Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Sex Differences in the Association of Family and Personal Income and Wealth with Fertility in the United States

  • Published:
Human Nature Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 15 June 2020

This article has been updated

Abstract

Evolutionary theory predicts that social status and fertility will be positively related. It also predicts that the relationship between status and fertility will differ for men and women. This is particularly likely in modern societies given evidence that females face greater trade-offs between status and resource acquisition and fertility than males. This paper tests these hypotheses using newly released data from the 2014 wave of the Survey of Income and Program Participation by the US Census, which has the first complete measures of fertility and number of childbearing partners for a large, representative, national probability sample of men and women and also contains comprehensive measures of economic status as measured by personal and family resources, including income from all sources and all assets. Multivariate analyses show that personal income is positively associated with total fertility and number of childbearing unions for men only. For men, personal net worth is positively associated with number of childbearing unions; it is also positively associated with fertility for married men with a spouse present. These findings support evolutionary predictions of a positive relationship between status, access to mates, and reproductive success for males. Whereas personal income and personal net worth are negatively associated with total fertility and number of childbearing unions for women, family income (net of personal income) is positively associated with total fertility for women. For married men living with a spouse, family income (net of personal income) is negatively associated with total fertility. These findings are consistent with evolutionary theory given the existence of greater trade-offs between production and reproduction for women in an advanced industrial society. For women and men, family net worth (net of personal net worth) is negatively associated with number of childbearing unions and fertility. Implications are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 15 June 2020

    Because of an error in calculation of coefficients reported in the article ���Sex Differences in the Association of Family and Personal Income and Wealth with Fertility in the United States���.

References

  • Barthold, J. A., Myrskylä, M., & Jones, O. R. (2012). Childlessness drives the sex difference in the association between income and reproductive success of modern Europeans. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33(6), 628–638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateman, A. J. (1948). Intrasexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity, 2, 349–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belsley, D. A. (1982). Assessing the presence of harmful collinearity and other forms of weak data through a test for signal-to-noise. Journal of Econometrics, 20(2), 211–253.

  • Bereczkei, T., & Csanaky, A. (1996). Mate choice, marital success, and reproduction in a modern society. Etholgy and Sociobiology, 17, 17–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borgerhoff Mulder, M. (1987a). On cultural and reproductive success: Kipsigis evidence. American Anthropologist, 89, 617–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borgerhoff Mulder, M. (1987b). Resources and reproductive success in women, with an example from the Kipsigis. Journal of Zoology, 213, 489–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borgerhoff Mulder, M. (2009). Serial monogamy as polygyny or polyandry? Marriage in the Tanzanian Pimbwe. Human Nature, 20, 130–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borgerhoff Mulder, M. (2019) Bateman’s principles & the study of evolutionary demography. In O. Burger, R. Lee and R. Sear (Eds.), Human evolutionary demography. Retrieved 9/18/19 from https://osf.io/p59eu/.

  • Brewster, K. L., & Rindfuss, R. R. (2000). Fertility and women's employment in industrialized nations. Annual Review of Sociology, 26(1), 271–296.

  • Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M. T., Shackelford, K., Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Larsen, R. J. (2001). A half century of mate preferences: The cultural evolution of values. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(2), 491–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, D. A. (2000). Male fertility trends in industrial countries: Theories in search of some evidence. In C. Bledsoe, S. Lerner, & J. I. Guyer (Eds.), Fertility and the male life-cycle in the era of fertility decline (pp. 29–60). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Colleran, H., Jasienska, G., Nenko, I., Galbarczyk, A., & Mace, R. (2015). Fertility decline and the changing dynamics of wealth, status and inequality. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 282(1806), 20150287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craney, T. A., & Surles, J. G. (2002). Model-dependent variance inflation factor cutoff values. Quality Engineering, 14(3), 391–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiPrete, T., Morgan, S. P., Engelhardt, H., & Pacalova, H. (2003). Do cross-national differences in the costs of children generate cross-national differences in fertility rates? Population Research and Policy Review, 22, 439–477.

