Hubbry Logo
Assortative matingAssortative matingMain
Open search
Assortative mating
Community hub
Assortative mating
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Assortative mating
Assortative mating
Assortative mating
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Assortative mating (also referred to as positive assortative mating or homogamy) is a mating pattern and a form of sexual selection in which individuals with similar phenotypes or genotypes mate with one another more frequently than would be expected under a random mating pattern.[1]

A majority of the phenotypes that are subject to assortative mating are body size, visual signals (e.g. color, pattern), and sexually selected traits such as crest size.[2] [clarification needed]

The opposite of assortative is disassortative mating, also referred to "negative assortative mating", in which case its opposite is termed "positive assortative mating".

Causes

[edit]
Leaf beetle

Several hypotheses have been proposed to explain the phenomenon of assortative mating.[3] Assortative mating has evolved from a combination of different factors, which vary across different species.[4]

Assortative mating with respect to body size can arise as a consequence of intrasexual competition. In some species, size is correlated with fecundity in females. Therefore, males choose to mate with larger females, with the larger males defeating the smaller males in courting them. Examples of species that display this type of assortative mating include the jumping spider Phidippus clarus and the leaf beetle Diaprepes abbreviatus.[5][6] In other cases, larger females are better equipped to resist male courtship attempts, and only the largest males are able to mate with them.[citation needed]

Assortative mating can, at times, arise as a consequence of social competition. Traits in certain individuals may indicate competitive ability which allows them to occupy the best territories. Individuals with similar traits that occupy similar territories are more likely to mate with one another. In this scenario, assortative mating does not necessarily arise from choice, but rather by proximity. This was noted in western bluebirds although there is no definite evidence that this is the major factor resulting in color dependent assortative mating in this species.[7] Different factors may apply simultaneously to result in assortative mating in any given species.[citation needed]

In non-human animals

[edit]
Japanese common toad

Assortative mating in animals has been observed with respect to body size and color. Size-related assortative mating is prevalent across many species of vertebrates and invertebrates. It has been found in the simultaneous hermaphrodites such as the land snail Bradybaena pellucida. One reason for its occurrence can be reciprocal intromission (i.e. both individuals provide both male and female gametes during a single mating) that happens in this species. Therefore, individuals with similar body size pair up with one another to facilitate this exchange. Moreover, it is known that larger individuals in such hermaphroditic species produce more eggs, so mutual mate choice is another factor leading to assortative mating in this species.[8]

Evidence for size-related assortative mating has also been found in the mangrove snail (Littoraria ardouiniana), and in the Japanese common toad, Bufo japonicus.[9][10]

The second common type of assortative mating occurs with respect to coloration. This type of assortative mating is more common in socially monogamous bird species such as the eastern bluebirds (Sialia sialis) and western bluebirds (Sialia mexicana). In both species more brightly colored males mated with more brightly colored females and less brightly colored individuals paired with one another. Eastern bluebirds also mate assortatively for territorial aggression due to fierce competition for a limited number of nesting sites with tree swallows. Two highly aggressive individuals are better equipped to protect their nest, encouraging assortative mating between such individuals.[11]

Assortative mating with respect to two common color morphs: striped and unstriped also exists in a polymorphic population of eastern red-backed salamanders (Plethodon cinereus).[12]

Assortative mating is also found in many socially monogamous species of birds. Monogamous species are often involved in bi-parental care of their offspring. Since males are equally invested in the offspring as the mother, both genders are expected to display mate choice, a phenomenon termed as mutual mate choice. Mutual mate choice occurs when both males and females are searching for a mate that will maximize their fitness. In birds, female and male ornamentation can indicate better overall condition or such individuals might have better genes, or be better suited as parents.[7]

In humans

[edit]
See also: Human mating strategies

Assortative mating in humans has been widely observed and studied, and can be broken down into two types of human assortative mating. These are:

  • genetic assortative mating (assortative mating with mate choice based on genetic type and phenotypical expression); and
  • social assortative mating (assortative mating with mate choice based on social, cultural, and other societal factors)

Genetic assortative mating is well studied and documented. In 1903 Pearson and colleagues reported strong correlations in height, span of arms, and the length of the left forearm between husband and wife in 1000 couples.[13] Assortative mating with regards to appearance does not end there. Males prefer female faces that resemble their own when provided images of three women, with one image modified to resemble their own. However, the same result does not apply to females selecting male faces.[14] Genetically related individuals (3rd or 4th cousin level) exhibit higher fitness than unrelated individuals.[15]

