This article refines and extends previous cross-cultural research on marriage transactions (e.g., bride wealth, dowry). The authors begin by expanding the standard cross-cultural typology of marriage transactions. They identify six additional kinds of transactions (e.g., groom wealth, groom service) and show that many societies of the Human Relations Area Files (HRAF) probability sample have two or more types of transactions. Next, the authors take a Darwinian approach to marriage transactions. Differences in male and female reproductive strategies account for the general pattern of the bride’s family materially benefitting from marriage at the expense of the groom’s family. Kin selection theory explains why wealth devolves from the parents of the couple to the bride and groom. Finally, the authors examine evidence that the type of kin relied on by members of a society and the prevalence of polygyny also influence marriage transactions in predictable ways.
AngristJ. (2002). How do sex ratios affect marriage and labor markets? Evidence from America’s second generation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(3), 997-1038.
2.
ApostolouM. (2007). Sexual selection under parental choice: The role of parents in the evolution of human mating. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 403-409.
3.
ApostolouM. (2008). Bridewealth and brideservice as instruments of parental choice. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 2(3), 89-102.
4.
ApostolouM. (2010). Parental choice: What parents want in a son-in-law and a daughter-in-law across 67 pre-industrial societies. British Journal of Psychology, 101(4), 695-704.
5.
BellD. (1998). Wealth transfers occasioned by marriage: A comparative reconsideration. In SchweizerT.WhiteD. R. (Eds.), Kinship, networks, and exchange (pp. 187-209). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
6.
BilligM. S. (1991). The marriage squeeze on high-caste Rajasthani women. Journal of Asian Studies, 50(2), 341-360.
7.
BjorklundD. F.PellegriniA D. (2002). The origins of human nature: Evolutionary developmental psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
8.
BogorasW. (1909). The Chukchee. New York, NY: G. E. Stechert.
9.
Borgerhoff MulderM. (1988). The relevance of the polygyny threshold model to humans. In Mascie-TaylorC. G. N.BoyceA. J. (Eds.), Human mating patterns (pp. 209-230). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
10.
Borgerhoff MulderM. (1995). Bridewealth and its correlates: Quantifying changes over time. Current Anthropology, 36(3), 573-603.
11.
Borgerhoff MulderM. (2009). Serial monogamy as polygyny or polyandry? Marriage in the Tanzanian Pimbwe. Human Nature, 20, 130-150.
12.
BossenL. (1988). Toward a theory of marriage: The economic anthropology of marriage transactions. Ethnology, 27(2), 127-144.
13.
BroudeG. J.GreenS. J. (1983). Cross-cultural codes on husband-wife relationships. Ethnology, 22(3), 263-280.
14.
BrownG. R.LalandK. N.Borgerhoff MulderM. (2009). Bateman’s principles and human sex roles. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 24(6), 297-304.
15.
BurtonJ. W. (1982). Gifts again: Complimentary prestation among the pastoral Nilotes of the southern Sudan. Ethnology, 21(1), 55-61.
16.
BussD. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1-49.
17.
CaplanL. (1984). Bridegroom price in urban India: Class, caste and “dowry evil” among Christians in Madras. Man, 19, 216-233.
CashdanE. (2002). Human mate choice. In PagelM. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of evolution (Vol. 2, pp. 675-679). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
20.
CoeK. (2003). The ancestress hypothesis: Visual art as adaptation. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
21.
CohenR. (1971). Dominance and defiance: A study of marital instability in an Islamic African society. Washington, DC: American Anthropological Association.
22.
ComaroffJ. L. (Ed.). (1980) The meaning of marriage payments. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
23.
DickemannM. (1979). The ecology of mating systems in hypergynous dowry societies. Social Science Information, 18, 163-195.
24.
DickemannM. (1991). Women, class, and dowry. American Anthropologist, 93, 944-946.
25.
DickemannM. (1993). Dowry disputes: A reply to Schlegel. American Anthropologist, 95, 159-160.
26.
EmberC. R.EmberM. (2001). Cross-cultural research methods. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.
27.
EwersJ. C. (1958). The Blackfeet: Raiders of the northwestern Plains. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
28.
FoxR. (1967). Kinship and marriage: An anthropological perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
29.
GallinB. (1966). Hsin Hsing, Taiwan: A Chinese village in change. Berkeley: University of California Press.
30.
GaulinS. J. C.BosterJ. S. (1990). Dowry as female competition. American Anthropologist, 92, 994-1005.
31.
GaulinS. J. C.BosterJ. S. (1991). Dowry and female competition: A reply to Dickemann. American Anthropologist, 93, 946-948.
32.
GaulinS. J. C.BosterJ. S. (1993). Testing explanatory models of dowry: A reply to Schlegel. American Anthropologist, 95, 157-159.
33.
GearyD. C. (1998). Male, female: The evolution of human sex differences. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
34.
GearyD. C. (2000). Evolution and proximate expression of human paternal investment. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 55-77.
35.
GoldschmidtW. (1974). The economics of brideprice among the Sebei and in East Africa. Ethnology, 13(4), 311-331.
36.
GoodyJ. (1973). Bridewealth and dowry in Africa and Eurasia. In GoodyJ.TambiahS. J. (Eds.), Bridewealth and dowry (pp. 1-58). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
37.
