Is there a link between paternity concern and female genital cutting in West Africa?

Abstract

Here we explore the relationship between female genital cutting (FGC), sexual behaviour, and marriage opportunities in five West African countries. Using large demographic datasets (n 72,438 women, 12,704 men, 10,695 couples) we explore key (but untested) assumptions of an evolutionary proposal that FGC persists because it provides evolutionary fitness benefits for men by reducing non-paternity rates. We identify and test three assumptions implicit in this proposal. We test whether cut women have reduced extra-pair sex before or within marriage; whether FGC is associated with a younger age at marriage as an indication of partner preference; and whether individual and group-level indicators of paternity concern are associated with a stronger preference for marriage to women with FGC. Our results show that FGC status does not affect the odds of women engaging in several indicators of premarital sex, however women with FGC have significantly lower odds of having more than one lifetime sexual partner. We also show that women with FGC get married at a younger age which supports the argument that FGC status influences women's marriage opportunities, even when it does not restrict sexual activity. Finally, we find that in population groups where reported sexual activity and perceived risk of women's extra-pair sex is high, men have higher odds of marrying a first wife with FGC. Together, these results indicate that paternity certainty may be one of several factors contributing to the persistence of FGC in this sample, and that group-level sexual norms are key to maintaining the practice of FGC through the marriage market.

The promise and the peril of using social influence to reverse harmful traditions

“…These incentives create a situation in which people conform, and spillovers are thus possible 19 . Coordination incentives related to cutting can take various forms 9 , but empirical studies indicate that marriageability concerns are important 3,31,33,41 . To illustrate, consider a society in which people cut their daughters to signal that these girls will one day become morally upright and sexually faithful wives 41 .…”

Intergenerational Transmission of Female Genital Cutting: Community and Marriage Dynamics

“…The pressure to have girls cut often comes from community and family members, particularly from older women who seek to secure their granddaughters' marriageability (Howard & Gibson, ; Mackie & LeJeune, ). Even if women would personally prefer not to have their daughters cut, if they live in an area with a high percentage of FGC, they may experience intense pressure to perpetuate the practice (Knight & Ensminger, ; Ross et al, ; Shell‐Duncan, Wander, Hernlund, & Moreau, ).…”

Pre-existing fairness concerns restrict the cultural evolution and generalization of inequitable norms in children

“…To the extent that this happens, the parties involved generalize the norm beyond the original problem, namely how to distribute the gains from sharecropping, to other types of exchange, for example who defers to whom when a farmer and land owner meet in the street? As a very different example of coordination and inequality, a prominent hypothesis posits that female genital cutting, especially infibulation, is a coordination norm that helps men manage paternity uncertainty (Efferson, Vogt, & Fehr, 2020;Howard & Gibson, 2019;Mackie, 1996;Vogt, Zaid, Ahmed, Fehr, & Efferson, 2016). Once a cutting norm is in place, parents face strong incentives to cut their daughters to improve the future marriage prospects of these daughters (Camilotti, 2016;Efferson, Vogt, Elhadi, Ahmed, & Fehr, 2015;Efferson et al, 2020;Howard & Gibson, 2019;Platteau & Auriol, 2018;Shell-Duncan, Wander, Hernlund, & Moreau, 2011;Vogt et al, 2016).…”

“…As a very different example of coordination and inequality, a prominent hypothesis posits that female genital cutting, especially infibulation, is a coordination norm that helps men manage paternity uncertainty (Efferson, Vogt, & Fehr, 2020;Howard & Gibson, 2019;Mackie, 1996;Vogt, Zaid, Ahmed, Fehr, & Efferson, 2016). Once a cutting norm is in place, parents face strong incentives to cut their daughters to improve the future marriage prospects of these daughters (Camilotti, 2016;Efferson, Vogt, Elhadi, Ahmed, & Fehr, 2015;Efferson et al, 2020;Howard & Gibson, 2019;Platteau & Auriol, 2018;Shell-Duncan, Wander, Hernlund, & Moreau, 2011;Vogt et al, 2016). To the extent that such a coordination norm evolves, it shifts the distribution of reproductive benefits away from women and toward men, once again with the potential to entrench status differentials that spill over to other types of social exchange (Henrich & Boyd, 2008).…”