14
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Low fertility increases descendant socioeconomic position but reduces long-term fitness in a modern post-industrial society

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Adaptive accounts of modern low human fertility argue that small family size maximizes the inheritance of socioeconomic resources across generations and may consequently increase long-term fitness. This study explores the long-term impacts of fertility and socioeconomic position (SEP) on multiple dimensions of descendant success in a unique Swedish cohort of 14 000 individuals born during 1915–1929. We show that low fertility and high SEP predict increased descendant socioeconomic success across four generations. Furthermore, these effects are multiplicative, with the greatest benefits of low fertility observed when SEP is high. Low fertility and high SEP do not, however, predict increased descendant reproductive success. Our results are therefore consistent with the idea that modern fertility limitation represents a strategic response to the local costs of rearing socioeconomically competitive offspring, but contradict adaptive models suggesting that it maximizes long-term fitness. This indicates a conflict in modern societies between behaviours promoting socioeconomic versus biological success. This study also makes a methodological contribution, demonstrating that the number of offspring strongly predicts long-term fitness and thereby validating use of fertility data to estimate current selective pressures in modern populations. Finally, our findings highlight that differences in fertility and SEP can have important long-term effects on the persistence of social inequalities across generations.

          Related collections

          Most cited references37

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A simple method for converting an odds ratio to effect size for use in meta-analysis.

          A systematic review may encompass both odds ratios and mean differences in continuous outcomes. A separate meta-analysis of each type of outcome results in loss of information and may be misleading. It is shown that a ln(odds ratio) can be converted to effect size by dividing by 1.81. The validity of effect size, the estimate of interest divided by the residual standard deviation, depends on comparable variation across studies. If researchers routinely report residual standard deviation, any subsequent review can combine both odds ratios and effect sizes in a single meta-analysis when this is justified. Copyright 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            The Demographic Transition: Three Centuries of Fundamental Change

            Ronald Lee (2003)
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Book: not found

              A Treatise on the Family

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
                Proc. R. Soc. B.
                The Royal Society
                0962-8452
                1471-2954
                November 07 2012
                August 29 2012
                November 07 2012
                : 279
                : 1746
                : 4342-4351
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London WC1E 7HT, UK
                [2 ]Centre for Health Equity Studies (CHESS), Stockholm University/Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm 106 91, Sweden
                [3 ]Department of Anthropology, University College London, London WCE1 6BT, UK
                Article
                10.1098/rspb.2012.1415
                22933371
                4617b54c-3fb1-48df-b35a-dc63a6eee908
                © 2012

                https://royalsociety.org/journals/ethics-policies/data-sharing-mining/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article