GurvenM.WinkingJ.KaplanH.von RuedenC.McAllisterL. (2009). A bioeconomic approach to marriage and the sexual division of labor. Human Nature, 20, 151-183.
38.
HalpernJ. M. (1967). A Serbian village. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
39.
HamiltonW. D. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behaviour. II. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7(1), 17-52.
40.
HarrellS.DickeyS. A. (1985). Dowry systems in complex societies. Ethnology, 24(2), 105-120.
41.
HewlettB. S. (1991). Intimate fathers: The nature and context of Aka Pygmy paternal infant care. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
42.
HuberB. R.BreedloveW. L. (2007). Evolutionary theory, kinship, and childbirth in cross-cultural perspective. Cross-Cultural Research, 41, 196-219.
43.
HuberB. R.LinhartovaV.CopeD. (2004). Measuring paternal certainty using cross-cultural data. World Cultures, 15(1), 48-59.
44.
IronsW. (2000). Why do the Yomut raise more sons than daughters? In CronkL.ChagnonN.IronsW. (Eds.), Adaptation and human behavior: An anthropological perspective (pp. 223-236). Hawthorne, NY: Aldine.
45.
ItkonenT. I. (1984). The Lapps in Finland up to 1945 (Vol. 2). Helsinki, Finland: Werner Söderström Osakeyhtiö.
46.
KeesingR. M. (1975). Kin groups and social structure. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
47.
KresselG. M. (1977). Bride-price reconsidered. Current Anthropology, 18(3), 441-458.
48.
LagacéR. O. (1979). The HRAF probability sample: Retrospect and prospect. Behavior Science Research, 14(2), 221-229.
49.
LambrechtF. (1935). The Mayawyaw ritual: Part 2. Marriage and marriage ritual. Washington, DC: Catholic Anthropological Conference.
50.
LangH. (1993). Dowry and female competition: A Boolean reanalysis. Current Anthropology, 34(5), 775-778.
51.
LowB. S. (1990). Marriage systems and pathogen stress in human societies. American Zoologist, 30, 325-339.
52.
MarloweF. W. (2003). The mating system of foragers in the standard cross-cultural sample. Cross-Cultural Research, 37, 282-306.
53.
MarloweF. W. (2004). Mate preferences among Hadza hunter-gatherers. Human Nature, 15(4), 365-376.
54.
MinturnL.GrosseM.HaiderS. (1969). Cultural patterning of sexual beliefs and behavior. Ethnology, 8(3), 301-318.
55.
MurdockG. P. (1949). Social structure. New York, NY: Macmillan.
56.
MurdockG. P. (1967). Ethnographic atlas: A summary. Ethnology, 6(2), 109-236.
57.
NarollR. (1967). The proposed HRAF probability sample. Behavior Science Notes, 2, 70-80.
58.
NashJ. (1978). A note on groomprice. American Anthropologist80(1), 106-108.
59.
PasternakB.EmberC. R.EmberM. (1997). Sex, gender and kinship: A cross-cultural perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
60.
PillsworthE. G. (2008). Mate preferences among the Shuar of Ecuador: Trait rankings and peer evaluations. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29, 256-267.
61.
RaoV. (1993). Dowry “inflation” in rural India: A statistical investigation. Population Studies, 47, 283-293.
62.
RaoA. (1998). Prestations and progeny: The consolidation of well-being among the Bakkarwal of Jammu and Kashmir (western Himalayas). In SchweizerT.WhiteD. R. (Eds.), Kinship, networks, and exchange (pp. 210-233). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
63.
SchlegelA. (1991). Status, property, and the value of virginity. American Ethnologist, 18(4), 719-734.
64.
SchlegelA. (1993). Dowry: Who competes for what?American Anthropologist, 95(1), 155-157.
65.
SchlegelA.EloulR. (1987). A new coding of marriage transactions. Behavior Science Research, 21, 118-140.
66.
SchlegelA.EloulR. (1988). Marriage transactions: Labor, property, status. American Anthropologist, 90(2), 291-309.
67.
SeligmanC. G. (1932). The Azande. In SeligmanC. G.SeligmanB. Z. (Eds.), Pagan tribes of the Nilotic Sudan (pp. 495-539). London: Routledge.
68.
SpiroM. E. (1975). Marriage payments: A paradigm from the Burmese perspective. Journal of Anthropological Research, 31(2), 89-115.
69.
SprecherS.SullivanQ.HatfieldE. (1994). Mate selection preferences: Gender differences examined in a national sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(6), 1074-1080.
70.
StoneL. (2010). Kinship and gender: An introduction (4th ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview.
71.
TambiahS. J. (1989). Bridewealth and dowry revisited: The position of women in sub-Saharan Africa and north India. Current Anthropology, 30(4), 413-435.
72.
TriversR. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 46(1), 35-57.
73.
TriversR. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In CampbellB. (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man: 1871-1971 (pp. 136-179). Hawthorne, NY: Aldine.
74.
TriversR. L. (1974). Parent-offspring conflict. American Zoologist, 14, 249-264.
75.
WhiteD. R. (1988). Rethinking polygyny: Co-wives, codes, and cultural systems. Current Anthropology, 29, 529-559.
76.
WhyteM. (1978). Cross-cultural codes dealing with the relative status of women. Ethnology, 17, 211-37.
77.
ZahaviA. (1975). Mate selection: A selection for a handicap. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 53, 205-214.