  • Dye, J. L. (2008). Fertility of American women: June 2008. Current Population Reports, P20–563. Washington, DC: US Census Bureau.

  • Fieder, M., & Huber, S. (2007). The effects of sex and childlessness on the association between status and reproductive output in modern society. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 392–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fieder, M., & Huber, S. (2012). An evolutionary account of status, power, and career in modern societies. Human Nature, 23, 191–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fieder, M., Huber, S., & Bookstein, F. L. (2011). Socioeconomic status, marital status and childlessness in men and women: An analysis of census data from six countries. Journal of Biosocial Science, 43(5), 619–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forsberg, A. J. L., & Tullberg, B. S. (1995). The relationship between cumulative number of cohabiting partners and number of children for men and women in modern Sweden. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16(3), 221–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, A., & Koupil, I. (2010). The effect of school performance upon marriage and long-term reproductive success in 10,000 Swedish males and females born 1915–1929. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31(6), 425–435.

  • Goodman, A., Koupil, I., & Lawson, D. W. (2012). Low fertility increases descendant socioeconomic position but reduces long-term fitness in a modern post-industrial society. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 279(1746), 4342–4351.

  • Gowaty, P. A. (2004). Sex roles, contests for the control of reproduction, and sexual selection. In P. M. Kappeler & C. P. Van Schaik (Eds.), Sexual selection in primates: New and comparative perspectives (pp. 37–54). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Guzzo, K. B. (2014). New partners, more kids: Multiple-partner fertility in the United States. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 654(1), 66–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guzzo, K. B., & Furstenberg, F. F. (2007). Multipartnered fertility among American men. Demography, 44(3), 583–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henry, J., Helm Jr., H. W., & Cruz, N. (2013). Mate selection: Gender and generational differences. North American Journal of Psychology, 15(1), 63–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopcroft, R. L. (2006). Sex, status and reproductive success in the contemporary U.S. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27, 104–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hopcroft, R. L. (2015). Sex differences in the relationship between status and number of offspring in the contemporary U.S. Evolution and Human Behavior, 36(2), 146–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hopcroft, R. L., & Whitmeyer, J. M. (2010). A choice model of occupational status and fertility. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 34(4), 283–300.

  • Hrdy, S. B. (2000). The optimal number of fathers: Evolution, demography, and history in the shaping of female mate preferences. In D. LeCroy and P. Moller (Eds.), Evolutionary perspectives on human reproductive behavior (pp. 75–96). Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 907.

  • Huber, S., Bookstein, F. L., & Fieder, M. (2010). Socioeconomic status, education, and reproduction in modern women: An evolutionary perspective. American Journal of Human Biology, 22(5), 578–587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, K. M., & Lichter, D. T. (2016). Diverging demography: Hispanic and non-Hispanic contributions to US population redistribution and diversity. Population Research and Policy Review, 35(5), 705–725.

  • Jokela, M., Rotkirch, A., Rickard, I. J., Pettay, J., & Lummaa, V. (2010). Serial monogamy increases reproductive success in men but not in women. Behavioral Ecology, 21(5), 906–912.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joyner, K., Peters, H. E., Hynes, K., Sikora, A., Taber, J. R., & Rendall, M. S. (2012). The quality of male fertility data in major US surveys. Demography, 49(1), 101–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Judge, D. S. (1995). American legacies and the variable life histories of women and men. Human Nature, 6(4), 291–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Judge, D. S., & Hrdy, S. B. (1992). Allocation of accumulated resources among close kin: Inheritance in Sacramento, California, 1890–1984. Ethology and Sociobiology, 13(5–6), 495–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, H. S., & Lancaster, J. B. (2003). An evolutionary and ecological analysis of human fertility, mating patterns, and parental investment. In K. W. Wachter & R. A. Bulatao (Eds.), Offspring: Human fertility behavior in biodemographic perspective (pp. 170–223). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, H. S., Lancaster, J. B., Johnson, S. E., & Bock, J. A. (1995). Does observed fertility maximize fitness among new Mexican men? Human Nature, 6(4), 325–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Killewald, A. (2016). Money, work, and marital stability: Assessing change in the gendered determinants of divorce. American Sociological Review, 81(4), 696–719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lappegård, T., & Rønsen, M. (2013). Socioeconomic differences in multipartner fertility among Norwegian men. Demography, 50, 1135–1153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leupp, K. (2019). Bargaining bonus or breadwinning burden? Wives’ relative earnings, childrearing, and depression. Sociological Perspectives. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731121419842132.

