| Literature DB >> 29440525 |
Siobhan Mattison1, Christina Moya2, Adam Reynolds3, Mary C Towner4.
Abstract
Cultural evolutionary theory and human behavioural ecology offer different, but compatible approaches to understanding human demographic behaviour. For much of their 30 history, these approaches have been deployed in parallel, with few explicit attempts to integrate them empirically. In this paper, we test hypotheses drawn from both approaches to explore how reproductive behaviour responds to cultural changes among Mosuo agriculturalists of China. Specifically, we focus on how age at last birth (ALB) varies in association with temporal shifts in fertility policies, spatial variation and kinship ecologies. We interpret temporal declines in ALB as plausibly consistent with demographic front-loading of reproduction in light of fertility constraints and later ages at last birth in matrilineal populations relative to patrilineal ones as consistent with greater household cooperation for reproductive purposes in the former. We find little evidence suggesting specific transmission pathways for the spread of norms regulating ALB, but emphasize that the rapid pace of change strongly suggests that learning processes were involved in the general decline in ALB over time. The different predictions of models we employ belie their considerable overlap and the potential for a synthetic approach to generate more refined tests of evolutionary hypotheses of demographic behaviour.This article is part of the theme issue 'Bridging cultural gaps: interdisciplinary studies in human cultural evolution'.Entities:
Keywords: China; fertility behaviour; kinship; matriliny; reproductive cessation; stopping behaviour
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29440525 PMCID: PMC5812972 DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2017.0060
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci ISSN: 0962-8436 Impact factor: 6.237
Descriptive statistics of sample population, broken down by lineality.
| variable name | matrilineal | patrilineal | combined | variable description | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| age | 48.6 (14.8) | 47.7 (13.4) | 48.4 (14.6) | approximate age at time of interview | |
| fertility | 2.8 (1.7) | 2.6 (1.1) | 2.8 (1.6) | number of live births | |
| AFB | 23.1 (4.1) | 21.0 (2.8) | 22.7 (4.0) | age minus oldest child's age | |
| ALB | 29.2 (6.4) | 26.3 (4.6) | 28.7 (6.2) | age minus youngest child's age | |
| distance | 8.1 (7.3) | 48.8 (2.7) | 15.2 (16.9) | village-level distance (km) to primary market town | |
| lineality | 264 (82.5) | 56 (17.5) | 320 | residence in normatively patrilineal or matrilineal area | |
| cohort | <1955 | 34 (94.4) | 2 (5.6) | 36 | 5-year intervals centred on calendar year at age 16 |
| 1955–1959 | 15 (71.4) | 6 (28.6) | 21 | ||
| 1960–1964 | 16 (76.2) | 5 (23.8) | 21 | ||
| 1965–1969 | 23 (85.2) | 4 (14.8) | 27 | ||
| 1970–1974 | 18 (81.8) | 4 (18.2) | 22 | ||
| 1975–1979 | 19 (76.0) | 6 (24.0) | 25 | ||
| 1980–1984 | 41 (83.7) | 8 (16.3) | 49 | ||
| 1985–1989 | 54 (81.8) | 12 (18.2) | 66 | ||
| 1990–1994 | 44 (83.0) | 9 (17.0) | 53 | ||
| education | none | 207 (82.1) | 45 (17.9) | 252 | level of highest school attended |
| elementary | 36 (80.0) | 9 (20.0) | 45 | ||
| middle+ | 21 (91.3) | 2 (8.7) | 23 | ||
| village | village of current residence ( | ||||
Figure 1.Age at last birth (ALB) by cohort. ALB shows declines in mean and median age and in variability across cohorts in our sample. Note that the steepest decline occurs between the cohort of women reaching maturity prior to 1960 and the following cohorts. The first cohort includes the most women who would have finished reproduction by the enactment of the Chinese fertility policy.
