food
en's attitudestowardparticularfoods, rather poultry,
category’s aversiveness and its pathogenicity–teratogenicity risk score. (B) Added variable plot of rate of a food category’s aversiveness and its score for the extent to and eggs," "nonalcoholic bev
which it contributes
to the macronutrient density of regular household (non-pregnancy) diet on Yasawa Island. (C) Added than variable plot of rate ofof
exaggerations preexisting
food dislikes.For
category’s aversiveness and the "vegetables," and "alcoholic beverag
frequency with which
women from Yasawa Island encounter foods from that category. example, Fairburnet al. (1992) found that80 0.001 forall), whereasper capita cravi
of 100 women theyinterviewedexperienced significantlygreater than aversions f
interpretation only holds if chemical toxins are at least half as likely to gestational
pregnancy. food
This aversions,and
phenomenon hasallnot
80 reported and fruitjuice,"
been systematically studied"grainsand starches,
present threats to fetal development as pathogens. that theiralthough
previously, aversionsitbegan during
has been pregnancy.
reported desserts,
anecdotally at leastandoncechocolate," and "dairy
Despite these limitations, our study has theoretical and practical before (Steinmetz et al., 2012: p. 424). Future research on Yasawa <Island
In an earlier study, Dickens and Trethowan cream" (P 0.001 for all). Only for
implications, and indicates several routes for future research. With (1971) considered as gestational aversions only
should investigate which factors influence whether a husband’s smell is foods" were cravi
strong and spicy