Abstract
Humans show a strong tendency for mating along similar characteristics, leading to a preference for homogamy along several traits. Homogamy has a high prevalence in all human societies and has been demonstrated particularly for ethnicity, religion, political attitude and education. Its most extreme form would obviously be marriages among kin, which would guarantee similarity through genetic relatedness, while increasing the genetic risks for inbreeding. Homogamy is inherently a mechanism to strengthen group cohesion, which at the same time increases social stratification by perpetuating the separation of groups. In modern societies, education has become one of the most important traits of homogamy. Particularly the higher educated tend to marry within their own group, reducing social mobility and making social strata less permeable. Historically, as has been demonstrated for religions, homogamy has always led to strong cooperation within groups but also to separation, hostility and violence among groups. Patterns of homogamy may thus help to explain social disruption. As homogamy establishes both cultural and genetic groups, it serves as a mechanism for cultural-genetic co-evolution: the creation of cultural and social niches that in turn lead to a selection pressure on certain traits and thus accelerate evolutionary trends.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Alford, J. R., Hatemi, P. K., Hibbing, J. R., Martin, N. G., & Eaves, L. J. (2011). The politics of mate choice. The Journal of Politics, 73(2), 362–379.
Anderson, A., Goel, S., Huber, G., Malhotra, N., & Watts, D. J. (2014). Political ideology and racial preferences in online dating. Sociological Science, 1, 28.
Birkelund, G. E., & Heldal, J. (2003). Who marries whom? Educational homogamy in Norway. Demographic Research, 8, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.4054/DemRes.2003.8.1
Bittles, A. H. (2012). Consanguinity in context (Vol. 63). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bittles, A. H., & Black, M. L. (2015). Global patterns & tables of consanguinity. Retrieved from http://consang.net
Blackwell, D. L., & Lichter, D. T. (2004). Homogamy among dating, cohabiting, and married couples. The Sociological Quarterly, 45(4), 719–737.
Blume, M. (2009). The reproductive benefits of religious affiliation. In The biological evolution of religious mind and behavior (pp. 117–126). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Ceballos, F. C., Joshi, P. K., Clark, D. W., Ramsay, M., & Wilson, J. F. (2018). Runs of homozygosity: Windows into population history and trait architecture. Nature Reviews Genetics, 19(4), 220.
Clark, D. W., Okada, Y., Moore, K. H., Mason, D., Pirastu, N., Gandin, I., … Deelen, P. (2019). Associations of autozygosity with a broad range of human phenotypes. Nature Communications, 10, 1), 1–1),17.
Edmands, S. (2007). Between a rock and a hard place: Evaluating the relative risks of inbreeding and outbreeding for conservation and management. Molecular Ecology, 16, 463–475.
Fieder, M., & Huber, S. (2007). The effects of sex and childlessness on the association between status and reproductive output in modern society. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28(6), 392–398.
Fieder, M., & Huber, S. (2016). The association between religious homogamy and reproduction. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 283(1834), 20160294.
Fieder, M., Huber, S., Bookstein, F. L., Iber, K., Schäfer, K., Winckler, G., & Wallner, B. (2005). Status and reproduction in humans: New evidence for the validity of evolutionary explanations on basis of a university sample. Ethology, 111(10), 940–950.
Fox, R. (2015). Marry in or die out. Optimal inbreeding and the meaning of mediogamy. In A. Turner, J. H. Machalek, & R. Maryanskipp (Eds.), Handbook on evolution and society (pp. 350–380). London: Routledge.
Fu, X., & Heaton, T. B. (2008). Racial and educational homogamy: 1980 to 2000. Sociological Perspectives, 51(4), 735–758.
Gintis, H., Smith, E. A., & Bowles, S. (2001). Costly signaling and cooperation. Journal of theoretical biology, 213(1), 103–119.
Hamilton, W. D. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behaviour. II. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7(1), 17–52.
Helgason, A., Pálsson, S., Guðbjartsson, D. F., & Stefánsson, K. (2008). An association between the kinship and fertility of human couples. Science, 319(5864), 813–816.
Hopcroft, R. L. (2006). Sex, status, and reproductive success in the contemporary United States. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27(2), 104–120.
Huber, S., & Fieder, M. (2011). Educational homogamy lowers the odds of reproductive failure. PLoS One, 6(7), e22330.
Huber, S., & Fieder, M. (2016). Worldwide census data reveal prevalence of educational homogamy and its effect on childlessness. Frontiers in Sociology, 1, 10.
Huber, S., & Fieder, M. (2018). Mutual compensation of the effects of religious and ethnic homogamy on reproduction. American Journal of Human Biology, 30(1), e23064.
