Original article
Sex, status, and reproductive success in the contemporary United States

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2005.07.004Get rights and content

Abstract

This paper reexamines the relationship between status and reproductive success (at the ultimate and proximate levels) using data on sex frequency and number of biological children from representative samples of the U.S. population. An ordered probit analysis of data from the 1989–2000 General Social Survey (GSS) shows that high-income men report greater frequency of sex than all others do. An OLS regression of data from the 1994 GSS shows that high-income men have more biological children than do low-income men and high-income women. Furthermore, more educated men have more biological children than do more educated women. Results also show that intelligence decreases the number of offspring and frequency of sex for both men and women.

Introduction

In most animal populations, status or social rank is positively related to reproductive success (Ellis, 1995, Low et al., 2002, Strier, 2003, Voland, 1998). There is much evidence that the same relationship between status and reproductive success also holds in preindustrial human populations, especially for males (see Table 1).

In modern human populations, the demographic transition and the availability of effective contraception appear to have severed the link between status and reproductive success, as previous studies suggest that high-status individuals have somewhat fewer offspring than do low-status individuals (Dickemann, 1993, Kaplan et al., 1995, Kaplan et al., 2002, Low et al., 2002, Morgan, 1996, Morgan, 2003, Pérusse, 1993, Potts, 1997, van den Berghe & Whitmeyer, 1990, Vining, 1986). Empirical studies suggest that fewer children, even if they are high quality, mean fewer genetic descendants on average (Kaplan et al., 1995, Mueller, 2001). Many of the criticisms of the use of evolutionary biology in the social sciences take this “central theoretical problem of sociobiology” as the centerpiece of their assertion that evolutionary biology cannot explain the behavior of contemporary humans (Vining, 1986), claiming that human reproductive behavior is a product of social learning alone.

However, demographic studies of fertility use census or other data that only report female fertility or the number of children in a household (Greene & Biddlecom, 2000, Kaplan & Hill, 1986). Other studies use social survey data that do not distinguish between respondents' adopted, step, and biological children. Such studies do not fully measure male fertility, where the variance in reproductive success is predicted to be highest (Trivers, 1972, Trivers & Willard, 1973). There is evidence that male status as measured by wealth (Essock-Vitale, 1984, Vining, 1986) and height (Mueller & Mazur, 2001, Pawlowski et al., 2000) does promote reproductive success. These outcomes occur even given legally mandated monogamy and disproportionate female control over fertility decisions (Beckman et al., 1983, Kohler et al., 1999, Sorenson, 1989) because high-status males can achieve higher reproductive status through a series of marriages and/or families (Forsberg & Tullberg, 1995, Mueller & Mazur, 2001).

Here, I reexamine the relationship between status and reproductive success by measuring fertility as the number of biological children claimed by a probability sample of both men and women. This is the first such analysis for a modern, developed society (other analyses used convenience or snowball samples, e.g., Kaplan et al., 1995, Pawlowski et al., 2000, Pérusse, 1993, Mueller, 2001, Mueller & Mazur, 2001).

Some theorists contend that even if contemporary achieved fertility does not maximize reproductive success, our preferences and behaviors regarding fertility would promote reproductive success if not for contraception (Bongaarts, 1993, Boone & Kessler, 1999, Buss, 1999, Carey & Lopreato, 1995, Cosmides et al., 1992, Kaplan, 1994, Kaplan, 1996, Kaplan et al., 2002, Morgan & King, 2001, Potts, 1997, Rogers, 1995, Turke, 1989). For example, Pérusse (1993) found that although high-status males did not have greater achieved fertility than do low-status males, as measured by the number of children, they did have greater potential for fertility as estimated by copulation frequency (see also Kanazawa, 2003).

Furthermore, there appear to be evolved sex differences in mate preferences (Buss, 1989, Buss & Barnes, 1986, Buss & Schmitt, 1993, Buunk et al., 2001, Gangestad & Simpson, 2000, Oppenheimer, 2000), including a general female preference for equal or higher-status males as mates, and a general male preference for younger mates (Buss, 1989, Buss & Barnes, 1986, Buunk et al., 2001, Ellis, 2001, Kenrick & Keefe, 1992, Wiederman, 1993). The operation of these preferences over time leads to a shrinking pool of possible mates for high-status females and an expanding pool of possible mates for high-status males. In contrast, low-status females should find more available mates than low-status males would (Trivers, 1972, Trivers & Willard, 1973).

To analyze the relationship between status and fertility (both potential and achieved) and the interaction between sex and status in its effect on fertility, I tested the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1

The relationship between individual status and potential fertility is positive.

Hypothesis 2

The relationship between individual status and achieved fertility is positive.

Hypothesis 3

Sex and status interact in their effects on potential fertility: The rate of increase of potential fertility with increasing status is greater for males than for females.

Hypothesis 4

Sex and status interact in their effects on achieved fertility: The rate of increase of achieved fertility with increasing status is greater for males than for females.

