David W. Lawson

Sibling configuration and childhood growth in contemporary British families

BACKGROUNDnLife history theory and resource dilution models of the family suggest that siblings may present a threat to healthy development because they compete for resources that parents have available to invest in individual offspring. Using data from a large cohort study of contemporary British families (ALSPAC), we test this hypothesis using childhood growth trajectories as a biomarker for health status.nnnMETHODSnIncorporating time-varying measures of changing family structure and socio-economic environment, this study represents the first true longitudinal analysis of family configuration effects on human growth. Using separate multi-variate multi-level models we estimate the effect of sibling number and sibling age and sex on height from birth to 10 years.nnnRESULTSnAdjusting for family level socio-economic factors, the presence of siblings is associated with deficits in height across the study period. At the largest comparison, we estimate that compared with only children, children with four siblings have a reduced birth length by -8.7 mm (95% confidence interval (CI): -14.8 to -2.6) and a reduced rate of growth by -2.3 mm per year (95% CI: -3.8 to -0.8), leading to a deficit of 31.5 mm by age 10. Older siblings are associated with larger lasting negative consequences on height than younger siblings. We find no difference in the height of children in relation to the sex of siblings.nnnCONCLUSIONSnEven in the relatively wealthy, well-nourished conditions of modern Western society, children are not buffered from the health costs of reduced parental investment. Later-born children appear worst affected by within family resource division.

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

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.

The life-history trade-off between fertility and child survival

Evolutionary models of human reproduction argue that variation in fertility can be understood as the local optimization of a life-history trade-off between offspring quantity and ‘quality’. Child survival is a fundamental dimension of quality in these models as early-life mortality represents a crucial selective bottleneck in human evolution. This perspective is well-rehearsed, but current literature presents mixed evidence for a trade-off between fertility and child survival, and little empirical ground to evaluate how socioecological and individual characteristics influence the benefits of fertility limitation. By compiling demographic survey data, we demonstrate robust negative relationships between fertility and child survival across 27 sub-Saharan African countries. Our analyses suggest this relationship is primarily accounted for by offspring competition for parental investment, rather than by reverse causal mechanisms. We also find that the trade-off increases in relative magnitude as national mortality declines and maternal somatic (height) and extrasomatic (education) capital increase. This supports the idea that socioeconomic development, and associated reductions in extrinsic child mortality, favour reduced fertility by increasing the relative returns to parental investment. Observed fertility, however, falls considerably short of predicted optima for maximizing total offspring survivorship, strongly suggesting that additional unmeasured costs of reproduction ultimately constrain the evolution of human family size.

Synthesis in the human evolutionary behavioural sciences

Over the last three decades, the application of evolutionary theory to the human sciences has shown remarkable growth. This growth has also been characterised by a ‘splitting’ process, with the emergence of distinct sub-disciplines, most notably: Human Behavioural Ecology (HBE), Evolutionary Psychology (EP) and studies of Cultural Evolution (CE). Multiple applications of evolutionary ideas to the human sciences are undoubtedly a good thing, demonstrating the usefulness of this approach to human affairs. Nevertheless, this fracture has been associated with considerable tension, a lack of integration, and sometimes outright conflict between researchers. In recent years however, there have been clear signs of hope that a synthesis of the human evolutionary behavioural sciences is underway. Here, we briefly review the history of the debate, both its theoretical and practical causes; then provide evidence that the field is currently becoming more integrated, as the traditional boundaries between sub-disciplines become blurred. This article constitutes the first paper under the new editorship of the Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, which aims to further this integration by explicitly providing a forum for integrated work.

Fertility, Parental Investment, and the Early Adoption of Modern Contraception in Rural Ethiopia

What triggers initial shifts to fertility limitation as populations undergo socioeconomic development remains poorly understood. Alternative models emphasize the social contagion of low fertility ideals, or the individual perception of economic and/or fitness benefits to fertility limitation. Few micro‐level studies in communities experiencing the earliest stages of the demographic transition are available. In a previous study, we found little support for the role of social transmission through friendships and spatial networks in explaining contraceptive uptake in rural Ethiopia, where contraceptive prevalence is low (<20%). Here, using data from the same population, we investigate the possibility that early contraceptive uptake is best understood as a manipulation of parental investment in response to local environmental change.

Sibling Configuration Predicts Individual and Descendant Socioeconomic Success in a Modern Post-Industrial Society

Growing up with many siblings, at least in the context of modern post-industrial low fertility, low mortality societies, is predictive of relatively poor performance on school tests in childhood, lower levels of educational attainment, and lower income throughout adulthood. Recent studies further indicate these relationships hold across generations, so that the descendants of those who grow up with many siblings are also at an apparent socioeconomic disadvantage. In this paper we add to this literature by considering whether such relationships interact with the sex and relative age of siblings. To do this we utilise a unique Swedish multigenerational birth cohort study that provides sibling configuration data on over 10,000 individuals born in 1915–1929, plus all their direct genetic descendants to the present day. Adjusting for parental and birth characteristics, we find that the ‘socioeconomic cost’ of growing up in a large family is independent of both the sex of siblings and the sex of the individual. However, growing up with several older as opposed to several younger siblings is predictive of relatively poor performance on school tests and a lower likelihood of progression to tertiary education. This later-born disadvantage also holds across generations, with the children of those with many older siblings achieving lower levels of educational attainment. Despite these differences, we find that while individual and descendant income is negatively related to the number of siblings, it is not influenced by the relative age of siblings. Thus, our findings imply that the educational disadvantage of later-born children, demonstrated here and in numerous other studies, does not necessarily translate into reduced earnings in adulthood. We discuss potential explanations for this pattern of results, and consider some important directions for future research into sibling configuration and wellbeing in modern societies.

On sex and suicide bombing: an evaluation of Kanazawa's 'evolutionary psychological imagination'

Kanazawa (2007) proposes the ‘evolutionary psychological imagination’ (p.7) as an authoritative framework for understanding complex social and public issues. As a case study of this approach, Kanazawa addresses acts of international terrorism, specifically suicide bombings committed by Muslim men. It is proposed that a comprehensive explanation of such acts can be gained from taking an evolutionary perspective armed with only three points of cultural knowledge: 1. Muslims are exceptionally polygynous, 2. Muslim men believe they will gain reproductive access to 72 virgins if they die as a martyr and 3. Muslim men have limited access to pornography, which might otherwise relieve the tension built up from intra-sexual competition. We agree with Kanazawa that evolutionary models of human behaviour can contribute to our understanding of even the most complex social issues. However, Kanazawa’s case study, of what he refers to as ‘World War III’, rests on a flawed theoretical argument, lacks empirical backing, and holds little in the way of explanatory power.