Model estimates predicting progression to last birth. Column values are exponentiated coefficients for the variables in the given model, followed by 95% confidence intervals in brackets. In simple terms, exponentiating the coefficients gives us a description of how, for a particular woman's realized values for the independent variables, the risk of having an event (e.g. a last birth) increases or decreases relative to the comparison group. For ALB, a value greater than 1 increases the likelihood (risk) of a last birth relative to the base risk, whereas a value less than 1 decreases the likelihood of a last birth relative to the base risk [60]. AIC, Akaike information criterion.
| cohort | cohort + lineality | cohort + fertility | cohort + education | cohort + distance | full | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| cohort | (<1955) | ||||||
| 1955–1959 | 1.46 [0.83, 2.54] | 1.35 [0.77, 2.36] | 1.49 [0.85, 2.60] | 1.47 [0.84, 2.56] | 1.35 [0.77, 2.36] | 1.40 [0.80, 2.45] | |
| 1960–1964 | 2.03 [1.15, 3.59] | 1.94 [1.11, 3.42] | 2.23 [1.26, 3.95] | 1.99 [1.12, 3.52] | 1.96 [1.11, 3.46] | 2.07 [1.17, 3.66] | |
| 1965–1969 | 3.39 [1.96, 5.87] | 3.43 [1.99, 5.93] | 2.76 [1.59, 4.78] | 3.38 [1.95, 5.85] | 3.37 [1.95, 5.83] | 2.74 [1.58, 4.75] | |
| 1970–1974 | 3.19 [1.80, 5.65] | 2.96 [1.70, 5.17] | 2.44 [1.37, 4.34] | 3.16 [1.78, 5.59] | 3.04 [1.73, 5.34] | 2.27 [1.28, 4.02] | |
| 1975–1979 | 6.39 [3.63, 11.28] | 6.12 [3.47, 10.80] | 4.42 [2.47, 7.92] | 6.69 [3.77, 11.85] | 6.19 [3.51, 10.91] | 4.42 [2.46, 7.96] | |
| 1980–1984 | 4.85 [2.97, 7.92] | 4.47 [2.77, 7.22] | 3.10 [1.84, 5.23] | 4.99 [3.05, 8.18] | 4.52 [2.79, 7.33] | 2.98 [1.77, 5.01] | |
| 1985–1989 | 4.78 [2.95, 7.72] | 4.44 [2.77, 7.12] | 2.80 [1.64, 4.78] | 5.53 [3.36, 9.11] | 4.52 [2.81, 7.26] | 3.02 [1.75, 5.20] | |
| 1990–1994 | 2.09 [1.20, 3.64] | 2.00 [1.15, 3.47] | 1.22 [0.67, 2.23] | 2.41 [1.36, 4.27] | 1.98 [1.14, 3.45] | 1.31 [0.71, 2.43] | |
| lineality | (matrilineal) | ||||||
| patrilineal | 1.95 [1.40, 2.73] | 1.86 [1.28, 2.70] | |||||
| fertility | 0.82 [0.74, 0.91] | 0.82 [0.74, 0.91] | |||||
| education | (none) | ||||||
| elementary | 1.17 [0.82, 1.68] | 1.28 [0.89, 1.83] | |||||
| middle+ | 0.40 [0.21, 0.76] | 0.43 [0.23, 0.81] | |||||
| distance | 1.02 [1.01, 1.02] | ||||||
| village-level variance | 0.092 | 0.008 | 0.097 | 0.080 | 0.021 | 0.023 | |
| negative log likelihood | −1321.25 | −1315.67 | −1314.28 | −1315.43 | −1316.28 | −1303.616 | |
| d.f. ( | 9 | 10 | 10 | 11 | 10 | 13 | |
| AICi | 2660.5 | 2651.4 | 2648.5 | 2652.9 | 2652.6 | 2633.232 | |
| AICi − AICcohort | 0 | −9.1 | −12.0 | −7.6 | −7.9 | −27.3 |