Assortative mating based on genomic similarities plays a role in human marriages in the United States. Spouses are more genetically similar to each other than two randomly chosen individuals.[16] The probability of marriage increases by roughly 15% for every one standard deviation increase in genetic similarity. However, some researchers argue that this assortative mating is caused purely by population stratification (the fact that people are more likely to marry within ethnic subgroups such as Swedish-Americans).[17]

At the same time, individuals display disassortative mating for genes in the major histocompatibility complex region on chromosome 6. Individuals feel more attracted to odors of individuals who are genetically different in this region. This promotes MHC heterozygosity in the children, making them less vulnerable to pathogens. Apart from humans, disassortative mating with regards to the MHC coding region has been widely studied in mice, and has also been reported to occur in fish.[18]

In addition to genetic assortative mating, humans also demonstrate patterns of assortative mating based on sociological factors as well. Sociological assortative mating is typically broken down into three categories, mate choice based on socio-economic status, mate choice based on racial or ethnic background, and mate choice based on religious beliefs.[19]

Assortative mating based on socio-economic status is the broadest of these general categories. It includes the tendency of humans to prefer to mate within their socio-economic peers, that is, those with similar social standing, job prestige, educational attainment, or economic background as they themselves. This tendency has always been present in society: there was no historical area when most of the individuals preferred to sort, and had actually sorted, negatively into couples or matched randomly along these traits.[19][20] Still, this tendency was weaker in some generations than in others. For instance, in the 20th century in the Western world, late Boomers had weaker aggregate preferences for educational homogamy than early Boomers had when being young adults; also, the members of the early Generation-X were typically much less "picky" about spousal education than the members of the late Generation-X were. It is worth noting that one can identify the U-shaped trend in Americans' educational homophily only by using a suitable method for the purpose.[21] [22] The U-shaped trend is considered to be plausible since it is evidenced by the search criteria of online dating site users,[23] survey evidence of self-declared preferences, and the U-shaped pattern of income inequality in the US.[24]

Another form of sociological assortative mating is assortative mating based on racial and ethnic background.[25] Mentioned above in the context of the genetically similar preferring to mate with one another, this form of assortative mating can take many varied and complicated forms. While the tendency mentioned above does exist, and people do tend to marry those genetically similar to themselves, especially if within the same racial or ethnic group, this trend can change in various ways. It is common, for example, for the barriers to intermarriage with the general population experienced by a minority population to decrease as the numbers of the minority population increase. This assimilation reduces the prevalence of this form of assortative mating. However, growth of a minority population does not necessarily lead to decreased barriers to intermarriage. This can be seen in the sharp increase in the non-white Hispanic population of the United States in the 1990s and 2000s that correlated with a sharp decrease in the percentage of non-white Hispanics intermarrying with the general population.[19]

Religious assortative mating is the tendency of individuals to marry within their own religious group. This tendency is prevalent and observable, and changes according to three main factors. The first of these is the proportion of available spouses in the area who already follow the same religion as the person searching for a mate. Areas where religious beliefs are already similar for most people will always have high degrees of religious inbreeding. The second is the social distance between the intermarrying religious groups, or the physical proximity and social interactivity of these groups. Finally, the third factor is the personal views one holds towards marrying outside of a religion. Those who greatly value adherence to religious tradition may be more likely to be averse to marrying across religious lines.[26] Although not necessarily religious, a good example of humans mating assortatively based on belief structure can be found in the tendency of humans to marry based on levels of charitable giving. Couples show similarities in terms of their contributions to public betterment and charities, and this can be attributed to mate choice based on generosity rather than phenotypic convergence.[27]

Assortative mating also occurs among people with mental disorders such as ADHD, in which one person with ADHD is more likely to marry or have a child with another individual with ADHD.[28]

Effects

[edit]

Assortative mating has reproductive consequences. Positive assortative mating increases genetic relatedness within a family, whereas negative assortative mating accomplishes the opposite effect. Either strategy may be employed by the individuals of a species depending upon which strategy maximizes fitness and enables the individuals to maximally pass on their genes to the next generation. For instance, in the case of eastern bluebirds, assortative mating for territorial aggression increases the probability of the parents obtaining and securing a nest site for their offspring. This in turn increases the likelihood of survival of the offspring and consequently fitness of the individuals.[7] In birds whose coloration represents well being and fecundity of the bird, positive assortative mating for color increases the chances of genes being passed on and of the offspring being in good condition. Also, positive assortative mating for behavioral traits allows for more efficient communication between the individuals and they can cooperate better to raise their offspring.[citation needed]

