Why the low fertility? Insights from Three Lines of Social and Evolutionary Psychological Research Social and Evolutionary Psychological Research Norman Li, MBA, PhD Lee Kuan Yew Fellow Associate Professor of Psychology Associate Professor of Psychology School of Social Sciences Singapore Management University www.normli.com 1 Singaporeans are marrying later... i l Age at first marriage 30 29 28 27 26 Men 25 Women 24 23 22 1970 1980 1990 2000 2009 Data source: Singapore Department of Statistics 2 and are having less children... and are having less children... Fertility rate 2 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 15 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 Data source: Singapore Department of Statistics 3 Why? • Undoubtedly, there are many factors involved, including economic and sociological ones g • Today, we will look at 3 relevant issues from social and evolutionary psychological perspectives 4 1) Mate Selection Criteria 1) Mate Selection Criteria • Mate preference studies across cultures and time: – For long‐term mates, women not only place greater value on social g yp g status and resources than men do (Buss, 1989; Buss & Barnes, 1986; Hill, 1945, McGinnis, 1958, Sprecher, Sullivan, & Hatfield, 1994)... – but they also prioritize having a minimum level of social status in their mates (Li, Bailey, Kenrick, Linsenmeier, 2002; Li & Kenrick, 2006) • Even though most women aren’t holding out for the most affluent men, they tend to require their long‐term mates to meet or exceed some minimum level of social status (or resources) ( ) • How is that minimum level determined? • This minimum level may be a woman's own social status or income level 5 Comparing women with hi h high vs. low incomes l i • Structural Powerlessness Hypothesis (Buss & Barnes, 1986; Eagly & Wood, 1999)) p proposes: p – Women have traditionally been excluded from power and economic resources – These are domains largely controlled by men These are domains largely controlled by men – So, women seek economic resources in their long‐term mates • If this is true, then we should expect – women who make high incomes to place less emphasis on a mate’s income • However... 6 Hypergamy Most studies indicate the opposite: women (on average) who make higher incomes place even greater value on a potential g p g p mate’s income 7 Hypergamy Buss (1989) • Compared to women with lower salaries, women who made higher salaries had higher education and had higher self‐esteem, and placed higher value on mates who – – – – – – have professional degrees have professional degrees have high social status have greater intelligence are tall are independent are self‐confident are self confident • Women’s own income correlated positively with their ideal mate’s income and the desire for a mate with a professional degree 8 Hypergamy • Positive correlation between women’s expected post‐college earnings and importance ascribed to “good financial prospect” (Weiderman & Allgeier, 1992)) • Female medical school students expecting a high income want to marry p g g y men with equal or higher incomes and status (Townsend, 1989) • Online ads: Women who offer financial resources or resource acquisition skills are more likely to request these qualities (Weiderman, 1993) • An internet study (n=1,851) found that women with a high income prefer a mate with good financial prospects over one who is physically attractive (Moore et al 2006) (Moore et al., 2006) 9 Hypergamy Cross‐cultural studies... • In personal ads, Spanish women who have more status and resources were more likely to seek men with status and resources (Gil‐Burmann et al., 2002) • Jordanian women and men with high SES place more value a mate with degrees and who is ambitious /industrious (Khallad, 2005) • Serbian women’s status correlated positively with their concern for a potential mate’s SES (Todosijevic et al., 2003) • Singaporean women place much higher value on “social level” than do American women (Li, Valentine, & Patel, 2011) American women (Li Valentine & Patel 2011) 10 So... • As women (on average) become more educated and earn more income, their requirements for a mate’s social status and earning power tend to increase, thereby decreasing the number of eligible men number of eligible men 11 Why? • Mate selection criteria may be rooted in evolutionary history: – Although a higher male income may not be necessary for offspring survival in the modern world, our brains evolved in ancestral times when male provisioning may have been crucial when male provisioning may have been crucial – So, women may have evolved a preference for a long‐term mate who offers advantages in social status and/or resources (Buss & Schmitt, 1993 S 1993; Symons, 1979) 1979) – Not easily overturned (e.g., women prefer men who are taller than themselves) 12 Future directions Future directions • Not all women are set on significantly marrying up • Investigate psychological factors that underlie mate I ti t h l i l f t th t d li t preferences of these women • Can such factors be cultivated? Can such factors be cultivated? 