Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37587933›Full record

ArticleEvolutionary human sciences2023

Socioeconomic benefits and limited parent-offspring disagreement in arranged marriages in Nepal.

Elizabeth Agey, Savannah Crippen, Alyx Wells, Parash Upreti

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Evolutionary human sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Gendered conflict in the human family.Evolutionary human sciences · 2023
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Elizabeth AgeyUniversity of California, Santa Barbara, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1827-0979
Savannah CrippenUniversity of California, Santa Barbara, USA.
Alyx WellsUniversity of California, Santa Barbara, USA.
Parash UpretiIndependent Researcher, USA.
University of California, Santa Barbara · USFilm Independent · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mate preferences probably evolved to increase fitness; however, studies using arranged and non-arranged marriage as proxies for limited and free mate choice (respectively) do not find any reproductive differences. We explore why arranged and non-arranged marriages are an imperfect proxy for limited and free-choice matings and what fitness effects different marriage types could produce. Data from focus group discussions with men and women in Nepal show that there are three spouse choice categories with differing levels of parental influence over mate choice, reinforcing that arranged and non-arranged are not dichotomous. Discussions also show that parents and offspring, especially sons, may be more aligned in in-law/mate preferences than expected, demonstrating the need to establish clear domains of parent-offspring disagreement over spouse choice in the community before investigating fitness. Several social and financial benefits that are only available to arranged couples in this community were detected, and these benefits could compensate for any costs of not choosing a spouse independently. These benefits of arranged marriage are more salient for women than for men. These discussions indicate that predictions about the effects of spouse choice on fitness outcomes may differ for men and women and depend on community-specific socioeconomic benefits.

Indexed as

Arranged marriagemate choiceNepalparent–offspring conflictsocial support

Identifiers

PMID37587933
PMCPMC10426041
OpenAlexW4321505081

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.