On the other hand, mating between individuals of genotypes which are too similar allows for the accumulation of harmful recessive alleles, which can decrease fitness. Such mating between genetically similar individuals is termed inbreeding which can result in the emergence of autosomal recessive disorders. Moreover, assortative mating for aggression in birds can lead to inadequate parental care. An alternate strategy can be disassortative mating, in which one individual is aggressive and guards the nest site while the other individual is more nurturing and fosters the young; however, this risks the breakdown of coadapted gene complexes, leading to outbreeding depression. This division of labor increases the chances of survival of the offspring. A classic example of this is in the case of the white-throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis). This bird exhibits two color morphs – white striped and tan striped. In both sexes, the white striped birds are more aggressive and territorial whereas tan striped birds are more engaged in providing parental care to their offspring.[29] Therefore, disassortative mating in these birds allows for an efficient division of labor in terms of raising and protecting their offspring.[citation needed]

Positive assortative mating is a key element leading to reproductive isolation within a species, which in turn may result speciation in sympatry over time. Sympatric speciation is defined as the evolution of a new species without geographical isolation. Speciation from assortative mating has occurred in the Middle East blind mole rat, cicadas, and the European corn borer.[citation needed]

Like other animals, humans also display these genetic results of assortative mating. What makes humans unique, however, is the tendency towards seeking mates that are not only similar to them in genetics and in appearances, but those who are similar to them economically, socially, educationally, and culturally. These tendencies toward using sociological characteristics to select a mate has many effects on the lives and livelihoods of those who choose to marry one another, as well as their children and future generations. Within a generation, assortative mating is sometimes cited as a source of inequality, as those who mate assortatively would marry people of similar station to themselves, thus amplifying their current station.[19] There is debate, however, about whether this growing preference for educational and occupational similarities in spouses is due to increased preferences for these traits or the shift in workload that occurred as women entered the workforce.[30] This concentration of wealth in families also perpetuates across generations as parents pass their wealth on to their children, with each successive generation inheriting the resources of both of its parents. The combined resources of the parents allow them to give their child a better life growing up, and the combined inheritances from both parents place them at an even greater advantage than they would be with their superior education and childhoods. This has an enormous impact on the development of the social economic structure of a society.[19][20]

Economics

[edit]

A related concept of 'assortative matching' has been developed within economics. This relates to efficiencies in production available if workers are evenly matched in their skills or productivity. A consideration of this assortative matching forms the basis of Kremer's 1993 O-ring theory of economic development.[31]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Assortative mating

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Assortative mating is a non-random pattern of mate selection in which individuals preferentially pair with others exhibiting similar phenotypic or genotypic traits, resulting in systematic correlations between partners' characteristics rather than random assortment. This phenomenon, often positive in direction, manifests across species as a form of that amplifies similarity in traits like size, coloration, or behavior, and is empirically documented in diverse taxa from to vertebrates. In evolutionary terms, it can enhance genetic variance for selected traits by concentrating alleles within lineages, potentially accelerating or under certain conditions. In humans, assortative mating is nearly universal and positive for quantitative phenotypes, with genetic evidence from large-scale genomic studies confirming elevated similarity between spouses beyond what random mating would predict. Empirical patterns show strongest correlations for and cognitive ability, followed by physical traits like and , and weaker but detectable links for personality dimensions. For instance, partners' genetic variants associated with exhibit non-random assortment, as inferred from relatedness analyses in cohorts, indicating active selection mechanisms over generations. These preferences arise from proximate factors such as , shared social networks, and perceptual biases favoring familiarity, rather than solely cultural convergence. Notable implications include amplified intergenerational transmission of traits, where assortative mating on heritable attributes like or contributes to rising household income inequality by concentrating resources within similar socioeconomic strata. In genetic contexts, it inflates variance in polygenic scores for , potentially biasing estimates and fostering if unchecked by mobility. While adaptive for individual fitness through compatibility, sustained positive assortment risks entrenching disparities, as evidenced by longitudinal data linking spousal similarity to persistent gaps across cohorts.

