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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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