Evaluating reproductive decisions as discrete choices under social influence

Discrete choice, coupled with social influence, plays a significant role in evolutionary studies of human fertility, as investigators explore how and why reproductive decisions are made. We have previously proposed that the relative magnitude of social influence can be compared against the transparency of pay-off, also known as the transparency of a decision, through a heuristic diagram that maps decision-making along two axes. The horizontal axis represents the degree to which an agent makes a decision individually versus one that is socially influenced, and the vertical axis represents the degree to which there is transparency in the pay-offs and risks associated with the decision the agent makes. Having previously parametrized the functions that underlie the diagram, we detail here how our estimation methods can be applied to real-world datasets concerning sexual health and contraception.

[1]  R. Mace,et al.  Community-level education accelerates the cultural evolution of fertility decline , 2014, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[2]  N. Shrestha.  Nepal and Bangladesh: A Global Studies Handbook , 2002 .

[3]  David Goldbaum,et al.  Estimating the Intensity of Choice in a Dynamic Mutual Fund Allocation Decision , 2008 .

[4]  D. Réale,et al.  Evidence for evolution in response to natural selection in a contemporary human population , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[5]  James Levinsohn,et al.  Encouraging sanitation investment in the developing world: A cluster-randomized trial , 2015, Science.

[6]  J. Gribble,et al.  Family planning and economic well-being: new evidence from Bangladesh. , 2009 .

[7]  Arun Sundararajan,et al.  Distinguishing influence-based contagion from homophily-driven diffusion in dynamic networks , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[8]  Lung-fei Lee,et al.  Binary choice under social interactions: an empirical study with and without subjective data on expectations , 2009 .

[9]  T. Lillicrap,et al.  Why Copy Others? Insights from the Social Learning Strategies Tournament , 2010, Science.

[10]  A. Wagstaff,et al.  A Cluster Randomized Trial , 2014 .

[11]  Michael J O'Brien,et al.  Fitness landscapes among many options under social influence. , 2016, Journal of theoretical biology.

[12]  Paul Ormerod,et al.  Quality versus mere popularity: a conceptual map for understanding human behavior , 2011 .

[13]  N. Alam,et al.  A model comparison approach shows stronger support for economic models of fertility decline , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[14]  W. Hoppitt,et al.  Social Network Analysis Shows Direct Evidence for Social Transmission of Tool Use in Wild Chimpanzees , 2014, PLoS biology.

[15]  J. Phillips,et al.  Beyond supply: the importance of female family planning workers in rural Bangladesh. , 1988, Studies in family planning.

[16]  R. McKelvey,et al.  Quantal Response Equilibria for Extensive Form Games , 1998 .

[17]  Matthias Doepke.  GARY BECKER ON THE QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF CHILDREN , 2015, Journal of Demographic Economics.

[18]  M. J. O’Brien,et al.  Mapping collective behavior in the big-data era , 2014, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[19]  D. Helbing,et al.  How social influence can undermine the wisdom of crowd effect , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[20]  J. Henrich,et al.  The cultural niche: Why social learning is essential for human adaptation , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[21]  Andrew T. Hartnett,et al.  This PDF file includes: Materials and Methods SOM Text Figs. S1 to S12 Table S1 Full Reference List , 2022 .

[22]  Nicholas A. Christakis,et al.  Social contagion theory: examining dynamic social networks and human behavior , 2011, Statistics in medicine.

[23]  B. Low.  Women's lives there, here, then, now: a review of women's ecological and demographic constraints cross-culturally , 2005 .

[24]  Syngjoo Choi,et al.  Social learning in networks: a Quantal Response Equilibrium analysis of experimental data , 2012 .

[25]  R. Sear.  Evolutionary contributions to the study of human fertility , 2015, Population studies.

[26]  C. Manski.  Identification of Endogenous Social Effects: The Reflection Problem , 1993 .

[27]  Jens Krause,et al.  The evolutionary and ecological consequences of animal social networks: emerging issues. , 2014, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[28]  W. Brock,et al.  Interactions-Based Models , 2000 .

[29]  Joseph Henrich,et al.  On the nature of cultural transmission networks: evidence from Fijian villages for adaptive learning biases , 2011, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[30]  A. Whiten,et al.  The multiple roles of cultural transmission experiments in understanding human cultural evolution , 2008, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[31]  L. Rendell,et al.  How copying affects the amount, evenness and persistence of cultural knowledge: insights from the social learning strategies tournament , 2011, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[32]  Steven N. Durlauf,et al.  Linear Social Interactions Models , 2013, Journal of Political Economy.

[33]  Cosma Rohilla Shalizi,et al.  Homophily and Contagion Are Generically Confounded in Observational Social Network Studies , 2010, Sociological methods & research.

[34]  M. Chris.  Short- and long-run incidence of protection: the case of Madagascar , 1992 .

[35]  Cameron Marlow,et al.  A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization , 2012, Nature.

[36]  David G. Rand,et al.  Cooperating with the future , 2014, Nature.

[37]  D. Lawson,et al.  Applying Evolutionary Anthropology , 2015, Evolutionary anthropology.

[38]  Lucy Yardley,et al.  Development of an intervention to reduce transmission of respiratory infections and pandemic flu: Measuring and predicting hand-washing intentions , 2012, Psychology, health & medicine.

[39]  Arun G. Chandrasekhar,et al.  The Diffusion of Microfinance , 2012, Science.

[40]  James H Fowler,et al.  Friendship and natural selection , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[41]  Jennifer A. Johnson-Hanks.  Demographic Transitions and Modernity , 2008 .

[42]  A. Thomas.  The social contagion hypothesis: comment on ‘Social contagion theory: examining dynamic social networks and human behavior’ , 2012, Statistics in medicine.

[43]  J. Chesnais,et al.  The Demographic Transition: Stages, Patterns and Economic Implications. A Longitudinal Study of Sixty-Seven Countries Covering the Period 1720-1984 , 1994 .

[44]  S. Asch.  Opinions and Social Pressure , 1955, Nature.

[45]  Daniel J. Hruschka,et al.  Friendship: Development, Ecology, and Evolution of a Relationship , 2010 .

[46]  Matthew J. Salganik,et al.  Experimental Study of Inequality and Unpredictability in an Artificial Cultural Market , 2006, Science.

[47]  I. Couzin,et al.  Shared decision-making drives collective movement in wild baboons , 2015, Science.

[48]  K. Laland,et al.  Social Learning: An Introduction to Mechanisms, Methods, and Models , 2013 .

[49]  Steven N. Durlauf,et al.  Identification of binary choice models with social interactions , 2007 .

[50]  R. Mace.  Reproducing in Cities , 2008, Science.

[51]  J. Chakraborty,et al.  Determinants of reproductive change in a traditional society: evidence from Matlab, Bangladesh. , 1988, Studies in family planning.

[52]  D. Nettle,et al.  Human behavioral ecology: current research and future prospects , 2013 .

[53]  D. Helbing,et al.  Leadership, consensus decision making and collective behaviour in humans , 2009, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[54]  M. J. O’Brien,et al.  Estimating a Path through a Map of Decision Making , 2014, PloS one.

[55]  D. McFadden.  Econometric analysis of qualitative response models , 1984 .