Human assortative mating and genetic equilibrium: An evolutionary perspective

Thiessen, D. D.; Gregg, Barbara

doi:10.1016/0162-3095(80)90003-5

Cited by 245 publications

(172 citation statements)

References 96 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

161

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…4). Because homophily lowers the selective advantage necessary for a trait to approach fixation when a different trait is favored by cultural transmission, the human tendency to assort by education level (17,45) acted to increase the transmission levels of T and S that were necessary for the belief in education or the practice of delaying childbirth to spread in the population. In this framework, we have excluded cultural mutation (b 0 , c 0 > 0, b 3 , c 3 < 1), which would entail a belief in education or the preference for delaying childbirth when one's parents do not possess these traits and which could also shift the balance in favor of education or delayed childbirth.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…M indicates the preference for partnering with individuals with similar beliefs about education, whereas m represents no such preference (α 2 = 0). We approximate α 1 , the rate of assortment on beliefs about education, using published homophily estimates for level of education, α 1 ≈ 0.3-0.4 (17,45). Secondary education itself is correlated with lower fertility (46), but the causation is complicated.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The two elements of cultural niche construction in that model-the levels of selection and assorting-were controlled by the same trait. One cultural trait affected both the fitness and mating preferences of individuals with variants of another cultural (or genetic) trait; for example, religious beliefs, intergenerational wealth transfer, number of children desired, and socioeconomic status may be linked to numerous other traits and may affect both mate choice and fertility (12,(16)(17)(18)(19).Here, we use a model of vertical cultural transmission of three dichotomous traits to explore the evolutionary consequences of assortative mating and selection as independent culturally transmitted forces. In this model, separate culturally transmitted traits alter the strength of selection and level of assorting on the focal trait through cultural niche construction.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Complexity in models of cultural niche construction with selection and homophily

Creanza

Feldman

2014

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Niche construction is the process by which organisms can alter the ecological environment for themselves, their descendants, and other species. As a result of niche construction, differences in selection pressures may be inherited across generations. Homophily, the tendency of like phenotypes to mate or preferentially associate, influences the evolutionary dynamics of these systems. Here we develop a model that includes selection and homophily as independent culturally transmitted traits that influence the fitness and mate choice determined by another focal cultural trait. We study the joint dynamics of a focal set of beliefs, a behavior that can differentially influence the fitness of those with certain beliefs, and a preference for partnering based on similar beliefs. Cultural transmission, selection, and homophily interact to produce complex evolutionary dynamics, including oscillations, stable polymorphisms of all cultural phenotypes, and simultaneous stability of oscillation and fixation, which have not previously been observed in models of cultural evolution or gene-culture interactions. We discuss applications of this model to the interaction of beliefs and behaviors regarding education, contraception, and animal domestication. T hroughout history, humans have dramatically modified their ecological niche, for example by constructing densely populated settlements, using agriculture, and domesticating animals. This niche construction, which has involved major cultural changes, has influenced our own evolution and that of other species (1-4) by affecting the selective forces that act on human populations. A classic example of this gene-culture coevolution is the spread of dairy farming through Europe and the corresponding increase in the allele frequency of the lactase persistence gene, which enables humans to digest milk into adulthood (5-9). Less widely studied is the evolutionary pressure that one culturally transmitted behavior can exert on another cultural trait, either by altering the rate of transmission or the fitnesses of variants of the latter; this has been called cultural niche construction (4, 10).Assortative mating (homophily), where individuals that share a trait are more likely to mate with one another (11-14), and fitness differences may both affect the evolutionary trajectory of a population. In a previous model of cultural niche construction (15), we considered two dichotomous cultural traits, one that determined a cultural phenotype and one niche-constructing trait that controlled the level of selection and assorting on the other trait. In that model, assorting and selection could induce complex evolutionary dynamics, including stable polymorphisms and multiple simultaneously stable equilibria. Polymorphisms were only possible when the three evolutionary forces in the model interacted: fitness differences between phenotypes, assortative mating, and non-Mendelian transmission of at least one trait. The two elements of cultural niche construction in that model-the levels of selection and as...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Complexity in models of cultural niche construction with selection and homophily

Creanza

Feldman

2014

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…All ethnic groups show some endogamy. Research into the affiliative effects of similarity show shared ethnicity to be among the strongest attractors of mates, friends and cooperators (McPherson et al 2001;Thiessen and Gregg 1980). Long-lasting diaspora peoples, of which HMGs are examples, often institutionalize this universal tendency, I think as a means of reproducing the group boundary and its benefits.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%