Definition and Fundamentals

Core Definition and Types

Assortative mating denotes the systematic tendency of individuals to form mating pairs with partners whose phenotypic traits correlate positively or negatively with their own, exceeding random expectations. This pattern contrasts with random mating and can influence genetic variance and population structure. In biological terms, it arises from mate selection mechanisms that favor phenotypic matches or mismatches, often measured via spouse correlations for traits such as height, education, or socioeconomic status. The primary types are positive assortative mating, characterized by pairings between phenotypically similar individuals, which amplifies trait variance within populations; and negative assortative mating (also termed ), involving pairings between dissimilar individuals, which promotes heterozygosity and can stabilize polymorphism. Positive assortative mating predominates for traits like and in humans, with spouse correlations typically ranging from 0.3 to 0.5, while negative forms are rarer and more evident in traits like MHC-related odor preferences to enhance immune diversity.

Measurement Techniques

Assortative mating is quantified primarily through phenotypic s between partners' trait values, where a positive exceeding chance expectations indicates non-random mating based on similarity. The standard metric for continuous traits, such as or , is the Pearson product-moment (r) computed between spouses' or partners' standardized scores, often derived from large-scale surveys, twin registries, or national data. For instance, meta-analyses report spousal r values of approximately 0.23 for and 0.40 for , reflecting modest to moderate similarity after controlling for distributions. These are estimated using ordinary regression or maximum likelihood methods, with significance tested against null models of random pairing simulated via of trait values within the . For categorical or ordinal traits, such as occupation or , contingency tables tabulate observed versus expected pairings under , with deviations assessed via chi-square tests or log-linear models to isolate assortative effects from marginal trait frequencies. Measures like the or quantify association strength, while odds ratios from indicate the likelihood of matching categories relative to random assortment; for , these often yield ratios exceeding 10 for same-level pairings in contemporary datasets. Dichotomous traits employ specialized indices, such as normalized trace or aggregate likelihood ratios from similarity matrices, to account for shifts in trait prevalence over time or generations. Advanced techniques address measurement error, temporal instability in labile traits (e.g., ), or by shared environments through multilevel modeling or variable approaches, incorporating repeated measures or genetic proxies to disentangle true assortment from observational biases. Information-theoretic methods, like gain between mates' trait distributions, provide unified quantification for both gradients and assortative components in quantitative traits, outperforming raw correlations in simulations with varying effect sizes. Software tools, such as QInfoMating, automate detection via among null, , and assortative models fitted to empirical pairing data. In genetic studies, indirect estimation uses excess resemblance or inflated trait variance in cohorts, adjusted via quantitative genetic models assuming heritable assortment. These methods collectively enable robust , though estimates vary by trait and data quality, with meta-analytic syntheses preferred to mitigate sampling artifacts.

Evolutionary and Biological Foundations

Observations in Non-Human Animals

A of 143 published studies across diverse animal taxa revealed that positive assortative mating—where mates exhibit phenotypic similarity greater than expected by chance—is widespread, with a mate of 0.16 for traits such as body size, , and reproductive timing, while negative assortative mating (dissimilarity) was rare and typically weaker. This pattern holds across , , amphibians, birds, and mammals, often driven by passive mechanisms like spatial or temporal clustering rather than active in many cases, though active contributes in others. For body size specifically, assortative mating appears in numerous but is not universal, with correlations averaging around 0.2 in verified cases, challenging claims of its pervasiveness without rigorous controls for factors like structure. In , positive assortative mating by size or is documented in fruit flies (), where laboratory and field studies show females preferring males of similar body size, leading to correlations of 0.3–0.5 in mated pairs, potentially amplifying genetic variance for the trait. Similar patterns occur in beetles and crickets, with meta-analytic evidence indicating stronger assortment for morphological traits in compared to vertebrates. In fish, three-spined sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus) exhibit genotype-by-genotype assortative mating during early stages of ecological divergence, with sympatric populations showing mate correlations exceeding 0.4 for habitat-specific alleles, facilitating . Birds display frequent assortative mating for age and size; for instance, in collared flycatchers (Ficedula albicollis), older males pair with older females, yielding age correlations of approximately 0.25, often attributable to survival biases rather than preference. In great tits (Parus major), pairs assort by laying date and tarsus length, with correlations around 0.2, linked to habitat similarity and influencing population dynamics under climate variation. Mammals show behavioral assortment, as in greylag geese (Anser anser), where personality traits like boldness correlate positively (r ≈ 0.3) between mates, particularly in homosocially formed pairs, enhancing reproductive success. Amphibians, such as Japanese toads (Bufo japonicus), demonstrate size-assortative pairing in natural populations, with larger males and females more likely to mate, though data remain limited compared to other taxa. Overall, these observations underscore that while positive assortative mating is empirically common, its strength varies by trait and taxon, with meta-analyses cautioning against overgeneralization due to toward significant results and the need to distinguish opportunity-based from preference-driven mechanisms. In speciation contexts, such as hybrid zones, assortative mating by ancestry or ecology reinforces barriers, as seen in where beak morphology correlates between mates (r > 0.4), reducing .

