Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T09:16:10.408Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

MARRIAGE GAP IN CHRISTIANS AND MUSLIMS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 April 2017

Martin Fieder ,
Susanne Huber ,
Elmar Pichl ,
Bernard Wallner  and
Horst Seidler
Martin Fieder*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
Susanne Huber
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
Elmar Pichl
Affiliation:
Federal Ministry of Science, Research and Economy of Austria, Vienna, Austria
Bernard Wallner
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria Department of Behavioral Biology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
Horst Seidler
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
*
1Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

For modern Western societies with a regime of monogamy, it has recently been demonstrated that the socioeconomic status of men is positively associated with being or having been married. This study aims to compare marriage patterns (if a person has been married at least once) for cultures with a tradition of monogamy and polygyny. As no worldwide data on polygyny exist, religion was used as a proxy for monogamy (Christians) vs polygyny (Muslims). The analyses were based on 2000–2011 census data from 39 countries worldwide for 52,339,594 men and women, controlling for sex, sex ratio, age, education, migration within the last 5 years and employment. Overall, a higher proportion of Muslims were married compared with Christians, but the difference in the fraction of married men compared with married women at a certain age (the ‘marriage gap’) was much more pronounced in Muslims than in Christians, i.e. compared with Christians, a substantially higher proportion of Muslim women than men were married up to the age of approximately 31 years. As expected for a tradition of polygyny, the results indicate that the socioeconomic threshold for entering marriage is higher for Muslim than Christian men, and Muslim women in particular face a negative effect of socioeconomic status on the probability of ever being married. The large ‘marriage gap’ at a certain age in Muslim societies leads to high numbers of married women and unmarried young men, and may put such polygenic societies under pressure.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Biosocial Science , Volume 50 , Issue 2 , March 2018 , pp. 145 - 160
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press, 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alarie, M. & Carmichael, J. T. (2015) The ‘cougar’ phenomenon: an examination of the factors that influence age, hypogamous sexual relationships among middle aged women. Journal of Marriage and Family 77, 1250–1265.Google Scholar
Borgerhoff Mulder, M. (1988) Reproductive Success in Three Kipsigis Cohorts . In Clutton-Brock, T. H. (ed.) Reproductive Success. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 419–438.Google Scholar
Boyd, M. & Li, A. (2003) May–December: Canadians in age-discrepant relationships. Canadian Social Trends 70, 29–33.Google Scholar
Buunk, B. P., Dijkstra, P., Fetchenhauer, D. & Kenrick, D. T. (2002) Age and gender differences in mate selection criteria for various involvement levels. Personal Relationships 9(3), 271–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caldwell, J. C. & Caldwell, P. (1987) The cultural context of high fertility in sub-Saharan Africa. Population and Development Review 13, 409–437.Google Scholar
Carmichael, S. (2011) Marriage and power: age at first marriage and spousal age gap in lesser-developed countries. History of the Family 16, 416–436.Google Scholar
Caron, S. L. & Levesque, L. M. (2004) Dating preferences of women born between 1945 and 1960. Journal of Family Issues 25, 833–846.Google Scholar
Chagnon, N. A. (1988) Life history, blood revenge and warfare in a tribal population. Science 239, 985–992.Google Scholar
Chamie, J. (1986) Polygyny among Arabs. Population Studies 40, 55–66.Google Scholar
Cronk, L. (1989) Low socioeconomic status and female biased parental investment: the Mukogodo example. American Anthropologist 91, 414–429.Google Scholar
Daly, M. & Wilson, M. (1988) Homicide. Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
Darroch, J. E., Landry, D. J. & Oslak, S. (1999) Age differences between sexual partners in the United States. Family Planning Perspectives 31, 160–167.Google Scholar
Economist (2016) Of men and mayhem. Young, single, idle males are dangerous. Work and wedlock can tame them. The Economist, 23rd January 2016. URL: http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21688587-young-single-idle-males-are-dangerous-work-and-wedlock-can-tame-them-men-and-mayhem?fsrc=scn%2Ftw%2Fte%2Fpe%2Fed%2Fofmenandmayhem (accessed 15th February 2017).Google Scholar
Edlund, L., Hongbin, L., Junjian, Y. & Junsen, Z. (2007) More men, more crime: evidence from China’s one-child policy. Institute for the Study of Labor, Discussion Paper Series, 2314, December 2007. URL: http://d-nb.info/987548689/34 (accessed 15th February 2017).Google Scholar
Falen, D. J. (2008) Polygyny and Christian marriage in Africa: the case of Benin. African Studies Review 51, 51–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrington, D. P. & West, D. J. (1995) Effects of marriage, separation, and children on offending by adult males. Current Perspectives of Aging Life Cycle 4, 249–281.Google Scholar
Fieder, M. & Huber, S. (2007a) The effects of sex and childlessness on the association between status and reproductive output in modern society. Evolution and Human Behavior 28, 392–398.Google Scholar
Fieder, M. & Huber, S. (2007b) Parental age difference and offspring count in humans. Biology Letters 3(6), 689–691.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, 619–635.Google Scholar
Fieder, M., Huber, S., Bookstein, F. L., Iber, K., Schäfer, K., Winckler, G. & Wallner, B. (2005) Status and reproduction in humans: new evidence for the validity of evolutionary explanations on basis of a university sample. Ethology 111, 940–950.Google Scholar
Finch, W. H., Bolin, J. E. & Kelley, K. (2014) Multilevel Modeling Using R. CRC Press.Google Scholar
Flake, K. (2005) The Politics of American Religious Identity: The Seating of Senator Reed Smoot, Mormon Apostle. University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Gibson, M. A. & Mace, R. (2007) Polygyny, reproductive success and child health in rural Ethiopia: why marry a married man? Journal of Biosocial Science 39, 287–300.Google Scholar
Hackett, C., Connor, P., Stonawski, M., Skirbekk, V., Potancoko, M. & Abel, G. (2015) The Future of World Religions: Population Growth Projections for 2010–2050. Pew Research Center. URL: http://www.pewforum.org/files/2015/03/PF_15.04.02_ProjectionsFullReport.pdf (accessed 15th February 2017).Google Scholar
Henrich, J., Boyd, R. & Richerson, P. J. (2012) The puzzle of monogamous marriage. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society London B 367, 657–669.Google Scholar
Hopcroft, R. L. (2006) Sex, status, and reproductive success in the contemporary United States. Evolution and Human Behavior 27, 104–120.Google Scholar
Hopcroft, R. L. (2015) Sex differences in the relationship between status and number of offspring in the contemporary US. Evolution and Human Behavior 36, 146–151.Google Scholar
Horney, J., Osgood, D. W. & Marshall, I. H. (1995) Criminal careers in the short-term: intra-individual variability in crime and its relation to local life circumstances. American Sociological Review 60, 655–673.Google Scholar
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, 578–587.Google Scholar
Hudson, V. M. & Den Boer, A. M. (2004) Bare Branches: The Security Implications of Asia’s Surplus Male Population. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Ilkkaracan, P. (2001) Islam and women’s sexuality: a research report from Turkey. In Jung, P. B., Hunt, M. E. & Balakrishnan, R. (eds) Good Sex: Feminist Perspectives from the World’s Religions. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ, pp. 61–76.Google Scholar
Irons, W. (1979) Natural selection, adaptation and human social behavior. In Chagnon, N. A. & Irons, W. (eds) Evolutionary Biology and Human Social Behavior: An Anthropological Perspective. Duxbury Press, North Scitutae, US, pp. 213–237.Google Scholar
Kruger, D. J., Fitzgerald, C. J. & Peterson, T. (2010) Female scarcity reduces women’s marital ages and increases variance in men’s marital ages. Evolutionary Psychology 8(3), 420–431.Google Scholar
Mace, R., Pagel, M., Bowen, J. R., Otterbein, K. F., Ridley, M., Schweizer, T. & Voland, E. (1994) The comparative method in anthropology [and comments and reply]. Current Anthropology 35, 549–564.Google Scholar
Mealey, L. (1985) The relation between social status and biological success: a case study of the Mormon religious hierarchy. Ethology and Sociobiology 6, 249–257.Google Scholar
Müller, R., Sievert, S. & Kingholz, R. (2016) Krisenregion Mena. Wie demografische Veränderungen die Entwicklung im Nahen Osten und Nordafrika beeinflussen und was das für Europa bedeutet. Berlin-Institut für Bevölkerung und Entwicklung. URL: http://www.berlin-institut.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Krisenregion_Mena/Mena_online.pdf (accessed 15th February 2017).Google Scholar
Nettle, D. & Pollet, T. V. (2008) Natural selection on male wealth in humans. American Naturalist 172, 658–666.Google Scholar
Obermeyer, C. M. (1992) Islam, women, and politics: the demography of Arab countries. Population and Development Review 18, 33–60.Google Scholar
Ní Bhrolcháin, M. (2001) Flexibility in the marriage market. Population: An English Selection 13, 9–47.Google Scholar
Pollet, T. V. & Nettle, D. (2009) Market forces affect patterns of polygyny in Uganda. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 106, 2114–2117.Google Scholar
Sampson, R. J. & Laub, J. H. (1995) Crime in the Making: Pathways and Turning Points through Life. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sampson, R. J., Laub, J. H. & Wimer, C. (2006) Does marriage reduce crime? A counterfactual approach to within individual causal effects. Criminology 44, 465–508.Google Scholar
Schacht, R. & Borgerhoff Mulder, M. (2015) Sex ratio effects on reproductive strategies in humans. Royal Society – Open Science 2(1), doi: 10.1098/rsos.140402.Google Scholar
Schacht, R., Tharp, D. & Smith, K. R. (2016) Marriage markets and male mating effort: violence and crime are elevated where men are rare. Human Nature 27(4), 489–500.Google Scholar
Schwarz, S. & Hassebrauck, M. (2012) Sex and age differences in mate-selection preferences. Human Nature 23(4), 447–466.Google Scholar
Seidler, H. (1985) Warum leben Frauen länger? Geschlechtsverhältnis, Mortalität und Familienstand. Soziale Sicherheit 11, 371–378.Google Scholar
Sigman, S. M. (2006) Everything lawyers know about polygamy is wrong. 16 Cornell J. L. & Pub. Pol’y 101. URL: http://digitalcommons.tourolaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1162&context=scholarlyworks (accessed 15th February 2017).Google Scholar
Sueyoshi, S. & Ohtsuka, R. (2003) Effects of polygyny and consanguinity on high fertility in the rural Arab population in South Jordan. Journal of Biosocial Science 35(4), 513–526.Google Scholar
Voland, E. (1990) Differential reproductive success in the Krummhorn population. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 26, 65–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuur, A., Ieno, E. N., Walker, N., Saveliev, A. A. & Smith, G. M. (2009) Mixed Effects Models and Extensions in Ecology with R. Springer, New York.Google Scholar