Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Marital violence and fertility in a relatively egalitarian high-fertility population


Ultimate and proximate explanations of men’s physical intimate partner violence (IPV) against women have been proposed. An ultimate explanation posits that IPV is used to achieve a selfish fitness-relevant outcome, and predicts that IPV is associated with greater marital fertility. Proximate IPV explanations contain either complementary strategic components (for example, men’s desire for partner control), non-strategic components (for example, men’s self-regulatory failure), or both strategic and non-strategic components involving social learning. Consistent with an expectation from an ultimate IPV explanation, we find that IPV predicts greater marital fertility among Tsimané forager-horticulturalists of Bolivia (n = 133 marriages, 105 women). This result is robust to using between- versus within-subject comparisons, and considering secular changes, reverse causality, recall bias and other factors (for example, women’s preference for high-status men who may be more aggressive than lower-status men). Consistent with a complementary expectation from a strategic proximate IPV explanation, greater IPV rate is associated with men’s attitudes favouring intersexual control. Neither men’s propensity for intrasexual physical aggression, nor men’s or women’s childhood exposure to family violence predict IPV rate. Our results suggest a psychological and behavioural mechanism through which men exert direct influence over marital fertility, which may manifest when spouses differ in preferred family sizes.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type



Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Cumulative relative frequency of IPV and number of joint dependents by year of marriage.
Fig. 2: Predicted probability of birth within a year versus a wife’s age and whether she reports IPV that year.
Fig. 3: Annual fertility within marriage for the 26 wives who remarried by whether a wife experienced IPV with each husband (H).
Fig. 4: Effects of a husband's attitudes regarding intersexual control, intrasexual physical aggression, and childhood exposure to family violence (husband's and wife's) on the probability of IPV.

Similar content being viewed by others


  1. Breiding, M., Basile, K., Smith, S., Black, M. & Mahendra, R. Intimate Partner Violence Surveillance: Uniform Definitions and Recommended Data Elements Version 2.0 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2015).

  2. Levinson, D. Family Violence in Cross-Cultural Perspective (Sage, Newbury Park, 1989).

  3. Counts, D., Brown, J. & Campbell, J. To Have and to Hit: Cultural Perspectives on Wife Beating 2nd edn (Univ. Illinois Press, Urbana, IL, 1999).

  4. Shakya, H. B. et al. Longitudinal associations of intimate partner violence attitudes and perpetration: dyadic couples data from a randomized controlled trial in rural India. Social. Sci. Med. 179, 97–105 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Campbell, J. Health consequences of intimate partner violence. Lancet 359, 1331–1336 (2002).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Heise, L., Raikes, A., Watts, C. & Zwi, A. Violence against women: a neglected public health issue in less developed countries. Soc. Sci. Med. 39, 1165–1179 (1994).

  7. Murphy, C., Schei, B., Myhr, T. & Du, M. Abuse: a risk factor for low birth weight? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Can. Med. Assoc. J. 164, 1567–1572 (2001).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Buss, D. From vigilance to violence: tactics of mate retention in American undergraduates. Ethol. Sociobiol. 9, 291–317 (1988).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Wilson, M., Johnson, H. & Daly, M. Lethal and nonlethal violence against wives. Can. J. Criminol. 37, 331–362 (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bloch, F. & Rao, V. Terror as a bargaining instrument: a case study of dowry violence in rural India. Am. Econ. Rev. 92, 1029–1043 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Macmillan, R. & Gartner, R. When she brings home the bacon: labor-force participation and the risk of spousal violence against women. J. Marriage Fam. 61, 947–958 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Dobash, R. & Dobash, R. Violence Against Wives: A Case Against the Patriarchy (Free Press, New York, NY, 1979).

  13. Yllö, K. The status of women, marital equality, and violence against wives: a contextual analysis. J. Fam. Issues 5, 307–320 (1984).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ehrensaft, M. K., Moffitt, T. E. & Caspi, A. Clinically abusive relationships in an unselected birth cohort: men’s and women’s participation and developmental antecedents. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 113, 258–270 (2004).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Archer, J. Cross-cultural differences in physical aggression between partners: a social-role analysis. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 10, 133–153 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Stith, S. M. et al. The intergenerational transmission of spouse abuse: a meta-analysis. J. Marriage Fam. 62, 640–654 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Daly, M., Wilson, M. & Weghorst, S. J. Male sexual jealousy. Ethol. Sociobiol. 3, 11–27 (1982).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Daly, M. & Wilson, M. Homicide (Aldine de Gruyter, New York, NY, 1988).