Genetic and Heritable Mechanisms

Assortative mating for heritable traits results in greater genetic similarity between mates than expected under random mating, as evidenced by elevated identity-by-descent sharing and correlations in polygenic scores for traits such as height, , , and psychiatric disorders (e.g., schizophrenia, depression) in spousal pairs from large genomic datasets. There is no substantial evidence that humans select partners based on genetic complementarity to reduce the risk of polygenic diseases or chronic conditions in offspring; instead, positive assortative mating for these traits increases genetic similarity and potential offspring risk rather than decreasing it through complementarity. Negative assortative mating (complementarity) is observed for MHC genes related to immune compatibility, but this does not extend to polygenic chronic conditions like diabetes or heart disease. This genetic imprint arises primarily through phenotypic assortment, where individuals select partners based on observable traits that have substantial (e.g., cognitive ability with narrow-sense heritability estimates of 0.5–0.8 from twin and studies), indirectly aligning underlying genotypes. Social homogamy, involving mate encounters in genetically stratified environments like educational institutions, further reinforces this by correlating heritable propensities with opportunity sets. Cross-trait assortative mating represents a key heritable mechanism, driven by pleiotropic genetic effects where variants influencing one trait covary with those for correlated traits, leading to indirect assortment; for instance, genome-wide association studies (GWAS) show genetic correlations (rg ≈ 0.6–0.9) between and traits like income or extraversion, such that phenotypic similarity in one domain induces genetic similarity across multiple. This mechanism amplifies effective by increasing the covariance of allelic effects transmitted to offspring, as parents' genotypes for pleiotropic loci become non-randomly paired. Empirical quantification from data (n > 100,000 couples) confirms that observed spousal phenotypic correlations align closely with expectations from genetic correlations rather than independent environmental assortment. Direct genetic influences on mate preferences constitute another mechanism, with heritable variation in choosiness or similarity-seeking behaviors potentially encoded by loci affecting neural reward pathways or ; animal models, such as , identify candidate genes (e.g., those modulating response) that underpin assortment for heritable cuticular hydrocarbons, suggesting analogous polygenic architectures in humans. In humans, GWAS of partner choice traits reveal small but significant (h^2 ≈ 0.1–0.2) for preferences aligning with , independent of phenotypic assortment. These effects compound over generations, as assortative mating elevates trait variance by a factor of 1 + r_AM * h^2 (where r_AM is the phenotypic correlation), sustaining heritable differentiation without requiring disassortative counterforces like .

