Skip to main content
  • Other Publications
    • Philosophical Transactions B
    • Proceedings B
    • Biology Letters
    • Open Biology
    • Philosophical Transactions A
    • Proceedings A
    • Royal Society Open Science
    • Interface
    • Interface Focus
    • Notes and Records
    • Biographical Memoirs

Advanced

  • Home
  • Content
    • Latest issue
    • Forthcoming
    • All content
    • Subject collections
    • Videos
  • Information for
    • Authors
    • Guest editors
    • Reviewers
    • Readers
    • Institutions
  • About us
    • About the journal
    • Editorial board
    • Policies
    • Citation metrics
    • Open access
  • Sign up
    • Subscribe
    • eTOC alerts
    • Keyword alerts
    • RSS feeds
    • Newsletters
    • Request a free trial
  • Propose an issue
You have accessRestricted access

Evaluating reproductive decisions as discrete choices under social influence

R. Alexander Bentley, William A. Brock, Camila C. S. Caiado, Michael J. O'Brien
Published 28 March 2016.DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2015.0154
R. Alexander Bentley
Department of Comparative Cultural Studies, University of Houston, Houston, TX 77204, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: rabentle@central.uh.edu
William A. Brock
Department of Economics, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211, USADepartment of Economics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Camila C. S. Caiado
Department of Mathematical Sciences, Durham University, Durham DH1 3LE, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Camila C. S. Caiado
Michael J. O'Brien
Department of Anthropology, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading
  • Data Supplement

    • Supplementary material - Appendix containing technical aspects and one figure

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Figure 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1.

    A diagram depicting domains of human decision-making, based on a continuum from individual learning to social learning on the horizontal axis (J) and the transparency of pay-offs informing a decision (intensity of choice) on the vertical axis (b). After [25]. (Online version in colour.)

  • Figure 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2.

    A comparison between a plot for understanding the group movement among social animals and the outcome of the decision heuristic in figure 1. (a) Field data among wild baboons [27] showing directional agreement among initiators of movement on the vertical axis and the number of initiators on the horizontal axis. (b) A contour plot in the framework of figure 1, showing the maximum fitness for three choices when that fitness is defined as a function of both the inherent utility of the choice and its social popularity [28]. Plot (b) shows the maximum fitness at each coordinate because multiple equilibria may be possible at each point. (Online version in colour.)

  • Figure 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3.

    Distributions of choice popularity for 2003–2004 (a) and 2007–2008 (b). Data shown for females in red and males in blue. The number of options listed in the data tables [34] was 10 in 2003–2004 and increased to 14 in 2007–2008. For each distribution, the line shows the maximum-likelihood estimate for a lognormal function described by lognormal mean, g0, and standard deviation, σ, as follows: for 2003–2004, (g0, σ) = (5.82, 2.29) for women and (4.01, 1.85) for men; for 2007–2008, (g0, σ) = (9.03, 1.33) for women and (8.10, 1.74) for men. (Online version in colour.)

  • Figure 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 4.

    Representative timelines for the popularity of different STI screening options in the UK for each quarter of the years 2012 and 2013 [35]. The publicly available data are specifically the numbers of chlamydia tests for 15–24 year olds, grouped by testing-service type and by region (designated by ‘Upper Local Authority’ in terms of the divisions of the UK National Health Service). GUM, genito-urinary medicine; GP, general practitioner (local doctor); CSHS, contraception and sexual health services; TOP, termination of pregnancy. (a) Avon, Gloucester and Wiltshire, (b) Cumbria and Lancashire, (c) London and (d) North East. (Online version in colour.)

  • Figure 5.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 5.

    Diagram comparing nonlinear least-squares estimates (blue squares) against simulations (red dots) of the model defined by the electronic supplementary material, appendix equations A4 and A5. After [24]. The simulations (red dots) used two choices, and the axes are measured in units of the parameter values (from equation A5) for choice intensity, θ, on the vertical axis and social influence intensity, φ2, on the horizontal axis. (Online version in colour.)

PreviousNext
Back to top
PreviousNext
19 April 2016
Volume 371, issue 1692
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences: 371 (1692)
  • Table of Contents
Theme issue ‘Understanding variation in human fertility: what can we learn from evolutionary demography?’ compiled and edited by David W. Lawson, Rebecca Sear, Mary K. Shenk, Stephen C. Stearns and Hillard Kaplan

Keywords

Bangladesh
contraception
discrete choice
fertility
sexual health
social influence
Share
Evaluating reproductive decisions as discrete choices under social influence
R. Alexander Bentley, William A. Brock, Camila C. S. Caiado, Michael J. O'Brien
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 2016 371 20150154; DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2015.0154. Published 28 March 2016
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Evaluating reproductive decisions as discrete choices under social influence
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences web site.
Print
Manage alerts

Please log in to add an alert for this article.

Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Citation tools
Research article:

Evaluating reproductive decisions as discrete choices under social influence

R. Alexander Bentley, William A. Brock, Camila C. S. Caiado, Michael J. O'Brien
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 2016 371 20150154; DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2015.0154. Published 28 March 2016

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Download

Article reuse

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • 1. Introduction
    • 2. A model of decision-making
    • 3. Parametrizing the map
    • 4. Methods of estimating coordinates on b and J
    • 5. Conclusion
    • Authors' contributions
    • Competing interests
    • Funding
    • Acknowledgements
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

See related subject areas:

  • health and disease and epidemiology
  • behaviour

Related articles

Cited by

Print issues available for purchase

Open biology

  • PHILOSOPHICAL TRANSACTIONS B
    • About this journal
    • Contact information
    • Purchasing information
    • Propose an issue
    • Open access membership
    • Recommend to your library
    • FAQ
    • Help

Royal society publishing

  • ROYAL SOCIETY PUBLISHING
    • Our journals
    • Open access
    • Publishing policies
    • Conferences
    • Podcasts
    • News
    • Blog
    • Manage your account
    • Terms & conditions
    • Cookies

The royal society

  • THE ROYAL SOCIETY
    • About us
    • Contact us
    • Fellows
    • Events
    • Grants, schemes & awards
    • Topics & policy
    • Collections
    • Venue hire
1471-2970

Copyright © 2018 The Royal Society