13 2) Materialism 2) Materialism 14 Singapore has been very economically successful i ll f l 15 and people now have more and more purchasing power d h 16 Consumerism 17 2) Materialism 2) Materialism • In modern economies, people value and strive for material possessions (Fromm, 1976; Leach, 1993) • Materialism may compete with other values M t i li t ith th l (Burroughs & Rindfleisch, 2002) • People who are more materialistic and value financial goals p g – place less value on: • affiliative goals (Kasser & Ryan, 1993) • relational warmth (Richins & Dawson, 1992) • close relationships (Burroughs & Rindfleisch, 2002) – have more conflicts with friends and romantic partners have more conflicts with friends and romantic partners (Kasser & (Kasser & Ryan, 2001) – have less satisfaction with family life (Nickerson et al., 2003) 18 The incompatibility of materialism and children d hild Materialism‐ based happiness -.20* -.50* Life Satisfaction .20* Attitude toward marriage .36* Desire for children χ2 = 2.16, p = .34, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .01, LL = .00, UL = .02, SRM = .02 Source: Li, Valentine, & Patel (2011) 19 So... • In the modern world, there may be a built‐in tradeoff between economic prosperity and procreational success between economic prosperity and procreational success • A tempering of materialistic values may boost relational and family goals family goals 20 3) Life History Theory 3) Life History Theory • Developed by evolutionary biologists to explain how organisms (including humans) adaptively allocate energy, time and resources across their lifetime toward different time, and resources across their lifetime toward different activities (e.g., Charnov, 1993; Daan & Tinbergen, 1997; Low, 2000) • Primary tradeoff: reproductive vs. somatic effort – Reproductive effort: intrasexual competition for mates, courtship, copulation, gestation, birth, offspring care – Somatic effort: maintaining and growing the body/mind; acquiring size, immunity, knowledge, skills; ultimately leading to enhanced size, immunity, knowledge, skills; ultimately leading to enhanced future reproduction 21 Slow versus Fast Lif Hi Life History Strategy S • Fast strategy: invest less in somatic development, reproduce as quickly as possible • Slow strategy: invest more in somatic development, reproduce later • Species that evolved in harsh and unpredictable environments tend to adopt fast LH strategies • Species that evolved in harsh but predictable ( d th (and thus, managable) environments tend to bl ) i t t dt adopt slow LH strategies slow l 22 Source: Griskevicius et al. (in press) 23 An individual's LH strategy may also be variable • A person’s LH strategy may be sensitive to environmental cues ((Daan & Tinbergen, 1997; Ellis et al., 2009) g ),, including g – harshness of environment during childhood – how safe and predictable the current environment is • Harshness of environment ~ socioeconomic status (SES) • If low‐SES childhood, then adopt a faster LH strategy – reproduce faster • If high‐SES childhood, then adopt a slower LT strategy – invest more, reproduce later • LH LH strategies can be dormant in benign environments, but strategies can be dormant in benign environments but may emerge under conditions of economic duress 24 • Griskevicius, Delton, Robertson, & Tybur (2011) – primed primed people with mortality cues via a NY Times people with mortality cues via a NY Times “article” article – Dangerous Times Ahead: Life and Death in the 21st Century • Article discussed recent increases in violence in the U.S., noting increases in shootings in both residential and commercial areas, and concluding that random shootings in both residential and commercial areas, and concluding that random deaths are becoming a more common part of life 25 In How Many Years Do You Want to Have Your 1st Child? Griskevicius, Delton, Robertson, & Tybur (2011) In line with SLOWER 95 9.5 Childhood SES Strategy YEAR RS FRO OM NOW W 9.0 Poor Middle 8.5 Wealthy ea t y 8.0 75 7.5 7.0 In line with FASTER Strategy 6.5 Control Mortality ENVIRONMENT 26 In How Many Years Do You Want to Have Your 1st Child? Griskevicius, Delton, Robertson, & Tybur (2011) In line with SLOWER 95 9.5 Strategy YEAR RS FRO OM NOW W 9.0 Shift to t FASTER Shift to SLOWER Childhood SES Strategy Poor Strategy Middle 8.5 Wealthy ea t y 8.0 75 7.5 7.0 In line with FASTER Strategy 6.5 Control Mortality ENVIRONMENT 27 Further Your Education/Career Start Family Sooner S OR Griskevicius, Delton, Robertson, & Tybur (2011) Further Education 8.0 Childhood SES /Career SLOWER Poor 7.0 Middle Strategy W lh Wealthy 6.0 FASTER Strategy Start Family y 5.0 4.0 Sooner Control Mortality ENVIRONMENT 28 So... • When people who grow up in safe, resource‐rich environments face danger (or uncertainty or stress) they environments face danger (or uncertainty or stress), they may react by investing more time and energy in somatic development and delaying marriage and family • Encouraging high‐SES people (those who grew up in high‐SES g g g p p ( g p g conditions) to reproduce earlier may require having these people feel safer, more secure, and less stressed. 29 Summaries from 3 lines of research • Mate selection research – education and career success may (on average) induce women to increase their requirements (on average) induce women to increase their requirements for status and income in potential mates, thereby making it more difficult to find suitable mates • Materialism – economic prosperity encourages materialism, p p y g , which may compete with desires for marriage and family • Life history theory – greater uncertainty or stress may lead individuals who grew up in stable, high‐SES conditions, to delay reproduction 30 Conclusion • Policymakers hoping to halt or reverse the trend of delayed marriage and decreased reproduction may benefit from a marriage and decreased reproduction may benefit from a consideration of these factors, aided by an understanding of evolutionary social psychology 31