Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:20:34.331Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

IS FERTILITY AFTER THE DEMOGRAPHIC TRANSITION MALADAPTIVE?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 March 2018

Rosemary L. Hopcroft
Rosemary L. Hopcroft*
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, NC, USA
*
1Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Fitness is always relative to the fitness of others in the group or breeding population. Even in very low-fertility societies, individual fitness as measured by the share of genes in subsequent generations may still be maximized. Further, sexual selection theory from evolutionary biology suggests that the relationship between status and fertility will differ for males and females. For this reason it is important to examine the relationship between status and fertility separately for males and females–something few demographic studies of fertility do. When male fertility is measured separately, high-status men (as measured by their wealth and personal income) have higher fertility than low-status men, even in very low-fertility societies, so individual males appear to be maximizing their fitness within the constraints posed by a modern society. Thus male fertility cannot be considered maladaptive. When female fertility is measured separately, in both very high- and very low-fertility societies, there is not much variance across women of different statuses in completed fertility. Only in societies currently changing rapidly (with falling fertility rates) is somewhat high variance across women of different statuses in completed fertility found. What is seen across all phases of the demographic transition appears to be a continuation of two somewhat different evolved human reproductive strategies–one male, one female–in changing social and material contexts. Whether contemporary female fertility is maladaptive remains an open question.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Biosocial Science , Volume 51 , Issue 2 , March 2019 , pp. 157 - 176
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press, 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alexander, R. D. (1987) The Biology of Moral Systems. Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
Alexander, R. D. (1989) Evolution of the human psyche. In The Human Revolution: Behavioural and Biological Perspectives on the Origins of Modern Humans. Princeton University Press, pp. 455–513.Google Scholar
Amundsen, B. (2014) A quarter of Norwegian men never father children. ScienceNordic, 9th May 2014. URL: sciencenordic.com/quarter-norwegian-men-never-father-children.Google Scholar
Banerjee, K. (1999) Gender stratification and the contemporary marriage market in India. Journal of Family Issues 20(5), 648–676.Google Scholar
Barthold, J. A., Myrskylä, M. & Jones, O. R. (2012) Childlessness drives the sex difference in the association between income and reproductive success of modern Europeans. Evolution and Human Behavior 33(6), 628–638.Google Scholar
Bateman, A. J. (1948) Intrasexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity 2, 349–368.Google Scholar
Bengtsson, T. & Dribe, M. (2014) The historical fertility transition at the micro level: southern Sweden 1815–1939. Demographic Research 30, 493.Google Scholar
Bereczkei, T. & Csanaky, A. (1996) Mate choice, marital success, and reproduction in a modern society. Ethology and Sociobiology 17(1), 17–35.Google Scholar
Betzig, L. (1986) Despotism and Differential Reproduction: A Darwinian View of History. Aldine, Hawthorne, NY.Google Scholar
Betzig, L. (2012) Means, variances, and ranges in reproductive success: comparative evidence. Evolution and Human Behavior 33(4), 309–317.Google Scholar
Betzig, L. & Weber, S. (1995) Presidents preferred sons. Politics and the Life Sciences 14(1), 61–64.Google Scholar
Boone, J. L. (1986) Parental investment and elite family structure in preindustrial states: a case study of late medieval–early modern Portuguese geneologies. American Anthropologist 88, 859–878.Google Scholar
Boone, J. L. & Kessler, K. L. (1999) More status or more children? Social status, fertility reduction, and long-term fitness. Evolution and Human Behavior 20(4), 257–277.Google Scholar
Borgerhoff Mulder, M. (1987) Cultural and reproductive success: Kipsigis evidence. American Anthropologist 89, 617–634.Google Scholar
Borgerhoff Mulder, M. (1988) Reproductive success in three Kipsigis cohorts. In Clutton-Brock, T. H. (ed.) Reproductive Success: Studies of Individual Variation in Contrasting Breeding Systems. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Borgerhoff Mulder, M. (1990) Kipsigis women’s preferences for wealthy men: evidence for female choice in mammals? Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 27, 255–264.Google Scholar
Borgerhoff Mulder, M. (1995) Bridewealth and its correlates. Quantifying changes over time. Current Anthropology 36, 573–603.Google Scholar
Borgerhoff Mulder, M. (1996) Responses to environmental novelty: changes in men’s marriage strategies in a rural Kenyan community. In Maynard Smith, J. (ed.) Evolution of Social Behavior Patterns in Primates and Man. British Academy Press, London.Google Scholar
Borgerhoff Mulder, M. (1998) The demographic transition: are we any closer to an evolutionary explanation? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13(7), 266–270.Google Scholar
Bras, H. (2014) Structural and diffusion effects in the Dutch fertility transition, 1870–1940. Demographic Research 30, 151–186.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M. (1989) Sex differences in human mate preferences: evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 12, 1–49.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M. T., Shackelford, K., Kirkpatrick, L. A. & Larsen, R. J. (2001) A half century of mate preferences: the cultural evolution of values. Journal of Marriage and Family 63(2), 491–503.Google Scholar
Carlson, M. J. & Furstenberg, F. F. (2006) The prevalence and correlates of multipartnered fertility among urban US parents. Journal of Marriage and Family 68(3), 718–732.Google Scholar
Casimir, M. J. & Rao, A. (1995) Prestige, possessions and progeny: cultural goals and reproductive success among the Bakkarwal. Human Nature 6(3), 241–272.Google Scholar
Chagnon, N. (1979) Is reproductive success equal in egalitarian societies? In Chagnon, N. & Irons, W. (eds) Evolutionary Biology and Human Social Behavior. Duxbury Press, North Scituate, MA, pp. 374–401.Google Scholar
Clark, G. (2007) A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World. Princeton University Press, Princeton and Oxford.Google Scholar
Colleran, H., Jasienska, G., Nenko, I., Galbarczyk, A. & Mace, R. (2015) Fertility decline and the changing dynamics of wealth, status and inequality. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B 282(1806), 20150287.Google Scholar
Cosmides, L. & Tooby, J. (1987) From evolution to behavior: evolutionary psychology as the missing link. In Dupre, J. (ed.) The Latest on the Best: Essays on Evolution and Optimality. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cosmides, L. & Tooby, J. (1989) Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture, part II: case study: a computational theory of social exchange. Ethology and Sociobiology 10(1–3), 51–97.Google Scholar
Dickemann, M. (1979) The ecology of mating systems in hypergynous dowry societies. Social Science Information 18, 163.Google Scholar
Dribe, M., Hacker, D. J. & Scalone, F. (2014a) The impact of socioeconomic status on net fertility during the historical fertility decline: a comparative analysis of Canada, Iceland, Sweden, Norway and the U.S.A. Population Studies 68(2), 135–149.Google Scholar
Dribe, M., Oris, M. & Pozzi, L. (2014b) Socioeconomic status and fertility before, during, and after the demographic transition: an introduction. Demographic Research 31, 161.Google Scholar
Dribe, M. & Scalone, F. (2014) Social class and net fertility before, during, and after the demographic transition: a micro-level analysis of Sweden 1880–1970. Demographic Research 30, 429.Google Scholar
Eurostat (2017) Eurostat Statistics Explained. Specific total fertility rates by educational attainment, European countries 2007–2011. URL: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Specific_total_fertility_rates_by_educational_attainment,_2007-2011_V2.png (accessed January 2017).Google Scholar
Feng, W., Campbell, C. & Lee, J. Z. (2010) Agency, hierarchies, and reproduction in northeastern China 1789 to 1840. In Tsuya, N. O. et al. (eds) Prudence and Pressure: Reproduction and Human Agency in Europe and Asia, 1700–1900. MIT Press, pp. 287–316.Google Scholar
Fieder, M. & Huber, S. (2007) The effects of sex and childlessness on the association between status and reproductive output in modern society. Evolution and Human Behavior 28, 392–398.Google Scholar
Flinn, M. V. (1986) Correlates of reproductive success in a Caribbean village. Human Ecology 14(2), 225–243.Google Scholar
