Genetic Influence Helps Explain Variation in Human Fertility: Evidence From Recent Behavioral and Molecular Genetic Studies

Abstract

To search for genetic influence on human fertility differentials appears inconsistent with past empirical research and prior interpretations of Fisher's fundamental theorem of natural selection. We discuss Fisher's theorem and give reasons why genetic influences may indeed account for individual differences in human fertility. We review recent empirical studies showing genetic influence on variance in fertility outcomes and precursors to fertility. Further, some of the genetic variance underlying fertility outcomes overlaps with that underlying fertility precursors. Findings from different cultures, different times, different levels of data, and both behavioral and molecular genetic designs lead to the same conclusion: Fertility differentials are genetically influenced, and at least part of the influence derives from behavioral precursors that are under volitional control, which are themselves genetically mediated.

Keywords

fertility fitness Fisher's theorem evolution genetic influences

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Burt

(1995). The evolution of fitness. Evolution, 49, 1–8.

Edwards

A.W.

(1994). The fundamental theorem of natural selection. Biological Review, 69, 443–474.

Fisher

R.A.

(1930). The genetical theory of natural selection. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.

Houle

(1992). Comparing evolvability and variability of quantitative traits. Genetics, 130, 195–204.

Hughes

K.A.

Burleson

M.H.

(2000). Evolutionary causes and consequences of variation in fertility and other fitness traits. In Rodgers

J.L.

Rowe

D.C.

Miller

W.B.

(Eds.), Genetic influences on human fertility and sexuality (pp. 7–34). Boston: Kluwer.

Kohler

H.-P.

Christensen

(2000). Genetic influences on fertility behavior: Findings from a Danish twin study. In Rodgers

J.L.

Rowe

D.C.

Miller

W.B.

(Eds.), Genetic influences on human fertility and sexuality (pp. 67–84). Boston: Kluwer.

Kohler

H.-P.

Rodgers

J.L.

Christensen

(1999). Is fertility behavior in our genes? Findings from a Danish twin study. Population and Development Review, 25, 253–288.

Mealey

Segal

N.L.

(1993). Heritable and environmental variables affect reproduction-related behaviors, but not ultimate reproductive success. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 783–794.

Miller

W.B.

(1986). Proception: An important fertility variable. Demography, 23, 579–594.

10.

Miller

W.B.

Pasta

MacMurray

Muhleman

Comings

(2000). Genetic influence on childbearing motivation: Further testing a theoretical framework. In Rodgers

J.L.

Rowe

D.C.

Miller

W.B.

(Eds.), Genetic influences on human fertility and sexuality (pp. 35–66). Boston: Kluwer.

11.

Rodgers

J.L.

Doughty

(2000). Genetic and environmental influences on fertility expectations and outcomes using NLSY kinship data. In Rodgers

J.L.

Rowe

D.C.

Miller

W.B.

(Eds.), Genetic influences on human fertility and sexuality (pp. 85–106). Boston: Kluwer.

12.

Rodgers

J.L.

Kohler

H.-P.

Kyvik

K.O.

Christensen

(2001). Behavior genetic modeling of human fertility: Findings from a contemporary Danish twin study. Demography, 38, 29–42.

13.

Udry

J.R.

(1996). Biosocial models of low-fertility societies. In Casterline

J.B.

Lee

R.D.

Foote

K.A.

(Eds.), Fertility in the United States: New patterns, new theories (pp. 325–336). New York: The Population Council.

14.

Van de Kaa

D.J.

(1987). Europe's second demographic transition. Population Bulletin, 42, 1–57.

15.

Williams

L.A.

Williams

B.J.

(1974). A re-examination of the heritability of fertility in the British peerage. Social Biology, 21, 225–231.