Joshi, P. K., Esko, T., Mattsson, H., Eklund, N., Gandin, I., Nutile, T., ... Okada, Y. (2015). Directional dominance on stature and cognition in diverse human populations. Nature, 523(7561), 459–462.
Kiper, J., & Sosis, R. (2016). The roots of intergroup conflict and the co-optation of the religious system. In J. R. Liddle & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of evolutionary psychology and religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Marr, A. B., Keller, L. F., & Arcese, P. (2002). Heterosis and outbreeding depression in descendants of natural immigrants to an inbred population of song sparrows (Melospiza melodia). Evolution, 56(1), 131–142.
Marshall, T. C., & Spalton, J. A. (2000). Simultaneous inbreeding and outbreeding depression in reintroduced Arabian oryx. Animal Conservation Forum, 3, 241–248.
Norenzayan, A., Shariff, A. F., Gervais, W. M., Willard, A. K., McNamara, R. A., Slingerland, E., & Henrich, J. (2016). The cultural evolution of prosocial religions. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 39, e29.
Relethford, J. H. (2012). Human population genetics. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.
Richerson, P. J., Boyd, R., & Henrich, J. (2010). Gene-culture coevolution in the age of genomics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(Supplement 2), 8985–8992. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0914631107
Rushton, J. P. (1989). Genetic similarity, human altruism, and group selection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(3), 503–518.
Salter, F. (2018). The biosocial study of ethnicity. In R. Hopcroft (Ed.), Oxford handbook of evolution, biology, and society (pp. 543–568) ISBN-10: 0190299320.
Salter, F., & Harpending, H. (2013). JP Rushton’s theory of ethnic nepotism. Personality and Individual Differences, 55(3), 256–260.
Seielstad, M. T., Minch, E., & Cavalli-Sforza, L. L. (1998). Genetic evidence for a higher female migration rate in humans. Nature Genetics, 20(3), 278.
Sikora, M., Seguin-Orlando, A., Sousa, V. C., Albrechtsen, A., Korneliussen, T., Ko, A., ... Renaud, G. (2017). Ancient genomes show social and reproductive behavior of early Upper Paleolithic foragers. Science, 358(6363), 659–662.
Smits, J. (2003). Social closure among the higher educated: Trends in educational homogamy in 55 countries. Social Science Research, 32, 251–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0049-089X(02)00049-2
Sosis, R., & Alcorta, C. (2003). Signaling, solidarity, and the sacred: The evolution of religious behavior. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews: Issues, News, and Reviews, 12(6), 264–274.
Sterck, E. H. (1998). Female dispersal, social organization, and infanticide in langurs: are they linked to human disturbance?. American Journal of Primatology, 44(4), 235–254.
Stulp, G., Simons, M. J., Grasman, S., & Pollet, T. V. (2017). Assortative mating for human height: A meta-analysis. American Journal of Human Biology, 29(1), e22917.
Stulp, G., Verhulst, S., Pollet, T. V., Nettle, D., & Buunk, A. P. (2011). Parental height differences predict the need for an emergency caesarean section. PLoS One, 6(6), e20497.
Templeton, A. R. (1986). Coadaptation and outbreeding depression. In E. M. Soul (Ed.), Conservation biology: The science of scar-city and diversity (pp. 105–116). Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Association.
Towner, M. C. (2002). Linking dispersal and marriage in humans: Life history data from Oakham, Massachusetts, USA (1750–1850). Evolution and Human Behavior, 23(5), 337–357.
Turkheimer, E. (2000). Three laws of behavior genetics and what they mean. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(5), 160–164.
Van Bavel, J. (2012). The reversal of gender inequality in education, union formation and fertility in Europe. In Vienna yearbook of population research (pp. 127–154).
West, S. A., El Mouden, C., & Gardner, A. (2011). Sixteen common misconceptions about the evolution of cooperation in humans. Evolution and Human Behavior, 32(4), 231–262.
Zahavi, A. (1975). Mate selection—A selection for a handicap. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 53(1), 205–214.
Zietsch, B. P., Verweij, K. J., Heath, A. C., & Martin, N. G. (2011). Variation in human mate choice: Simultaneously investigating heritability, parental influence, sexual imprinting, and assortative mating. The American Naturalist, 177(5), 605–616.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Fieder, M., Schahbasi, A., Huber, S. (2020). Homogamy and Tribalism: How Finding a Match Can Lead to Social Disruption. In: Aumer, K.V. (eds) The Psychology of Extremism. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59698-9_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59698-9_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-59697-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-59698-9
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)