Forsberg, A. J. L. & Tullberg, B. S. (1995) The relationship between cumulative number of cohabiting partners and number of children for men and women in modern Sweden. Ethology and Sociobiology 16(3), 221–232.Google Scholar
Fox, R. (2015) Marry in or die out. Optimal inbreeding and the meaning of mediogamy. In Turner, J. H. et al. (eds) Handbook on Evolution and Society. Routledge, pp. 138–162.Google Scholar
Goodman, A., Koupil, I. & Lawson, D.W. (2012) Low fertility increases descendant socioeconomic position but reduces long-term fitness in a modern post-industrial society. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B 279(1746), 4342–4351.Google Scholar
Guzzo, K. B. (2014) New partners, more kids. Multiple-partner fertility in the United States. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 654(1), 66–86.Google Scholar
Guzzo, K. B. & Furstenberg, F. F. (2007) Multipartnered fertility among American men. Demography 44(3), 583–601.Google Scholar
Habakkuk, H. J. (1953) English population in the eighteenth century. Economic History Review 6(2), 117–133.Google Scholar
Haines, M. R. (1992) Occupation and social class during fertility decline: historical perspectives. In Gillis, J. R. et al. (eds) The European Experience of Changing Fertility. Blackwell, Cambridge, MA, pp. 193–226.Google Scholar
Hamilton, W. D. (1971) Selection of selfish and altruistic behavior in some extreme models. In Eisenberg, J. F. & Dillon, W. S. (eds) Man and Beast: Comparative Social Behavior. Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, DC, pp. 59–91.Google Scholar
Hamilton, W. D. (1975) Innate social aptitudes of man: an approach from evolutionary genetics. In Fox, R. (ed.) Biosocial Anthropology. Malaby Press, London, pp. 133–155.Google Scholar
Harpending, H. (1979) The population genetics of interactions. American Naturalist 113, 622–630.Google Scholar
Harpending, H. (2002) Kinship and population subdivision. Population and Environment 24(2), 141–147.Google Scholar
Henry, J., Helm, H. W. & Cruz, N. (2013) Mate selection: gender and generational differences. North American Journal of Psychology 15(1), 63–70.Google Scholar
Hill, K. R. & Hurtado, A. M. (1996) Ache Life History: The Ecology and Demography of a Foraging People. Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
Hirschman, C. (1994) Why fertility changes. Annual Review of Sociology 20, 203–233.Google Scholar
Hopcroft, R. L. (2005) Parental status and differential investment in sons and daughters: Trivers–Willard revisited. Social Forces 83(3), 169–193.Google Scholar
Hopcroft, R. L. (2006) Sex, status and reproductive success in the contemporary U.S. Evolution and Human Behavior 27, 104–120.Google Scholar
Hopcroft, R. L. (2015) Sex differences in the relationship between status and number of offspring in the contemporary U.S. Evolution and Human Behavior 36(2), 146–151.Google Scholar
Hopcroft, R. L. & Martin, D. O. (2014) The primary parental investment in children in the contemporary U.S. is education: testing the Trivers-Willard hypothesis of parental investment. Human Nature 25(2), 235–250.Google Scholar
Hopcroft, R. L. & Whitmeyer, J. M. (2010) A choice model of occupational status and fertility. Journal of Mathematical Sociology 34(4), 283–300.Google Scholar
Hrdy, S. B. (2000) Mother Nature: Maternal Instincts and How They Shape the Human Species. Ballantine Books.Google Scholar
Hruschka, D. J. & Burger, O. (2016) How does variance in fertility change over the demographic transition? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series B 371(1692), 20150155.Google Scholar
Hughes, A. L. (1986) Reproductive success and occupational class in eighteenth‐century Lancashire, England. Social Biology 33(1–2), 109–115.Google Scholar
Indian Census (2001) http://censusindia.gov.in/Data_Products/Data_Highlights/Data_Highlights_link/data_highlights_F3F7F11.pdf Google Scholar
Indian Census (2012) URL: http://www.censusindia.gov.in/vital_statistics/SRS_Report_2012/10_Chap_3_2012.pdf Google Scholar
Irons, W. (1998) Adaptively relevant environments versus the environment of evolutionary adaptedness. Evolutionary Anthropology 6(6), 194–204.Google Scholar
Jha, R. (2016) Fertility decisions of Indian households: the role of religion. BULMIM Journal of Management and Research 1(1), 1–9.Google Scholar
Jalovaara, M. & Miettinen, A. (2013) Does his paycheck also matter? The socioeconomic resources of co-residential partners and entry into parenthood in Finland. Demographic Research 28, 881–916.Google Scholar