Section snippets

Methods

I test these hypotheses with pooled data from the 1989 through 2000 General Social Surveys (GSS) conducted at the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago (Davis & Smith, 1998). Each survey is an independently drawn, multistage probability sample of noninstitutionalized, English-speaking persons age 18 or over, living in the United States. Not all variables are available for all years of the GSS; hence, depending on the variables used, some subset of one or more of

Frequency of sex

Table 3 gives the results of the ordered probit model of reported sex frequency to test Hypotheses 1 and 3. Age and Age2 are controlled. The main effect of sex is significant and positive and should be interpreted as the effect for males with less than a graduate degree (i.e., when grad=0) compared with females with less than a graduate degree. The coefficients on the dummy variables for highest degree attained for high school diploma and junior college diploma are both negative and significant

Discussion

Consistent with previous studies, the results presented here show that social status measured in the traditional ways (occupational prestige, socioeconomic status, and education) has a null or negative effect on both potential and achieved fertility for both men and women in the contemporary United States. These findings replicate previous findings from research on both sexual behavior (see Rushton & Bogaert, 1988) and achieved fertility (Morgan, 1996, Morgan, 2003, Vining, 1986). However, the

References (99)

  • L. Mealey

    The relationship between social and biological success: A case study of the Mormon religious hierarchy

    Ethology and Sociobiology

    (1985)
  • J.P. Rushton et al.

    Race versus social class differences in sexual behavior: A follow up test of the r/K dimension

    Journal of Research in Personality

    (1988)
  • E. Rǿskaft et al.

    Human reproductive success in relation to resource-access and parental age in a small Norwegian farming parish during the period 1700–1900

    Ethology and Sociobiology

    (1992)
  • P. Turke et al.

    Those who can do: Wealth, status and reproductive success on Ifaluk

    Ethology and Sociobiology

    (1985)
  • R.D. Alexander

    The biology of moral systems

    (1987)
  • R. Bailey

    The behavioral ecology of Efe Pygmy men in the Ituri Forest, Zaire

    (1991)
  • L.J. Beckman et al.

    A theoretical analysis of antecedents of young couples' fertility decisions and outcomes

    Demography

    (1983)
  • T. Bereczkei et al.

    Mate choice, marital success, and reproduction in a modern society

    Ethology and Sociobiology

    (1996)
  • L. Betzig

    Redistribution: Equity or exploitation

  • L. Betzig

    Sex, succession and stratification in the first six civilizations: How powerful men reproduced, passed power on to their sons, and used power to defend their wealth, women and children

  • L. Betzig

    Medieval monogamy

    Journal of Family History

    (1995)
  • P.M. Blau et al.

    The American occupational structure

    (1967)
  • J. Bongaarts

    The supply–demand framework for the determinants of fertility: An alternative implementation

    Population Studies

    (1993)
  • J.L. Boone

    Parental investment and elite family structure in preindustrial states: A case study of late medieval–early modern Portuguese geneologies

    American Anthropologist

    (1986)
  • M. Borgerhoff Mulder

    Cultural and reproductive success: Kipsigis evidence

    American Anthropologist

    (1987)
  • M. Borgerhoff Mulder

    Reproductive success in three Kipsigis cohorts

  • M. Borgerhoff Mulder

    Kipsigis women's preferences for wealthy men: Evidence for female choice in mammals?

    Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

    (1990)
  • M. Borgerhoff Mulder

    Bridewealth and its correlates. Quantifying changes over time

    Current Anthropology

    (1995)
  • M. Borgerhoff Mulder

    Responses to environmental novelty: Changes in men's marriage strategies in a rural Kenyan community

  • D.M. Buss

    Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures

    Behavioral and Brain Sciences

    (1989)
  • D.M. Buss

    Evolutionary psychology

    (1999)
  • D.M. Buss et al.

    Preferences in human mate selection

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1986)
  • D.M. Buss et al.

    Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating

    Psychological Review

    (1993)
  • A.D. Carey et al.

    The evolutionary demography of the fertility–mortality quasi-equilibrium

    Population and Development Review

    (1995)
  • M.J. Casimir et al.

    Prestige, possessions and progeny: Cultural goals and reproductive success among the Bakkarwal

    Human Nature

    (1995)
  • N.A. Chagnon

    Is reproductive success equal in egalitarian societies?

  • N.A. Chagnon

    Kin selection theory, kinship, marriage and fitness among the Yanomamö Indians

  • N.A. Chagnon

    Life histories, blood revenge, and warfare in a tribal population

    Science

    (1988)
  • L. Cosmides et al.

    Introduction: Evolutionary psychology and conceptual integration

  • L. Cronk

    Wealth, status and reproductive success among the Mukogodo of Kenya

    American Anthropologist

    (1991)
  • Davis, J. A., Smith, T. W. (1998). General Social Surveys 1972–1998 [machine readable data file]. Principal...
  • M. Dickemann

    Human reproductive plasticity

    Behavioral and Brain Sciences

    (1993)
  • L. Ellis

    The biosocial female choice theory of social stratification

    Social Biology

    (2001)
  • M. Flinn

    Correlates of reproductive success in a Caribbean village

    Human Ecology

    (1986)
  • S.W. Gangestad et al.

    The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Analysis

    Brain Sciences

    (2000)
  • M.E. Greene et al.

    Absent and problematic men: Demographic accounts of male reproductive roles

    Population and Development Review

    (2000)
  • W.H. Greene

    Econometric analysis

    (2000)
  • R.M. Groves

    Survey error and survey cost

    (1989)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text