Population Heterogeneity and Individual Differences in an Assortative Agent-Based Marriage and Divorce Model (MADAM) Using Search with Relaxing Expectations

While many models have investigated the role of competitive mate selection processes in human marriage, few have addressed the potential for assortative processes to explain the observed demographics, as well as simultaneously investigating divorce. To explore the possibility that assortative mate selection processes may explain patterns of both marriage and divorce, we developed an agent-based model, MADAM (Marriage and Divorce Annealing Model), based on homophilic trait matching, in which individuals search for mates similar to themselves, but relax these expectations as they age. MADAM assumes individuals live in a world with N mate-relevant traits, where each individual chooses a set of k traits from those N to represent his or her identity. Individuals seek marriage partners with some number of identical traits, but over time relax their expectations for this desired threshold number of matching traits. Divorce is allowed when individuals find a partner who shares more traits with them than their current partner. With this implementation, we explored how population heterogeneity and individual differences affect population-level demographic trends, finding that increasing population heterogeneity and a reduction in the rate of relaxing expectations can both increase the mean age at first marriage. MADAM also accurately predicts demographic marriage and divorce data across cultures, with quantitatively accurate predictions for length of first marriage, likelihood of first marriage ending in divorce, and percent of population married by the end of the lifespan.

[1]  Paul R. Amato,et al.  People's Reasons for Divorcing , 2003 .

[2]  William J. Goode,et al.  World Changes in Divorce Patterns. , 1993 .

[3]  G. Odell,et al.  Swarms of Predators Exhibit "Preytaxis" if Individual Predators Use Area-Restricted Search , 1987, The American Naturalist.

[4]  P. Todd,et al.  Aggregate age-at-marriage patterns from individual mate-search heuristics , 2005, Demography.

[5]  A. Pusey,et al.  Inbreeding avoidance in animals. , 1996, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[6]  C. Hirschman,et al.  Cultural and Socioeconomic Influences on Divorce During Modernization: Southeast Asia, 1940s to 1960s , 2003 .

[7]  B. Roitberg.  Searching Behavior: the Behavioral Ecology of Finding Resources , 1992 .

[8]  C. Fischer,et al.  Networks and places: social relations in the urban setting , 1977 .

[9]  Thomas T. Hills.  Animal Foraging and the Evolution of Goal-Directed Cognition , 2006, Cogn. Sci..

[10]  Richard L. Moreland,et al.  Exposure effects in person perception: Familiarity, similarity, and attraction , 1982 .

[11]  G. Ochoa,et al.  On sex, mate selection and the red queen. , 1999, Journal of theoretical biology.

[12]  B. Hamilton,et al.  Mean age of mother, 1970-2000. , 2002, National vital statistics reports : from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics System.

[13]  S. Kalick,et al.  The Matching Hypothesis Reexamined , 1986 .

[14]  A. Cherlin.  Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage , 1981 .

[15]  Peter M. Todd,et al.  Searching for the Next Best Mate , 1997 .

[16]  Donn Byrne,et al.  An Overview (and Underview) of Research and Theory within the Attraction Paradigm , 1997 .

[17]  F. Newell,et al.  Familiarity Breeds Attraction: Effects of Exposure on the Attractiveness of Typical and Distinctive Faces , 2004, Perception.

[18]  D. Kandel.  Homophily, Selection, and Socialization in Adolescent Friendships , 1978, American Journal of Sociology.

[19]  A. Oswald,et al.  How is mortality affected by money, marriage, and stress? , 2004, Journal of health economics.

[20]  W. Potts,et al.  The Evolution of Mating Preferences and Major Histocompatibility Complex Genes , 1999, The American Naturalist.

[21]  K. Jaffe,et al.  Narcissism Guides Mate Selection: Humans Mate Assortatively, as Revealed by Facial Resemblance, following an Algorithm of “Self Seeking Like” , 2004 .

[22]  M. Kalmijn,et al.  Intermarriage and homogamy: causes, patterns, trends. , 1998, Annual review of sociology.

[23]  Jere M. Cohen.  Sources of peer group homogeneity. , 1977 .

[24]  M. McPherson,et al.  Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks , 2001 .

[25]  R. Colker.  Marriage , 1955 .

[26]  M. Roach,et al.  Who Divorces and Why , 1985, Journal of family issues.

[27]  Randy Thornhill,et al.  Facial attractiveness , 1999, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[28]  A. V. Maricq,et al.  Dopamine and Glutamate Control Area-Restricted Search Behavior in Caenorhabditis elegans , 2004, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[29]  Klaus Jaffe,et al.  On the Adaptive Value of Some Mate Selection Strategies , 1999 .

[30]  J. Lincoln,et al.  Work and Friendship Ties in Organizations: A Comparative Analysis of Relational Networks , 1979 .

[31]  P. Amato.  The Consequences of Divorce for Adults and Children , 2000 .

[32]  L. Bumpass,et al.  Trends in cohabitation and implications for children s family contexts in the United States , 2000, Population studies.

[33]  E. O. Wright.  Class Counts: Comparative Studies in Class Analysis , 1996 .

[34]  P. Todd,et al.  Mate choice turns cognitive , 1998, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[35]  W. Keith Campbell,et al.  Individual differences in narcissism: Inflated self-views across the lifespan and around the world , 2003 .

[36]  W. J. Bell.  Searching Behaviour: The Behavioural Ecology of Finding Resources , 1991 .

[37]  Tim B. Heaton,et al.  Why Is the Divorce Rate Declining in Indonesia , 2001 .

[38]  P. V. Marsden,et al.  Homogeneity in confiding relations , 1988 .

[39]  S. Gosling,et al.  Development of personality in early and middle adulthood: set like plaster or persistent change? , 2003, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[40]  W. Shrum.  Friendship in School: Gender and Racial Homophily. , 1988 .

[41]  S. Emlen,et al.  Cognitive processes underlying human mate choice: The relationship between self-perception and mate preference in Western society , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[42]  P. Todd,et al.  From pride and prejudice to persuasion : Satisficing in mate search , 1999 .

[43]  T. Tregenza,et al.  Genetic compatibility, mate choice and patterns of parentage: Invited Review , 2000, Molecular ecology.

[44]  Anita P. Barbee,et al.  "Their ideas of beauty are, on the whole, the same as ours": Consistency and variability in the cross-cultural perception of female physical attractiveness. , 1995 .