Causes in Human Mating

Preference-Based Drivers

Humans exhibit preferences for mating partners who share similarities in , education, , , and values, contributing to assortative mating patterns observed in empirical data. The posits that individuals are drawn to others who resemble themselves in attitudes, traits, and backgrounds, facilitating initial attraction and partner selection. This manifests in studies, where perceived similarity—rather than actual similarity—often predicts romantic interest during early interactions, such as speed-dating events. A of similarity effects confirms moderate positive associations between spousal resemblance in and values and relationship satisfaction, underscoring the role of active in sustaining pairings. Educational attainment shows strong evidence of preference-driven assortative mating, with spousal correlations typically ranging from 0.4 to 0.6 in large-scale datasets from Western populations. , analyses of over adults reveal that couples match closely on years of schooling, exceeding what random pairing or structural availability alone would predict, as genetic correlations account for at most 10% of this pattern. Longitudinal studies further indicate that individuals actively seek partners with comparable educational trajectories, with profiles showing preferences for similar credentials influencing message exchanges and matches. In Japan, preferences exhibit hypergamous tendencies among women, with surveys indicating about 48-49% of couples having equal education (homogamy), 34% having husband higher education, and 13-18% (up to 24% in some data) having wife higher; marriages where the husband has equal or higher education than the wife thus comprise approximately 75-85% of pairings, while wife higher cases remain a minority but are increasing slowly due to rising female university enrollment, reflecting women's greater prioritization of partners' educational status (44-57%) compared to men's (21-31%). Intelligence and cognitive exhibit similar homogamous , often proxied through educational or occupational matching, with meta-analytic spousal correlations around 0.3 to 0.4 across diverse samples. for compatibility drives this, as evidenced by surveys where individuals rate similarity in as a key criterion for long-term partnerships, independent of socioeconomic constraints. Religious affiliation and political also reflect deliberate preferences for value alignment, with assortative correlations exceeding 0.5 for and around 0.2 to 0.3 for partisanship in national surveys. Couples tend to pair within denominations or ideological spectrums, as preferences for shared worldviews reduce conflict and enhance cohesion, per twin and family studies controlling for opportunity structures. Experimental evidence suggests olfactory cues may subconsciously signal ideological compatibility, reinforcing these choices. Physical traits like and attractiveness demonstrate preference-based matching, with taller individuals preferring proportionally taller partners and meta-analyses confirming spousal correlations of 0.2 to 0.3, aligned with stated ideals in mate questionnaires. For attractiveness, positive assortative mating occurs with spousal correlations ~0.39–0.55, as people select partners of comparable levels, shown in aggregated ratings from platforms where dissimilarity reduces selection probability, reflecting attraction to similar traits rather than opposites. This assortative pattern indicates that individuals of average physical attractiveness rarely form long-term partnerships with those of exceptionally high attractiveness, such as professional models. Moreover, hypotheses of compensatory exchange—wherein socioeconomic status or other resources are traded for superior physical attractiveness—exhibit limited empirical support beyond anecdotal examples, as analyses controlling for matching on desirability traits reveal little evidence of such cross-trait trading. This extends to facial similarity, where couples exhibit greater similarity than random pairs (e.g., initial ranks 2.75–2.89 vs. 3.5 expected by chance), though facial similarity does not increase over time in long-term couples. Personality traits, particularly Big Five dimensions, yield assortative correlations of 0.1 to 0.2, driven by preferences for complementary or similar dispositions in traits like extraversion and . These patterns persist across short- and long-term contexts, indicating preferences operate at multiple stages of mate selection.

Structural and Environmental Factors

Structural factors, such as the composition of markets and opportunity structures for interpersonal contact, contribute to assortative mating by constraining individuals to pools of potential partners with similar traits. For instance, educational institutions and workplaces often segregate people by attainment and , increasing the likelihood of encounters among those with comparable socioeconomic backgrounds independent of explicit preferences. A study of Japanese data demonstrated that patterns of entry into the market alone—without assuming assortative preferences—generate observed levels of educational homogamy, as newcomers disproportionately within demographically similar subgroups. Occupational and residential segregation further reinforces these patterns by limiting cross-class interactions. In urban environments, neighborhoods and networks tend to cluster individuals by and , reducing exposure to dissimilar mates and promoting unions within homogeneous groups. Analyses of European countries, including , show that changes in labor market structures and educational expansion have altered opportunity sets, leading to increased educational assortative mating as more individuals from similar cohorts enter comparable fields. Environmental constraints like and social network density also play roles, as limited migration or dense local ties confine mate searches to proximate, socioeconomically aligned populations. Empirical decompositions indicate that such structural elements explain a substantial portion of observed similarity in traits like and occupation, often outweighing individual choice in models isolating opportunity effects. These factors underscore how assortative mating emerges partly from systemic barriers to heterogeneous encounters rather than solely from intrinsic attractions.

