Behavior Genetics

, Volume 45, Issue 1, pp 71–83 | Cite as

Genotype × Cohort Interaction on Completed Fertility and Age at First Birth

  • Daniel A. Briley
  • K. Paige Harden
  • Elliot M. Tucker-Drob
Original Research
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Microevolutionary projections use empirical estimates of genetic covariation between physical or psychological phenotypes and reproductive success to forecast changes in the population distributions of those phenotypes over time. The validity of these projections depends on relatively consistent heritabilities of fertility-relevant outcomes and consistent genetic covariation between fertility and other physical or psychological phenotypes across generations. However, well-documented, rapidly changing mean trends in the level and timing of fertility may have been accompanied by differences in the genetic mechanisms of fertility. Using a sample of 933 adult twin pairs from the Midlife Development in the United States study, we demonstrate that genetic influences on completed fertility and age at first birth were trivial for the 1920–1935 birth cohort, but rose substantially for the 1936–1955 birth cohort. For the 1956–1970 birth cohort, genetic influences on completed fertility, but not age at first birth, persisted. Because the heritability of fertility is subject to change dynamically with the social context, it is difficult to project selection pressures or the rate at which selection will occur.

Keywords

Fertility Age at first birth Selection Quantitative genetics Second demographic transition 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

Elliot Tucker-Drob was supported by National Institutes of Health (NIH) research Grant R21HD069772. Daniel A. Briley was supported by NIH training grant T32HD007081. The Population Research Center at the University of Texas at Austin is supported by NIH center Grant R24HD042849.

Conflict of interest

Daniel A. Briley, K. Paige Harden and Elliot M. Tucker-Drob declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

The MIDUS was approved by the institutional review boards of the University of Wisconsin and the Harvard Medical School. All participants provided informed consent before taking part in the study.