  • Low, B. S., Simon, C. P., & Anderson, K. G. (2002). An evolutionary ecological perspective on demographic transitions: Modeling multiple currencies. American Journal of Human Biology, 14, 149–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lumley, T., Diehr, P., Emerson, S., & Chen, L. (2002). The importance of the normality assumption in large public health data sets. Annual Review of Public Health, 23(1), 151–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, S. P. (1996). Characteristic features of modern American fertility. Population and Development Review, 22, 19–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, S. P. (2003). Is low fertility a twenty-first-century demographic crisis? Demography, 40(4), 589–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nettle, D., & Pollet, T. V. (2008). Natural selection on male wealth in humans. The American Naturalist, 172(5), 658–666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nisén, J., Martikainen, P., Myrskylä, M., & Silventoinen, K. (2018). Education, other socioeconomic characteristics across the life course, and fertility among Finnish men. European Journal of Population, 34, 337.

  • Oppenheimer, V. K. (2000). The continuing importance of men’s economic position in marriage formation. In L. J. Waite et al. (Eds.), The ties that bind: Perspectives on marriage and cohabitation (pp. 283–301). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Potts, M. (1997). Sex and the birth rate: Human biology, demographic change, and access to fertility-regulation methods. Population and Development Review, 23(1), 1–39.

  • Ruggles, S. (2016). Marriage, family systems, and economic opportunity in the USA since 1850. In S. M. McHale, V. King, J. Van Hook, & A. Booth (Eds.), Gender and couple relationships (pp. 3–41). Cham: Springer International.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rust, K. F., & Rao, J. N. K. (1996). Variance estimation for complex surveys using replication techniques. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 5(3), 283–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sainani, K. L. (2012). Dealing with non-normal data. PM&R, 4(12), 1001–1005.

  • Sayer, L. C., & Bianchi, S. M. (2000). Women’s economic independence and the probability of divorce. Journal of Family Issues, 21(7), 906–943.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stockley, P., & Bro-Jørgensen, J. (2011). Female competition and its evolutionary consequences in mammals. Biological Reviews, 86(2), 341–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stulp, G., & Barrett, L. (2016). Wealth, fertility and adaptive behavior in industrial populations. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 371, 20150153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stulp, G., Sear, R., Schaffnit, S. B., Mills, M. C., & Barrett, L. (2016). The reproductive ecology of industrial societies, part II: The association between wealth and fertility. Human Nature, 27(4), 445–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trivers, R. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man, 1871–1971 (pp. 136–179). Chicago: Aldine de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vining, D. R. (1986). Social versus reproductive success: The central theoretical problem of human sociobiology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 9(1), 167–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiederman, M. W., & Allgeier, E. R. (1992). Gender differences in mate selection criteria: Sociobiological or socioeconomic explanation? Ethology and Sociobiology, 13, 115–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, E. O. (1980). Sociobiology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press (Originally published in 1975).

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, L. (2011). Male fertility patterns and determinants. Springer Series on Demographic Methods and Population Analysis 27. Dordrecht: Springer.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC, 28223, USA

    Rosemary L. Hopcroft

Authors
  1. Rosemary L. Hopcroft
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rosemary L. Hopcroft.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hopcroft, R.L. Sex Differences in the Association of Family and Personal Income and Wealth with Fertility in the United States. Hum Nat 30, 477–495 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-019-09354-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-019-09354-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation