Skip to main content
Log in

Secular trends in human sex ratios

Their influence on individual and family behavior

  • Published:
Human Nature Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Secular change in sex ratios is examined in relation to experience in the family. Two theoretical perspectives are outlined: Guttentag and Secord’s (1983) adaptation of social exchange theory, and sexual selection theory. Because of large-scale change in number of births and typical age differentials between men and women at marriage, low sex ratios at couple formation ages existed in the U.S. between 1965 and the early 1980s. The currently high sex ratios, however, will persist until the end of the century. High sex ratios appear to be associated with lower divorce rates, male commitment to careers that promise economic rewards, male willingness to engage in child care, higher fertility, and higher rates of sexual violence. Sexual selection theory calls attention to intrasexual competition in the numerically larger sex.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Akers, D. 1967 On Measuring the Marriage Squeeze.Demography 4:907–924.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateman, A. 1948 Intrasexual Selection in Drosophila.Heredity 2:349–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belsky, J. 1985 Exploring Individual Differences in Marital Change Across the Transition to Parenthood: The Role of Violated Expectations.Journal of Marriage and the Family 47:1037–1044.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, J. 1972The Future of Marriage. New York: Bantam Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruch, H. 1978The Golden Cage: The Enigma of Anorexia Nervosa. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bureau of the Census 1974–1988Current Population Reports, Series P-25, Nos. 511, 519, 643, 952, 1000, 1022. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • 1989Current Population Reports, Special Studies Series No. 162. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • 1990Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1990. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. 1987 Sex Differences in Human Mate Selection Criteria. InSociobiology and Psychology, C. Crawford, M. Smith, and D. Krebs, eds. Pp. 335–351. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • 1988 The Evolution of Human Intrasexual Competition: Tactics of Mate Attraction.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54:616–628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 1990 Sex Differences in Human Mate Preferences: Evolutionary Hypotheses Tested in 37 Cultures.Behavioral and Brain Sciences 12:1–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Center for Education Statistics 1987The Condition of Education: A Statistical Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daly, M., and M. Wilson 1988Homicide. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwin C. 1871The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. London: John Murry.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickemann, M. 1975 Demographic Consequences of Infanticide in Man.Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 6:107–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Divale, W., and M. Harris 1976 Population, Warfare, and the Male Supremacist Complex.American Anthropologist 78:521–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Easterlin, R. 1961 The American Baby Boom in Historical Perspective.The American Economic Review 5:869–911.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrenreich, B., E. Hess, and G. Jacobs 1986Re-Making Love: The Feminization of Sex. New York: Anchor Press/Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elder, G. 1969 Appearance and Education in Marriage Mobility.American Sociological Review 34:519–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, R. 1930The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Furstenberg, F. 1984 Family Communication and Teenagers’ Contraceptive Use.Family Planning Perspectives 16:163–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garner, D., P. Garfinkel, D. Schwartz, and M. Thompson 1980 Cultural Expectations of Thinness in Women.Psychological Reports 47:483–491.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghiselin, M. 1980 Is Sex Sufficient?The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3:187–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glick, P., D. Heer, and J. Beresford 1963 Family Formation and Family Composition: Trends and Prospects. InSourcebook of Marriage and the Family, M. Sussman, ed. Pp. 30–40. New York: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, K. 1989 A Profile of Undergraduates in the Sciences.American Scientist 77:475–480.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guttentag, M., and P. Secord 1983Too Many Women? Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, W. 1967 Extraordinary Sex Ratios.Science 156:477–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hewlett, B. 1988 Sexual Selection and Paternal Investment Among Aka Pygmies. InHuman Reproductive Behavior: A Darwinian Perspective, L. Betzig, M. Mulder, and P. Turke, eds. Pp. 263–276. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hochschild, A. 1989The Second Shift. New York: Viking.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hrdy, S. 1981The Woman That Never Evolved. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Juster, F. 1985 A Note on Recent Changes in Time Use. InTime, Goods and Well-Being, F. Juster and F. Stafford, eds. Pp. 313–330. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Institute for Social Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, J. 1979Women and Sports. New York: Viking.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kendrick, D. 1989 Bridging Social Psychology and Sociobiology: The Case of Sexual Attraction. InSociobiology and the Social Sciences, R. Bell and N. Bell, eds. Pp. 5–23. Lubbock: Texas Tech University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lancaster, J., and C. Lancaster 1987 The Watershed: Change in Parental Investment and Family Formation Strategies in the Course of Human Evolution. InParenting Across the Lifespan: Biosocial Dimensions, J. Lancaster, J. Altmann, A. Rossi, and L. Sherwood, eds. Pp. 187–206. Hawthorne, New York: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markman, H., S. Stanley, and R. Storaasli 1991 Destructive Fighting Predicts Divorce: Results from a 7-year Follow-up. Ms. in preparation. Department of Psychology, University of Denver.

  • National Center for Health Statistics 1990Annual Survey of Births, Marriage, Divorce, and Deaths: United States, 1989. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Donald, P. 1980Genetic Models of Sexual Selection. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pleck, J. 1985Working Wives/Working Husbands. Beverly Hills, Sage.

  • Remoff, H. 1984Sexual Choice. New York: Dutton/Lewis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhyne, D. 1981 Bases of Marital Satisfaction Among Men and Women.Journal of Marriage and the Family 43:941–955.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruble, D., A. Fleming, L. Hackel, and C. Strangor 1988 Changes in the Marital Relationship During the Transition to First Time Motherhood: Effects of Violated Expectations Concerning Division of Household Labor.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 55:78–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scrimshaw, S. 1984 Infanticide in Human Populations: Societal and Individual Concerns. InInfanticide, G. Hausfater and S. Hrdy, eds. Pp. 439–462. New York: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • South, S., and K. Trent 1988 Sex Ratios and Women’s Roles: A Cross-National Analysis.American Journal of Sociology 93:1096–1115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Symons, D. 1979The Evolution of Human Sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 1987 If We’re All Darwinians, What’s the Fuss About? InSociobiology and Psychology, C. Crawford, M. Smith, and D. Krebs, eds. Pp. 121–146. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornhill, R., and N. Thornhill 1987 Human Rape: The Strengths of the Evolutionary Perspective. InSociobiology and Psychology, C. Crawford, M. Smith, and D. Krebs, eds. Pp. 269–291. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trivers, R. 1972 Parental Investment and Sexual Selection. InSexual Selection and the Descent of Man: 1871–1971, B. Campbell, ed. Pp. 136–179. Chicago: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Udry, J. 1971The Social Context of Marriage, 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uhelenberg, P., T. Cooney, and R. Boyd 1990 Divorce for Women after Midlife.Journal of Gerontology 45:53–511.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veebers, J. 1988 The “Real” Marriage Squeeze: Mate Selection, Mortality, and the Mating Gradient.Sociological Perspectives 31:169–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waller, W. 1938The Family: A Dynamic Interpretation. New York: Dryden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, M. 1989 Marital Conflict and Homicide in Evolutionary Perspective. InSociobiology and the Social Sciences. R. Bell and N. Bell, eds. Pp. 45–62. Lubbock: Texas Tech University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Frank Pedersen is currently Distinguished Visiting Professor in the Department of Individual and Family Studies at the University of Delaware. He received his Ph.D. in psychology at Ohio State University. He has conducted studies of early parent-child relations with a special focus on paternal behavior. With Phyllis Berman, he recently edited the book,Men’s Transitions to Parenthood: Longitudinal Studies of Early Family Experience (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1987).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pedersen, F.A. Secular trends in human sex ratios. Human Nature 2, 271–291 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02692189

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02692189

Key words

Navigation