Jiang, Q. & Sánchez-Barricarte, J. J. (2012) Bride price in China: the obstacle to ‘Bare Branches’ seeking marriage. History of the Family 17(1), 2–15.Google Scholar
Jokela, M., Rotkirch, A., Rickard, I. J., Pettay, J. & Lummaa, V. (2010) Serial monogamy increases reproductive success in men but not in women. Behavioral Ecology 21, 906–912.Google Scholar
Jones, J. H. & Bird, R. B. (2014) The marginal valuation of fertility. Evolution and Human Behavior 35(1), 65–71.Google Scholar
Jones, M. B. & Rapley, E. (2001) Behavioral contagion and the rise of convent education in France. Journal of Interdisciplinary History 31(4), 489–521.Google Scholar
Joyner, K., Peters, H. E., Hynes, K., Sikora, A., Taber, J. R. & Rendall, M. S. (2012) The quality of male fertility data in major US surveys. Demography 49(1), 101–124.Google Scholar
Kalmijn, M. (1998) Marriage and homogamy: causes, patterns, trends. Annual Review of Sociology 24, 395–421.Google Scholar
Kaplan, H. (1996) A theory of fertility and parental investment in traditional and modern human societies. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 101(s23), 91–135.Google Scholar
Kaplan, H. & Hill, K. (1985) Hunting ability and reproductive success among male Aché foragers. Current Anthropology 26, 131–133.Google Scholar
Kaplan, H. S., Lancaster, J. B., Johnson, S. E. & Bock, J. A. (1995) Does observed fertility maximize fitness among New Mexican men? Human Nature 6(4), 325–360.Google Scholar
Kaptijn, R., Thomese, F., van Tilburga, T. G., Liefbroera, A. C. & Deeg, D. J. H. (2010) Low fertility in contemporary humans and the mate value of their children: sex-specific effects on social status indicators. Evolution and Human Behavior 31, 59–68.Google Scholar
Lappegård, T. & Rønsen, M. (2013) Socioeconomic differences in multipartner fertility among Norwegian men. Demography 50, 1135–1153.Google Scholar
Lee, R. D. (2003) The demographic transition: three centuries of fundamental change. Journal of Economic Perspectives 17, 167–190.Google Scholar
Litchfield, R. B. (1969) Demographic characteristics of Florentine patrician families, sixteenth to nineteenth centuries. Journal of Economic History 29(02), 191–205.Google Scholar
Maloney, T. N., Hanson, H. & Smith, K. (2014) Occupation and fertility on the frontier: evidence from the state of Utah. Demographic Research 30, 853–886.Google Scholar
Morita, M. (2017) Demographic studies enhance the understanding of evolutionarily (mal) adaptive behaviors and phenomena in humans: a review on fertility decline and an integrated model. Population Ecology, 1–12. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10144-017-0597-y Google Scholar
Morgan, S. P. (2003) Is low fertility a twenty-first-century demographic crisis? Demography 40(4), 589–603.Google Scholar
Nettle, D. & Pollet, T. V. (2008) Natural selection on male wealth in humans. American Naturalist 172(5), 658–666.Google Scholar
Newson, L. (2015) Why do Modern People have so few Children? URL: https://evolution-institute.org/article/why-do-modern-people-have-so-few-children/ (accessed 29th January 2018).Google Scholar
Nisén, J., Martikainen, P., Kaprio, J. & Silventoinen, K. (2013) Educational differences in completed fertility: a behavioral genetic study of finnish male and female twins. Demography 50(4), 1399–1420.Google Scholar
Nisén, J., Martikainen, P., Myrskylä, M. & Silventoinen, K. (2017) Education, other socioeconomic characteristics across the life course, and fertility among Finnish men. European Journal of Population 1–30.Google Scholar
Olatoregun, O., Fagbamigbe, A. F., Akinyemi, O. J., Oyindamola, B. Y. & Bamgboye, E. A. (2014) A comparative analysis of fertility differentials in Ghana and Nigeria. African Journal of Reproductive Health 18(3), 36–47.Google Scholar
Petersen, W. (1960) The demographic transition in the Netherlands. American Sociological Review 25, 334–347.Google Scholar
Salter, F. K. (2008) Misunderstandings of kin selection and the delay in quantifying ethnic kinship. Mankind Quarterly 48(3), 311–344.Google Scholar
Schoen, R. & Cheng, Y.-H. A. (2006) Partner choice and the differential retreat from marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family 68(1), 1–10.Google Scholar
Schwartz, C. R. (2010) Pathways to educational homogamy in marital and cohabiting unions. Demography 47(3), 735–753.Google Scholar
Sear, R., Lawson, D. W., Kaplan, H. & Shenk, M. K. (2016) Understanding variation in human fertility: what can we learn from evolutionary demography? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series B 371, 20150144.Google Scholar
