This article seeks to make three separate contributions to the anthropological study of culture. Metatheoretically, it presents an evolutionary psychological perspective within which to study culture and generate specific theories of the origins, constancy, and variations in human culture. Theoretically, it provides a concrete evolutionary psychological theory of son-daughter preference: why people in some societies prefer sons to daughters and practice female infanticide whereas those in others prefer daughters to sons and practice male infanticide (killingof boys). Empirically, it tests and supports an evolutionary psychological theory of son-daughter preference with large, international quantitative data both at the micro (individual) and macro (societal) levels. The empirical analyses show that wealthier individuals from 46 nations prefer sons to daughters, whereas poorer individuals prefer daughters to sons. They also suggest that wealthier societies have cultural preference for sons, whereas poorer societies have cultural preference for daughters.
Barkow, J. H. (1980). Biological evolution of culturally patterned behavior. In J. S. Lockard (Ed.), The evolution of human social behavior(pp. 277-296). New York: Elsevier.
2.
Barkow, J. H. (1989). Darwin, sex, and status: Biological approaches to mind and culture. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
3.
Barkow, J. H., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (Eds.). (1992). The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. New York: Oxford University Press.
4.
Ben-Ner, A.,& Putterman, L. (2000). On some implications of evolutionary psychology for the study of preferences and institutions. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 43, 91-99.
5.
Betzig, L., & Weber, S. (1995). Presidents preferred sons. Politics and the Life Sciences, 14, 61-64.
6.
Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (1985). Culture and the evolutionary process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
7.
Boyd, R.,& Richerson, P. J. (2005). The origin and evolution of cultures. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
8.
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1-49.
9.
Buss, D. M. (1994). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating. New York: Basic Books.
10.
Buss, D. M. (2004). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
11.
Cartwright, J. (2000). Evolution and human behavior: Darwinian perspectives on human nature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
12.
Cosmides, L.,& Tooby, J. (1992). Cognitive adaptations for social exchange. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides,& J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture(pp. 163-228). New York: Oxford University Press.
13.
Cronk, L. (1989). Low socioeconomic status and female-based parental investment: The Mukogodo example. American Anthropologist, 91, 414-429.
14.
Cronk, L. (1999). That complex whole: Culture and the evolution of human behavior. Boulder, CO: Westview.
15.
Cronk, L. (2000). Female-biased parental investment and growth performance among the Mukogodo. In L. Cronk et al. (Eds.), Adaptation and human behavior: An anthropological perspective(pp. 203-221). Hawthorne, NY: Aldine.
16.
Cronk, L. (2004). From Mukogodo to Maasai: Ethnicity and cultural change in Kenya. Boulder, CO: Westview.
17.
Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1988). Homicide. New York: De Gruyter.
18.
Das Gupta, M. (1987). Selective discrimination against female children in rural Punjab, India. Population and Development Review, 13, 77-100.
19.
Dobzhansky, T. (1973). Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. American Biology Teacher, 35, 125-129.
20.
Edlund, L. (1999). Son preference, sex ratios, and marriage patterns. Journal of Political Economy, 107, 1275-1304.
21.
Fessler, D. M. T. (2004). Shame in two cultures: Implications for evolutionary approaches. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 4, 207-262.
22.
Freese, J., & Powell, B. (1999). Sociobiology, status, and parental investment in sons and daughters: Testing the Trivers-Willard hypothesis. American Journal of Sociology, 106, 1704-1743.
23.
Gaulin, S. J. C.,& Robbins, C. J. (1991). Trivers-Willard effect in contemporary north American society. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 85, 61-69.
24.
Grant, V. J. (1998). Maternal personality, evolution, and the sex ratio: Do mothers control the sex of the infant?London: Routledge.
25.
Harris, M. (1974). Cows, pigs, wars, and witches: The riddles of culture. New York: Random House.
26.
Harris, M. (1977). Cannibals and kings: The origins of cultures. New York: Random House.
27.
Homans, G. C. (1950). The human group. New York: Harcourt Brace.
28.
Inglehart, R., Basañez, M.,& Moreno, A. (1998). Humanvalues and beliefs: Across-cultural sourcebook. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
29.
James, W. H. (1987). The human sex ratio. Part 1: A review of the literature. Human Biology, 59, 721-752.
30.