  19. Burch, R. & Gallup, G. Jr Perceptions of paternal resemblance predict family violence. Evol. Hum. Behav. 21, 429–435 (2000).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Figueredo, A. & McCloskey, L. Sex, money, and paternity: the evolutionary psychology of domestic violence. Ethol. Sociobiol. 14, 353–379 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Shackelford, T., Goetz, A., Buss, D., Euler, H. & Hoier, S. When we hurt the ones we love: predicting violence against women from men’s mate retention. Personal. Relatsh. 12, 447–463 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Stieglitz, J., Kaplan, H., Gurven, M., Winking, J. & Vie Tayo, B. Spousal violence and paternal disinvestment among Tsimane’ forager-horticulturalists. Am. J. Hum. Biol. 23, 445–457 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Flinn, M. Mate guarding in a Caribbean village. Ethol. Sociobiol. 9, 1–28 (1988).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Wilson, M. & Daly, M. An evolutionary psychological perspective on male sexual proprietariness and violence against wives. Violence Vict. 8, 271–294 (1993).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Borgerhoff Mulder, M. & Rauch, K. Sexual conflict in humans: variations and solutions. Evolut. Anthropol. 18, 201–214 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Holland Jones, J. & Ferguson, B. Demographic and social predictors of intimate partner violence in Colombia: a dyadic perspective. Hum. Nat. 20, 184–203 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Smuts, B. & Smuts, R. Male aggression and sexual coercion of females in nonhuman primates and other mammals: evidence and theoretical implications. Adv. Study Behav. 22, 1–63 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Baniel, A., Cowlishaw, G. & Huchard, E. Male violence and sexual intimidation in a wild primate society. Curr. Biol. 27, 2163–2168 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Clutton-Brock, T. & Parker, G. Sexual coercion in animal societies. Anim. Behav. 49, 1345–1365 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Muller, M., Kahlenberg, S. & Wrangham, R. in Sexual Coercion in Primates and Humans: An Evolutionary Perspective on Male Aggression Against Females (eds Muller, M. & Wrangham, R.) 244–294 (Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, MA, 2009).

  31. Knott, C. & Kahlenberg, S. in Primates in Perspective (eds Bearder, S. et al.) 290–305 (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 2007).

  32. Feldblum, J. T. et al. Sexually coercive male chimpanzees sire more offspring. Curr. Biol. 24, 2855–2860 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Mcallister, L., Gurven, M., Kaplan, H. & Stieglitz, J. Why do women have more children than they want? Understanding differences in women’s ideal and actual family size in a natural fertility population. Am. J. Hum. Biol. 24, 786–799 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Finkel, E. J., DeWall, C. N., Slotter, E. B., Oaten, M. & Foshee, V. A. Self-regulatory failure and intimate partner violence perpetration. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 97, 483–499 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Bushman, B. J., DeWall, C. N., Pond, R. S. & Hanus, M. D. Low glucose relates to greater aggression in married couples. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 6254–6257 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Von Rueden, C., Gurven, M. & Kaplan, H. Why do men seek status? Fitness payoffs to dominance and prestige. Proc. R. Soc. B 278, 2223–2232 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Jewkes, R. Intimate partner violence: causes and prevention. Lancet 359, 1423–1429 (2002).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Melzer, S. A. Gender, work, and intimate violence: men’s occupational violence spillover and compensatory violence. J. Marriage Fam. 64, 820–832 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Parker, G. A. Sexual conflict over mating and fertilization: an overview. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 361, 235–259 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Stieglitz, J., Gurven, M., Kaplan, H. & Winking, J. Infidelity, jealousy, and wife abuse among Tsimane forager-farmers: testing evolutionary hypotheses of marital conflict. Evol. Hum. Behav. 33, 438–448 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Lalumière, M. L. & Quinsey, V. L. Sexual deviance, antisociality, mating effort, and the use of sexually coercive behaviors. Pers. Individ. Dif. 21, 33–48 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Rice, W. R. & Holland, B. The enemies within: intergenomic conflict, interlocus contest evolution (ICE), and the intraspecific Red Queen. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 41, 1–10 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Parker, G. in Sexual Selection and Reproductive Competition in Insects (eds Blum, M. & Blum, N.) 123–166 (Academic Press, London, 1979).

  44. Emery Thompson, M. & Alvarado, L. in The Oxford Handbook of Sexual Conflict in Humans (eds Shackelford, T. & Goetz, A.) 100–121 (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 2012).

  45. Gurven, M., Winking, J., Kaplan, H., Von Rueden, C. & McAllister, L. A bioeconomic approach to marriage and the sexual division of labor. Hum. Nat. 20, 151–183 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Blackwell, A. D. et al. Helminth infection, fecundity, and age of first pregnancy in women. Science 350, 970–972 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Gurven, M., Kaplan, H. & Zelada Supa, A. Mortality experience of Tsimane Amerindians of Bolivia: regional variation and temporal trends. Am. J. Hum. Biol. 19, 376–398 (2007).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S. U. E. & Sugarman, D. B. The Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2). J. Fam. Issues 17, 283–316 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Garcia-Moreno, C., Jansen, H., Ellsberg, M., Heise, L. & Watts, C. Prevalence of intimate partner violence: findings from the WHO multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence. Lancet 368, 1260–1269 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Pan, W. Akaike’s information criterion in generalized estimating equations. Biometrics 57, 120–125 (2001).

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references


We thank the study participants for sharing personal stories, and THLHP personnel for assistance with logistics, data collection and coding. We also thank P. Seabright and participants in the ‘Harmful Practices’ workshop at UCSB in March 2018 for useful discussions that improved the quality of this manuscript. Funding was provided by the National Science Foundation (BCS-0721237 and BCS-0422690), National Institutes of Health and National Institute on Aging (R01AG024119), and Latin American and Iberian Institute at the University of New Mexico. J.S. also acknowledges financial support from the Agence Nationale de la Recherche—Labex IAST. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



The conception, design and implementation of the study were developed by J.S. and H.K. J.S. collected the data. M.G. assisted in the collection of the demography data. J.S. analysed the data. All authors contributed to the interpretation of data analysis and drafting of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jonathan Stieglitz.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Figures 1–3, Supplementary Tables 1–13

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stieglitz, J., Trumble, B.C., Kaplan, H. et al. Marital violence and fertility in a relatively egalitarian high-fertility population. Nat Hum Behav 2, 565–572 (2018).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing