The puzzle of monogamous marriage
- PMID: 22271782
- PMCID: PMC3260845
- DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2011.0290
The puzzle of monogamous marriage
Abstract
The anthropological record indicates that approximately 85 per cent of human societies have permitted men to have more than one wife (polygynous marriage), and both empirical and evolutionary considerations suggest that large absolute differences in wealth should favour more polygynous marriages. Yet, monogamous marriage has spread across Europe, and more recently across the globe, even as absolute wealth differences have expanded. Here, we develop and explore the hypothesis that the norms and institutions that compose the modern package of monogamous marriage have been favoured by cultural evolution because of their group-beneficial effects-promoting success in inter-group competition. In suppressing intrasexual competition and reducing the size of the pool of unmarried men, normative monogamy reduces crime rates, including rape, murder, assault, robbery and fraud, as well as decreasing personal abuses. By assuaging the competition for younger brides, normative monogamy decreases (i) the spousal age gap, (ii) fertility, and (iii) gender inequality. By shifting male efforts from seeking wives to paternal investment, normative monogamy increases savings, child investment and economic productivity. By increasing the relatedness within households, normative monogamy reduces intra-household conflict, leading to lower rates of child neglect, abuse, accidental death and homicide. These predictions are tested using converging lines of evidence from across the human sciences.
Figures
Similar articles
-
Evolution of monogamous marriage by maximization of inclusive fitness.J Evol Biol. 2010 Jan;23(1):149-56. doi: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2009.01884.x. J Evol Biol. 2010. PMID: 20069721
-
Polygyny and fertility in Sub-Saharan Africa.Fertil Determ Res Notes. 1988 Jun;(21):6-10. Fertil Determ Res Notes. 1988. PMID: 12315486
-
Differentials of fertility between polygynous and monogamous marriages in rural Bangladesh.J Biosoc Sci. 1987 Jan;19(1):49-56. doi: 10.1017/s0021932000016606. J Biosoc Sci. 1987. PMID: 3818690
-
Monogamy in marine fishes.Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2004 May;79(2):351-75. doi: 10.1017/s1464793103006304. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2004. PMID: 15191228 Review.
-
Monogamy and Nonmonogamy: Evolutionary Considerations and Treatment Challenges.Sex Med Rev. 2016 Oct;4(4):343-352. doi: 10.1016/j.sxmr.2016.05.005. Epub 2016 Jun 11. Sex Med Rev. 2016. PMID: 27872028 Review.
Cited by
-
To save or not to save your family member's life? Evolutionary stability of self-sacrificing life history strategy in monogamous sexual populations.BMC Evol Biol. 2019 Jul 19;19(1):147. doi: 10.1186/s12862-019-1478-0. BMC Evol Biol. 2019. PMID: 31324139 Free PMC article.
-
Dimming the "Halo" Around Monogamy: Re-assessing Stigma Surrounding Consensually Non-monogamous Romantic Relationships as a Function of Personal Relationship Orientation.Front Psychol. 2018 Jun 29;9:894. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00894. eCollection 2018. Front Psychol. 2018. PMID: 30008682 Free PMC article.
-
Norm violations and punishments across human societies.Evol Hum Sci. 2023 Apr 13;5:e11. doi: 10.1017/ehs.2023.7. eCollection 2023. Evol Hum Sci. 2023. PMID: 37587937 Free PMC article.
-
Human large-scale cooperation as a product of competition between cultural groups.Nat Commun. 2020 Feb 4;11(1):702. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-14416-8. Nat Commun. 2020. PMID: 32019930 Free PMC article.
-
Ideological Mate-guarding: Sexual Jealousy and Mating Strategy Predict Support for Female Honor.Evol Psychol. 2023 Oct-Dec;21(4):14747049231200641. doi: 10.1177/14747049231200641. Evol Psychol. 2023. PMID: 37807817 Free PMC article.
References
-
- White D. R., Betzig L., Borgerhoff Mulder M., Chick G., Hartung J., Irons W., Low B. S., Otterbein K. F. 1988. Rethinking polygyny: co-wives, codes, and cultural systems (includes comments and author's reply). Curr. Anthropol. 29, 529(44).10.1086/203674 (doi:10.1086/203674) - DOI - DOI
-
- Cashdan E. 1996. Women's mating strategies. Evol. Anthropol.: Issues, News, Rev. 5, 134–14310.1002/(SICI)1520-6505(1996)5:4<134::AID-EVAN3>3.0.CO;2-G (doi:10.1002/(SICI)1520-6505(1996)5:4<134::AID-EVAN3>3.0.CO;2-G) - DOI - DOI
-
- Marlowe F. W. 2003. The mating system of foragers in the standard cross-cultural sample. Cross-Cult. Res. 37, 282–30610.1177/1069397103254008 (doi:10.1177/1069397103254008) - DOI - DOI
-
- Betzig L. L. 1982. Despotism and differential reproduction: a cross-cultural correlation of conflict asymmetry, hierarchy, and degree of polygyny. Ethol. Sociobiol. 3, 209–22110.1016/0162-3095(82)90050-4 (doi:10.1016/0162-3095(82)90050-4) - DOI - DOI
-
- Scheidel W. 2009. Sex and empire: a Darwinian perspective. In The dynamics of ancient empires: state power from Assyria to Byzantium (eds Morris I., Scheidel W.), pp. 255–324 Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Miscellaneous