Cultural and reproductive success in industrial societies: Testing the relationship at the proximate and ultimate levels

Abstract

In most social species, position in the male social hierarchy and reproductive success are positively correlated; in humans, however, this relationship is less clear, with studies of traditional societies yielding mixed results. In the most economically advanced human populations, the adaptiveness of status vanishes altogether; social status and fertility are uncorrelated. These findings have been interpreted to suggest that evolutionary principles may not be appropriate for the explanation of human behavior, especially in modern environments. The present study tests the adaptiveness of social status with actual mating and reproductive data in a representative sample of males from an industrial society. Reproductive success, even when assessed by a more reliable measure ofactualmale fertility than the one commonly used, fails to correlate with social status. In striking contrast, however, status is found to be highly correlated withpotentialfertility, as estimated from copulation frequency. Status thus accounts for as much as 62% of the variance in thisproximatecomponent of fitness. This pattern is remarkably similar to what is found in many traditional societies and would result in a substantial positive relationship between cultural and reproductive success in industrial populations were it not for the novel conditions imposed by contraception and monogamy. Various underlying mechanisms are suggested for these findings, illustrating the value of current behavioral and reproductive data in the study of adaptation. It is concluded that evolutionary explanations of human behavior remain entirely relevant in modern societies.

Gender differences in narcissism: A meta-analytic review.

“…These gender role beliefs both reinforce the division of labor via gender socialization practices and also lead to gender differences in cognition and behavior via the adoption of gender identities and self-standards, others' gendered social expectations, and the situational elicitation of hormones. The biosocial model (see Wood & Eagly, 2002) has been described as an alternative to, and in some regards a blend of, two other theoretical traditions often used to explain gender differences: (a) the essentialist perspective on gender (exemplified by evolutionary psychology; e.g., Buss & Schmitt, 2011;Pérusse, 1993)-which emphasizes men's evolved dispositions to participate in dominance contests and to control women's sexuality, along with women's evolved dispositions to select mates who provide more resources; cf. Eastwick & Finkel, 2008), and (b) the social constructionist perspective on gender (exemplified in sociology and anthropology; see Geertz, 1974;Mead, 1963;West & Zimmerman, 1987-which emphasizes gender differences as a local cultural phenomenon only, similar to the choice of clothing or hairstyles).…”

Evolution of human mate choice

“…Culturally successful men are often arrogant, self-serving, and better able to pursue their preferred reproductive interests than are other men. As described later, these preferences often involve pursuing multiple mating partners rather than investing in a single woman and her children (Betzig, 1986;Pérusse, 1993;Pratto, 1996). As a result, the personal and behavioral characteristics of men are an important consideration in the choice of a marriage partner.…”

Parental investment and the optimization of human family size

“…It is often suggested that fertility limitation on this scale can only be understood in evolutionary terms as adaptive lag to novel socioecological factors such as contraception [13,14], or as the product of interaction between cultural evolutionary processes and changing social networks [15,16]. In such models, modern reproductive decision-making is seen as both maladaptive and decoupled from the costs and benefits associated with raising children.…”