References

  1. Billari FC, Kohler H-P, Andersson G, Lundström H (2007) Approaching the limit: long-term trends in late and very late fertility. Popul Dev Rev 33(1):149–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bishop B (2009) The big sort: why the clustering of like-minded America is tearing us apart. Houghton Mifflin, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Bouchard TJ Jr, McGue M (2003) Genetic and environmental influences on human psychological differences. Dev Neurobiol 54:4–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bras H, Van Bavel J, Mandemakers K (2013) Unraveling the intergenerational transmission of fertility: genetic and shared-environment effects during the demographic transition in the Netherlands, 1810–1910. Hist Fam 18(2):116–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Byars SG, Ewbank D, Govindaraju DR, Stearns SC (2010) Natural selection in a contemporary human population. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107(suppl 1):1787–1792PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carlson AC (2003) The fertility gap: recrafting American population policy for a depopulating world. Family Research Council, Washington D. C.Google Scholar
  7. Cherlin AJ (2010) Demographic trends in the Unites States: a review of research in the 2000s. J Marriage Fam 72:403–419PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cleveland WS, Devlin SJ (1988) Locally-weighted regression: an approach to regression analysis by local fitting. J Am Stat Assoc 83(403):596–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coale AJ (1973) The demographic transition reconsidered. In: International Union for the Scientific Study of Population (ed) Proceedings of the International Population Conference 1973, Editions Ordina, Liège, pp 53–73Google Scholar
  10. Coale AJ, Watkins SC (1986) The decline of fertility in Europe: the revised proceedings of a conference on the Princeton European Fertility Project. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  11. Connelly M (2008) Fatal misconception: the struggle to control world population. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. DeLamater J (1981) The social control of sexuality. Annu Rev Soc 7:263–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goodwin P, McGill B, Chandra A (2009) Who marries and when? Age at first marriage in the United States: 2002. NCHS Data Br 19:1–8Google Scholar
  14. Harden KP (2014) Genetic influences on adolescent sexual behavior: why genes matter for environmentally oriented researchers. Psychol Bull 140(2):434–465PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heath AC, Berg K, Eaves LJ, Solaas MH, Corey LA, Sundet J, Magnus P, Nance WE (1985) Education policy and the heritability of educational attainment. Nature 314:734–736PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hildebrandt A, Wilhelm O, Robitzsch A (2009) Complementary and competing factor analytic approaches for the investigation of measurement invariance. Rev Psychol 16(2):87–102Google Scholar
  17. Human Fertility Database (2013). Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research (Germany) and Vienna Institute of Demography (Austria). Available at www.humanfertility.org (data downloaded on December 3, 2013)
  18. Jokela M (2012) Birth-cohort effects in the association between personality and fertility. Psychol Sci 23(8):835–841PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kirk KM, Blomberg S, Duffy DL, Heath AC, Owens IPF, Martin NG (2001) Natural selection and quantitative genetics of life-history traits in western women: a twin study. Evol 55(2):423–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kohler H-P, Rodgers JL (2003) Education, fertility, and heritability: explaining a paradox. In: Wachter KW, Bulatao RA (eds) Offspring: human fertility behavior in biodemographic perspective. National Academies Press, Washington D.C, pp 46–90Google Scholar
  21. Kohler H-P, Rodgers JL, Christensen K (1999) Is fertility behavior in our genes? Findings from a Danish twin study. Popul Dev Rev 25(2):253–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kohler H-P, Billari FC, Ortega JA (2002a) The emergence of lowest-low fertility in Europe during the 1990s. Popul Dev Rev 28:641–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kohler H-P, Rodgers JL, Christensen K (2002b) Between nature and nurture: the shifting determinants of female fertility in Danish twin cohorts. Biodemography Soc Biol 49(3–4):218–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kohler H-P, Behrman JR, Skytthe A (2005) Partner + children = happiness? The effects of partnerships and fertility on well-being. Popul Dev Rev 31(3):407–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lee R (2003) The demographic transition: three centuries of fundamental change. J Econ Perspect 17:167–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lesthaeghe R (2010) The unfolding story of the second demographic transition. Popul Dev Rev 36(2):211–251PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lesthaeghe R, Neels K (2002) From the first to the second demographic transition: an interpretation of demographic innovation in France, Belgium, and Switzerland. Eur J Popul 18(4):325–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lesthaeghe R, Surkyn JR (2002) Value orientations and the second demographic transition (SDT) in Northern, Western and Southern Europe: an update. Demogr Res 3:45–86Google Scholar
  29. Lesthaeghe R, van de Kaa DJ, van de Kaa DJ (1986) Twee demografische transities? In: Lesthaeghe RJ, van de Kaa DJ (eds) Bevolking: groei en krimp. Mens en maatschappij. VanLoghum-Slaterus, Deventer, pp 9–24Google Scholar