Historical and Contemporary Patterns

In pre-modern and early modern societies, assortative mating primarily occurred along lines of , , and geographic proximity, with limited differentiation by achieved traits like due to low rates and rigid hierarchies. Genealogical data from U.S. birth cohorts spanning 1700 to 1910 reveal fluctuating patterns, including predominant male in spousal age differences (averaging about 5 years) and cyclic variations in migration-based homogamy tied to waves, such as drops during 1820–1860 and 1870–1920. Age homogamy increased toward the late , particularly among native-born individuals, reflecting emerging amid , though overall status homogamy remained constrained by ascriptive factors like family occupation rather than personal attainment. The marked a transition to greater educational and occupational assortative mating, driven by expanded schooling and industrialization, which elevated as a key status signal over inherited class. In the U.S., educational homogamy declined slightly from 1940 to 1960 before rising sharply through the 1980s, with the between spouses' education levels increasing from 0.24 in 1970 to 0.45 in 1990; log-linear models show the odds of same-education marriages peaking around 4:1 by the . Status homogamy shifted from ascriptive (e.g., fathers' class) to achieved traits, with educational boundaries strengthening—e.g., the scaled distance parameter rose from 0.873 (1952–1962) to 1.077 (1963–1973)—as gaps in schooling narrowed, reducing hypogamous unions where wives had less . Post-1990 trends indicate stabilization followed by nuanced declines, varying by level: homogamy odds for U.S. newlyweds fell from 3.7:1 in 1980 to 3.3:1 in 2020, with intermarriage rising across boundaries since the , particularly hypogamy among college-educated couples (likelihood dropping from 5x in the 1960s to 2x by 2013), offset by stronger matching among the low-educated (from 1.6x to 7.2x over the same period). These patterns hold across developed nations like , , , and the U.K., where educational expansion initially amplified similarity but later structural shifts, such as women's rising attainment, tempered it without reversing the overall 20th-century increase. In the , educational assortative mating increased substantially from the mid-20th century until approximately 1990, after which it stabilized and began a modest decline in the post-2000 period. Among different-sex couples, the odds of educational homogamy fell from 3.7:1 in 1980 to 3.3:1 in 2020, reflecting rising rates of hypogamy (wives with higher education than husbands) and cross-education intermarriage, particularly since the . The degree remains the most persistent barrier to intermarriage, with homogamy rates higher among Asian/, , and foreign-born populations compared to and native-born groups. Economic homogamy, measured by spousal earnings correlations, rose from 1970 to 2013, contributing to household income inequality, but this trend was driven primarily by shifts in the division of paid labor—such as increased labor force participation post-marriage—rather than stronger sorting on earnings potential. Assortative mating accounted for only about 12% of the 0.16 increase in spouses' earnings correlation over this period, with 80% attributable to wives' rising labor supply. Occupational assortative mating showed a modest uptick in the , from 54.3% homogamy in 1963 to 55.7% in 2023, amid stable patterns of and emerging hypogamy. Cross-nationally, modern patterns vary: in Sweden and parts of Europe, structural expansions in higher education have boosted educational homogamy since the 2000s, while in Norway, parental education-based sorting has strengthened over five decades, correlating with improved offspring outcomes in earnings and education. These trends underscore assortative mating's role in amplifying inequality, with estimates attributing up to one-third of US income inequality growth from 1967 to 2007 to heightened similarity in partners' socioeconomic traits.

Cross-Cultural Comparisons

Assortative mating for exhibits positive s worldwide, with a of data from 84 countries reporting an average spousal of 0.66 (95% CI: [0.64, 0.68]). This pattern holds across diverse contexts, though the strength varies; for instance, correlations show a negative association with the (r = -0.56, p < .001), suggesting relatively stronger educational matching in lower-HDI nations, while the link to income inequality (Gini coefficient, r = 0.37, p < .001) weakens after controlling for other factors. In Latin American countries, educational barriers to intermarriage are pronounced and tied to earnings disparities. Log-linear models of census data from , , and reveal uniform barriers across education levels in Brazil (-1.618 for primary/no education pairings), upper-end barriers in Chile (-1.696 for college pairings), and lower-end barriers in Mexico (-1.354 for some high school/primary pairings), with overall association indices ranging from 92.5% in Chile to 97.1% in Brazil. These patterns align with country-specific income gaps, where 95.7%-97% of intermarriage distances correspond to differences. In China, research using the China Family Panel Studies (CFPS) indicates high assortative mating in marriages on education, occupation, income, and family background, with same-type marriages (similar socioeconomic conditions) predominant and limited evidence for beauty-for-status exchanges. European comparisons highlight the role of preferences over structural factors in driving variations. In , , and (2000–2020 marriage data), homogamy increased or stabilized across all, with declining and rising or stable hypogamy; however, cross-country differences in sorting outcomes stem primarily from variations in assortative mating preferences rather than educational supply structures, as evidenced by analyses showing Italy's homogamy rise attributable solely to heightened similarity-seeking. Similarly, among Western nations including the , , , , and , positive educational assortative mating prevails at all levels, though Norway and Denmark exhibit lower overall sorting parameters than the US and UK. Earnings-based assortative mating mirrors educational patterns, contributing to household income Gini coefficients of 0.20–0.49 across the (0.432 in 2013), (0.49 in 2013), (0.42 in 2013), (0.39 in 2013), and (0.38 in 2013), with stronger increases in the and . For non-economic traits like , spousal similarities are modest and consistent across cultures (e.g., , , others), with correlations exceeding 0.40 mainly in and domains, driven more by initial mate selection than post-marital convergence.

