Cargando…
Greater wealth inequality, less polygyny: rethinking the polygyny threshold model
Monogamy appears to have become the predominant human mating system with the emergence of highly unequal agricultural populations that replaced relatively egalitarian horticultural populations, challenging the conventional idea—based on the polygyny threshold model—that polygyny should be positively...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
The Royal Society
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6073648/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30021924 http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2018.0035 |
_version_ | 1783344236566937600 |
---|---|
author | Ross, Cody T. Borgerhoff Mulder, Monique Oh, Seung-Yun Bowles, Samuel Beheim, Bret Bunce, John Caudell, Mark Clark, Gregory Colleran, Heidi Cortez, Carmen Draper, Patricia Greaves, Russell D. Gurven, Michael Headland, Thomas Headland, Janet Hill, Kim Hewlett, Barry Kaplan, Hillard S. Koster, Jeremy Kramer, Karen Marlowe, Frank McElreath, Richard Nolin, David Quinlan, Marsha Quinlan, Robert Revilla-Minaya, Caissa Scelza, Brooke Schacht, Ryan Shenk, Mary Uehara, Ray Voland, Eckart Willführ, Kai Winterhalder, Bruce Ziker, John |
author_facet | Ross, Cody T. Borgerhoff Mulder, Monique Oh, Seung-Yun Bowles, Samuel Beheim, Bret Bunce, John Caudell, Mark Clark, Gregory Colleran, Heidi Cortez, Carmen Draper, Patricia Greaves, Russell D. Gurven, Michael Headland, Thomas Headland, Janet Hill, Kim Hewlett, Barry Kaplan, Hillard S. Koster, Jeremy Kramer, Karen Marlowe, Frank McElreath, Richard Nolin, David Quinlan, Marsha Quinlan, Robert Revilla-Minaya, Caissa Scelza, Brooke Schacht, Ryan Shenk, Mary Uehara, Ray Voland, Eckart Willführ, Kai Winterhalder, Bruce Ziker, John |
author_sort | Ross, Cody T. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Monogamy appears to have become the predominant human mating system with the emergence of highly unequal agricultural populations that replaced relatively egalitarian horticultural populations, challenging the conventional idea—based on the polygyny threshold model—that polygyny should be positively associated with wealth inequality. To address this polygyny paradox, we generalize the standard polygyny threshold model to a mutual mate choice model predicting the fraction of women married polygynously. We then demonstrate two conditions that are jointly sufficient to make monogamy the predominant marriage form, even in highly unequal societies. We assess if these conditions are satisfied using individual-level data from 29 human populations. Our analysis shows that with the shift to stratified agricultural economies: (i) the population frequency of relatively poor individuals increased, increasing wealth inequality, but decreasing the frequency of individuals with sufficient wealth to secure polygynous marriage, and (ii) diminishing marginal fitness returns to additional wives prevent extremely wealthy men from obtaining as many wives as their relative wealth would otherwise predict. These conditions jointly lead to a high population-level frequency of monogamy. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6073648 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | The Royal Society |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-60736482018-08-07 Greater wealth inequality, less polygyny: rethinking the polygyny threshold model Ross, Cody T. Borgerhoff Mulder, Monique Oh, Seung-Yun Bowles, Samuel Beheim, Bret Bunce, John Caudell, Mark Clark, Gregory Colleran, Heidi Cortez, Carmen Draper, Patricia Greaves, Russell D. Gurven, Michael Headland, Thomas Headland, Janet Hill, Kim Hewlett, Barry Kaplan, Hillard S. Koster, Jeremy Kramer, Karen Marlowe, Frank McElreath, Richard Nolin, David Quinlan, Marsha Quinlan, Robert Revilla-Minaya, Caissa Scelza, Brooke Schacht, Ryan Shenk, Mary Uehara, Ray Voland, Eckart Willführ, Kai Winterhalder, Bruce Ziker, John J R Soc Interface Life Sciences–Mathematics interface Monogamy appears to have become the predominant human mating system with the emergence of highly unequal agricultural populations that replaced relatively egalitarian horticultural populations, challenging the conventional idea—based on the polygyny threshold model—that polygyny should be positively associated with wealth inequality. To address this polygyny paradox, we generalize the standard polygyny threshold model to a mutual mate choice model predicting the fraction of women married polygynously. We then demonstrate two conditions that are jointly sufficient to make monogamy the predominant marriage form, even in highly unequal societies. We assess if these conditions are satisfied using individual-level data from 29 human populations. Our analysis shows that with the shift to stratified agricultural economies: (i) the population frequency of relatively poor individuals increased, increasing wealth inequality, but decreasing the frequency of individuals with sufficient wealth to secure polygynous marriage, and (ii) diminishing marginal fitness returns to additional wives prevent extremely wealthy men from obtaining as many wives as their relative wealth would otherwise predict. These conditions jointly lead to a high population-level frequency of monogamy. The Royal Society 2018-07 2018-07-18 /pmc/articles/PMC6073648/ /pubmed/30021924 http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2018.0035 Text en © 2018 The Authors. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Published by the Royal Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Life Sciences–Mathematics interface Ross, Cody T. Borgerhoff Mulder, Monique Oh, Seung-Yun Bowles, Samuel Beheim, Bret Bunce, John Caudell, Mark Clark, Gregory Colleran, Heidi Cortez, Carmen Draper, Patricia Greaves, Russell D. Gurven, Michael Headland, Thomas Headland, Janet Hill, Kim Hewlett, Barry Kaplan, Hillard S. Koster, Jeremy Kramer, Karen Marlowe, Frank McElreath, Richard Nolin, David Quinlan, Marsha Quinlan, Robert Revilla-Minaya, Caissa Scelza, Brooke Schacht, Ryan Shenk, Mary Uehara, Ray Voland, Eckart Willführ, Kai Winterhalder, Bruce Ziker, John Greater wealth inequality, less polygyny: rethinking the polygyny threshold model |
title | Greater wealth inequality, less polygyny: rethinking the polygyny threshold model |
title_full | Greater wealth inequality, less polygyny: rethinking the polygyny threshold model |
title_fullStr | Greater wealth inequality, less polygyny: rethinking the polygyny threshold model |
title_full_unstemmed | Greater wealth inequality, less polygyny: rethinking the polygyny threshold model |
title_short | Greater wealth inequality, less polygyny: rethinking the polygyny threshold model |
title_sort | greater wealth inequality, less polygyny: rethinking the polygyny threshold model |
topic | Life Sciences–Mathematics interface |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6073648/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30021924 http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2018.0035 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT rosscodyt greaterwealthinequalitylesspolygynyrethinkingthepolygynythresholdmodel AT borgerhoffmuldermonique greaterwealthinequalitylesspolygynyrethinkingthepolygynythresholdmodel AT ohseungyun greaterwealthinequalitylesspolygynyrethinkingthepolygynythresholdmodel AT bowlessamuel greaterwealthinequalitylesspolygynyrethinkingthepolygynythresholdmodel AT beheimbret greaterwealthinequalitylesspolygynyrethinkingthepolygynythresholdmodel AT buncejohn greaterwealthinequalitylesspolygynyrethinkingthepolygynythresholdmodel AT caudellmark greaterwealthinequalitylesspolygynyrethinkingthepolygynythresholdmodel AT clarkgregory greaterwealthinequalitylesspolygynyrethinkingthepolygynythresholdmodel AT colleranheidi greaterwealthinequalitylesspolygynyrethinkingthepolygynythresholdmodel AT cortezcarmen greaterwealthinequalitylesspolygynyrethinkingthepolygynythresholdmodel AT draperpatricia greaterwealthinequalitylesspolygynyrethinkingthepolygynythresholdmodel AT greavesrusselld greaterwealthinequalitylesspolygynyrethinkingthepolygynythresholdmodel AT gurvenmichael greaterwealthinequalitylesspolygynyrethinkingthepolygynythresholdmodel AT headlandthomas greaterwealthinequalitylesspolygynyrethinkingthepolygynythresholdmodel AT headlandjanet greaterwealthinequalitylesspolygynyrethinkingthepolygynythresholdmodel AT hillkim greaterwealthinequalitylesspolygynyrethinkingthepolygynythresholdmodel AT hewlettbarry greaterwealthinequalitylesspolygynyrethinkingthepolygynythresholdmodel AT kaplanhillards greaterwealthinequalitylesspolygynyrethinkingthepolygynythresholdmodel AT kosterjeremy greaterwealthinequalitylesspolygynyrethinkingthepolygynythresholdmodel AT kramerkaren greaterwealthinequalitylesspolygynyrethinkingthepolygynythresholdmodel AT marlowefrank greaterwealthinequalitylesspolygynyrethinkingthepolygynythresholdmodel AT mcelreathrichard greaterwealthinequalitylesspolygynyrethinkingthepolygynythresholdmodel AT nolindavid greaterwealthinequalitylesspolygynyrethinkingthepolygynythresholdmodel AT quinlanmarsha greaterwealthinequalitylesspolygynyrethinkingthepolygynythresholdmodel AT quinlanrobert greaterwealthinequalitylesspolygynyrethinkingthepolygynythresholdmodel AT revillaminayacaissa greaterwealthinequalitylesspolygynyrethinkingthepolygynythresholdmodel AT scelzabrooke greaterwealthinequalitylesspolygynyrethinkingthepolygynythresholdmodel AT schachtryan greaterwealthinequalitylesspolygynyrethinkingthepolygynythresholdmodel AT shenkmary greaterwealthinequalitylesspolygynyrethinkingthepolygynythresholdmodel AT uehararay greaterwealthinequalitylesspolygynyrethinkingthepolygynythresholdmodel AT volandeckart greaterwealthinequalitylesspolygynyrethinkingthepolygynythresholdmodel AT willfuhrkai greaterwealthinequalitylesspolygynyrethinkingthepolygynythresholdmodel AT winterhalderbruce greaterwealthinequalitylesspolygynyrethinkingthepolygynythresholdmodel AT zikerjohn greaterwealthinequalitylesspolygynyrethinkingthepolygynythresholdmodel |