  30. Li Q, Racine J (2007) Nonparametric econometrics: theory and practice. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  31. Mahajan V, Muller E, Srivastava RK (1990) Determination of adopter categories by using innovation diffusion models. J Mark Res 27:37–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Marsh LC, Cormier DR (2002) Spline regression models. Sage Publications, Thousand OaksCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mathews TJ, Hamilton BE (2009) Delayed childbearing: more women are having their first child later in life. NCHS Data Br 21:1–8Google Scholar
  34. McGue M, Bouchard TJ Jr (1984) Adjustment of twin data for the effects of age and sex. Behav Genet 14(4):325–343PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Miller WB, Bard DE, Pasta DJ, Rodgers JL (2010) Biodemographic modeling of the links between fertility motivation and fertility outcomes in the NLSY79. Demography 47(2):393–414PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Milot E, Mayer FM, Nussey DH, Boisvert M, Pelletier F, Réale D (2011) Evidence for evolution in response to natural selection in a contemporary human population. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108(41):17040–17045PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Muthén LK, Muthén BO (1998–2010) Mplus user’s guide, 6th edn. Muthén and Muthén, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  38. Neale MC, Cardon LR (1992) Methodology for genetic studies of twins and families. Kluwer Academic Press, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nelson SK, Kushlev K, Lyubomirsky S (2014). The pains and pleasures of parenting: When, why, and how is parenthood associated with more or less well-being? Psychol Bull. Advanced online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1031/a0035444
  40. Nisén J, Martikainen P, Kaprio J, Silventoninen K (2013) Educational differences in completed fertility: a behavioral genetic study of Finnish male and female twins. Demography 50(4):1399–1420PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Notestein F (1945) Population: the long view. In: Schultz T (ed) Food for the world. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 36–57Google Scholar
  42. Pettay JE, Kruuk LEB, Jokela J, Lummaa V (2005) Heritability and genetic constraints of life-history trait evolution in preindustrial humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102(8):2838–2843PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Preston SH, Heuveline P, Guillot M (2001) Demography: measuring and modeling population processes. Blackwell Publishers, MaldenGoogle Scholar
  44. Purcell S (2002) Variance component estimates for gene-environment interaction in twin analysis. Twin Res 5(6):554–571PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rodgers JL, Rowe DC, Miller WB (2000) Genetic influences on human fertility and sexuality: theoretical and empirical contributions from the biological and behavioral sciences. Kluwer, BostonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rodgers JL, Hughes K, Kohler H-P, Christensen K, Doughty D, Rowe DC, Miller WB (2001) Genetic influence helps explain variation in human fertility: evidence from recent behavioral and molecular genetic studies. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 10(5):184–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rodgers JL, Kohler H-P, Christensen K (2003) Genetic variance in human fertility: biology, psychology, or both? In: Rodgers JL, Kohler H-P (eds) The biodemography of human reproduction and fertility. Kluwer, Boston, pp 229–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rodgers JL, Bard DE, Miller WB (2007) Multivariate cholesky models of human female fertility patterns in the NLSY. Behav Genet 37(2):345–361PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rogers EM (1983) Diffusion of innovations. The Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  50. Ryan B, Gross NC (1943) The diffusion of hybrid seed corn in two Iowa communities. Rural Sociol 8:15–24Google Scholar
  51. Ryff C, Almeida DM, Ayanian JS, Carr DS, Cleary PD, Coe C, Williams D (2006) Midlife development in the United States (MIDUS II), 2004–2006. University of Wisconsin, Survey Center, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  52. Skirbekk V, Blekesaune M (2013) Personality traits increasingly important for male fertility: evidence from Norway. Eur J Personal. Advanced online publication. doi: 10.1002/per.1936
  53. Snyder TD, Dillow SA (2013) Digest of education statistics, 2012. NCES 2014–2015 Google Scholar
  54. Stearns SC, Byars SG, Govindaraju DR, Ewbank D (2010) Measuring selection in contemporary human populations. Nat Rev Genet 11(9):611–622PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Sutton PD, Hamilton BE, Mathews TJ (2011) Recent decline in births in the United States, 2007–2009. NCHS Data Br 60:1–8Google Scholar
  56. Thornton A (1979) Religion and fertility: the case of Mormonism. J Marriage Fam 41(1):131–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Trumbetta SL, Markowitz EM, Gottesman II (2007) Marriage and genetic variation across the lifespan: not a steady relationship? Behav Genet 37(2):362–375PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Udry JR (1996) Biosocial models of low-fertility societies. Popul Dev Rev 22:325–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. van de Kaa DJ (1987) Europe’s second demographic transition. Popul Bull 42:1–57Google Scholar
  60. Ventura SJ (2009) Changing patterns of nonmarital childbearing in the United States. NCHS Data Br 18:1–8Google Scholar
  61. Zietsch BP, Kuja-Halkola R, Walum H, Verweij KJH (2014) Perfect genetic correlation between number of offspring and grandoffspring in an industrialized human population. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111(3):1032–1036PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel A. Briley
    • 1
  • K. Paige Harden
    • 1
  • Elliot M. Tucker-Drob
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Psychology and Population Research CenterUniversity of Texas at AustinAustinUSA

Personalised recommendations