Kanazawa, S. (2001a). De gustibus est disputandum. Social Forces, 79, 1131-1163.
31.
Kanazawa, S. (2001b). Why father absence might precipitate early menarche: The role of polygyny. Evolution andHumanBehavior, 22, 329-334.
32.
Kanazawa, S. (2001c). Why we love our children. American Journal of Sociology, 106, 1761-1776.
33.
Kanazawa, S. (2004). The Savanna Principle. Managerial and Decision Economics, 25, 41-54.
34.
Kanazawa, S. (2005a). Beautiful women have more daughters: A further implication of the generalized Trivers-Willard hypothesis (gTWH). Unpublished manuscript, London School of Economics and Political Science. Interdisciplinary Institute of Management.
35.
Kanazawa, S. (2005b). Big and tall parents have more sons: Further generalizations of the Trivers-Willard hypothesis. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 235, 583-590.
36.
Kanazawa, S. (in press). Violent men have more sons: Further evidence for the generalized Trivers-Willard hypothesis (gTWH). Journal of Theoretical Biology.
37.
Kanazawa, S.,& Still, M. C. (1999). Why monogamy?Social Forces, 78, 25-50.
38.
Kanazawa, S.,& Still, M. C. (2001). The emergence of marriage norms: An evolutionary psychological perspective. In M. Hechter & K.-D. Opp (Eds.), Social norms(pp. 274-304). New York: Russell Sage.
39.
Kanazawa, S., & Vandermassen, G. (2005). Engineers have more sons, nurses have more daughters: An evolutionary psychological extension of Baron-Cohen's extreme male brain theory of autism and its empirical implications. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 233, 589-599.
40.
Keller, M. C., Nesse, R. M., & Hofferth, S. (2001). The Trivers-Willard hypothesis of parental investment: No effect in the contemporary United States. Evolution and Human Behavior, 22, 343-360.
41.
Knight, J. (1992). Institutions and social conflict. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
42.
Koziel, S.,& Ulijaszek, S. J. (2001). Waiting for Trivers andWillard: Do the rich really favor sons?American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 115, 71-79.
43.
Low, B. S. (1989). Cross-cultural patterns in the training of children: An evolutionary perspective. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 103, 311-319.
44.
Low, B. S. (2000). Why sex matters: A Darwinian look at human behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
45.
Mace, R., Jordan, F.,& Holden, C. (2003). Testing evolutionary hypotheses about human biological adaptation using cross-cultural comparison. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology: Part A, 136, 85-94.
46.
Moore, J. H. (1990). The reproductive success of Cheyenne war chiefs: A contrary case to Chagnon's Yanomamo. Current Anthropology, 31, 322-330.
47.
Mueller, U. (1993). Social status and sex. Nature, 363, 490-490.
48.
Park, C.-B.,& Cho, N.-H. (1995). Consequences of son preference in a lowfertility society: Imbalance of the sex ratio at birth inKorea. Population and Development Review, 21, 59-84.
49.
Richerson, P. J., & Boyd, R. (2005). Not by genes alone: How culture transformed human evolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
50.
Rodman, P. S. (1999). Whither primatology? The place of primates in contemporary anthropology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 28, 311-339.
51.
Rosenzweig, M. R., & Schultz, T. P. (1982). Market opportunities, genetic endowments, and intrafamily resource distribution: Child survival in rural India. American Economic Review, 72, 803-815.
52.
Sen, A. (1992). Inequality reexamined. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
53.
Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man, 1871-1971 (pp. 136-179). Chicago: Aldine.
54.
Trivers, R. L.,& Willard, D. E. (1973). Natural selection of parental ability to vary the sex ratio of offspring. Science, 179, 90-92.
55.
Tuljapurkar, S., Li, N.,& Feldman, M. W. (1995). High sex ratios in China's future. Science, 267, 874-876.
56.
United Nations. (1995). The sex and age distribution of the world populations: The 1994 revision. New York: Author.
57.
Voland, E. (1984). Human sex-ratio manipulation: Historical data from a German parish. Journal of Human Evolution, 13, 99-107.
58.
World Almanac. (Various years). The world almanac and book of facts. Mahwah, NJ: Author.
59.
World Bank. (2001). World development indicators 2001. Washington, DC: Author.
60.
World Bank. (2002). World development indicators 2002. Washington, DC: Author.