Sear, R., Mace, R. & McGregor, I. A. (2000) Maternal grandmothers improve nutritional status and survival of children in rural Gambia. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B 267(1453), 1641–1647.Google Scholar
Shenk, M. K., Kaplan, H. S. & Hooper, P. L. (2016) Status competition, inequality, and fertility: implications for the demographic transition. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series B 371, 20150150.Google Scholar
Skirbekk, V. (2008) Fertility trends by social status. Demographic Research 18(5), 145–180.Google Scholar
Smith, E. A., Bird, R. B. & Bird, D. W. (2003) The benefits of costly signaling: Meriam turtle hunters. Behavioral Ecology 14(1), 116–126.Google Scholar
Sorokowski, P., Sorokowska, A. & Danel, D. P. (2013) Why pigs are important in Papua. Wealth, height and reproductive success among the Yali tribe of West Papua. Economics and Human Biology 11(3), 382–390.Google Scholar
Stulp, G. & Barrett, L. (2016) Wealth, fertilty and adaptive behavior in industrial populations. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series B 371, 20150153.Google Scholar
Stulp, G., Sear, R., Schaffnit, S. B., Mills, M. C. & Barrett, L. (2016) The reproductive ecology of industrial societies. Part II: The association between wealth and fertility. Human Nature 27(4), 445–470.Google Scholar
Sweeney, M. M. & Cancian, M. (2004) The changing importance of white women’s economic prospects for assortative mating. Journal of Marriage and the Family 66, 1015–1028.Google Scholar
Tsuya, N. O. & Kurosu, S. (2010) Family, household, and reproduction in northeastern Japan, 1716 to 1870. In Tsuya, N. O. et al. (eds) Prudence and Pressure: Reproduction and Human Agency in Europe and Asia, 1700–1900. MIT Press, pp. 249–286.Google Scholar
Tsuya, N. O., Feng, W., Alter, G., Lee, J. Z. et al. (2010) Prudence and Pressure: Reproduction and Human Agency in Europe and Asia, 1700–1900. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Trivers, R. (1972) Parental Investment and Sexual Selection. Vol. 136, p. 179. Biological Laboratories, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Turke, P. W. (1989) Evolution and the demand for children. Population and Development Review 15(1), 61–90.Google Scholar
Turke, P. W. (1990) Which humans behave adaptively, and why does it matter? Ethology and Sociobiology 11, 305–339.Google Scholar
Vézina, H., Gauvreau, D. & Gagnon, A. (2014) Socioeconomic fertility differentials in a late transition setting: a micro-level analysis of the Saguenay region in Quebec. Demographic Research 30, 1097–1128.Google Scholar
Vining, D. R. (1986) Social versus reproductive success: the central theoretical problem of human sociobiology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 9(1), 167–187.Google Scholar
Vining, D. R. (2011) Commentary. Sociobiology’s relevance to modern society: commentary on two articles published here. Evolution and Human Behavior 32, 364–367.Google Scholar
Voland, E. (1988) Differential infant and child mortality in evolutionary perspective: data from the late 17th to 19th century Ostfriesland (Germany). In Betzig, L. et al. (eds) Human Reproductive Behavior. Cambridge University Press, pp. 253–276.Google Scholar
Voland, E. (1990) Differential reproductive success within the Krummhörn population (Germany, 18th and 19th centuries). Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology 26, 65–72.Google Scholar
Voland, E. & Dunbar, R. I. M. (1995) Resource competition and reproduction: the relationship between economic and parental strategies in the Krummhörn population (1720–1874). Human Nature 6, 33–49.Google Scholar
Von Rueden, C. R. & Jaeggi, A. V. (2016) Men’s status and reproductive success in 33 non-industrial societies: effects of subsistence, marriage system, and reproductive strategy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 113(39), 10824–10829.Google Scholar
Whitmeyer, J. M. (1997) Endogamy as a basis for ethnic behavior. Sociological Theory 15(2), 162–178.Google Scholar
Wiederman, M. W. & Allgeier, E. R. (1992) Gender differences in mate selection criteria: sociobiological or socioeconomic explanation? Ethology and Sociobiology 13, 115–124.Google Scholar
Ziker, J. P., Nolin, D. A. & Rasmussen, J. (2016) The effects of wealth on male reproduction among monogamous hunter–fisher–trappers in northern Siberia. Current Anthropology 57(2), 221–229.Google Scholar