Consequences and Effects

Genetic and Offspring Outcomes

Assortative mating increases the genetic similarity between spouses for traits under selection, leading to with elevated variance in polygenic scores and reduced regression toward the population mean for those traits. There is no substantial evidence that humans select partners based on genetic complementarity to reduce the risk of polygenic diseases or chronic conditions in offspring. Studies on polygenic risk scores (PRS) in couples generally show positive assortative mating (genetic similarity) for traits such as educational attainment, height, BMI, and psychiatric disorders (e.g., schizophrenia, depression), which can increase genetic risk in offspring rather than decrease it through complementarity. Negative assortative mating (complementarity) is observed for MHC genes related to immune compatibility, but this does not extend to polygenic chronic conditions like diabetes or heart disease. This effect amplifies additive genetic variance across generations, as parental phenotypic and genotypic resemblance enhances the of the trait in progeny. For instance, in analyses of , spousal correlations in polygenic scores—reflecting genetic predispositions for cognitive and educational outcomes—have been documented, contributing to stronger intergenerational genetic transmission. For recessive genetic disorders, assortative mating elevates homozygosity by fostering unions among individuals sharing identity-by-state alleles, distinct from inbreeding's identity-by-descent mechanism. This can heighten risk for conditions like variably expressive in neurological phenotypes, where parental similarity in disease-related traits bundles risk alleles, increasing pathogenicity and disease liability over generations. In admixed populations, assortment by ancestry further bundles local ancestry tracts, yielding excess homozygosity and potential for recessive disease expression in . Conversely, for advantageous polygenic traits, assortative mating concentrates high-impact in select lineages, preserving genetic potential at extremes while stratifying variance; offspring of high-trait parents thus inherit compounded favorable predispositions, as evidenced by heightened parent-offspring genetic under positive assortment. Empirical models confirm that even moderate assortment (e.g., coefficients of 0.1–0.3 for traits like or ) sustains elevated trait variance without substantially altering frequencies, though it may simulate genetic in pedigrees due to cumulative aggregation.

Socioeconomic and Inequality Impacts

Assortative mating by , particularly and income, amplifies household income inequality by concentrating economic resources within similar-status pairings, resulting in a higher variance of family incomes compared to random matching. In the United States, positive assortative mating on has intensified since the mid-20th century, driven by rising returns to schooling and increased female labor force participation, which creates dual high-income households among the educated elite and dual low-income ones among the less educated. Empirical decompositions attribute approximately 25-30% of the rise in U.S. household income inequality between 1967 and 2007 to these mating patterns, as they exacerbate the polarization of earnings across educational groups when both spouses contribute to earnings. This mechanism extends to wealth inequality, where pairings among high-wealth individuals perpetuate asset concentration across generations, independent of debates, by aligning partners with complementary financial and resources. Cross-nationally, educational homogamy accounts for 10-20% of cross-sectional household income inequality in countries like , the U.S., and emerging economies such as and , though its contribution to temporal changes varies with labor market structures and fertility rates. For instance, in nations with high female employment, the effect is magnified, as assortative mating amplifies the compounding of spousal earnings rather than offsetting low individual incomes through cross-status unions. Regarding social mobility, assortative mating hinders intergenerational upward movement by reducing cross-class marriages, which historically facilitated status elevation through spousal networks and resources, thereby entrenching advantages in high-status families and limiting diffusion of skills and opportunities to lower strata. Studies indicate that this clustering of human capital—such as dual-parent households with college degrees—correlates with lower absolute mobility rates, as children in homogamous high-SES families benefit from concentrated investments in education and connections, while those in low-SES pairings face compounded disadvantages in skill transmission and access to elite networks. However, the causal direction remains debated, as rising inequality may itself incentivize status-similar pairings through structural segregation in education and residence, though vector autoregression analyses suggest bidirectional reinforcement without clear primacy.

Broader Societal Ramifications

Assortative mating contributes to rising household income inequality by concentrating economic resources within similar socioeconomic groups, with estimates indicating that approximately one-third of the increase in U.S. income inequality from 1967 to 2007 can be attributed to this pattern. This effect arises as individuals pair based on and , amplifying disparities across households rather than through individual changes alone. Similar dynamics extend to , where matching on income and heightens heterogeneity in household returns, further entrenching gaps between affluent and lower-income families. By reducing inter-class marriages, assortative mating diminishes intergenerational , as children from high-education pairings inherit concentrated advantages in networks, skills, and opportunities, while those from lower-education unions face compounded barriers. This pattern fosters societal stratification, with power couples—often dual high-earners—reinforcing elite clusters that limit cross-strata resource diffusion and cultural exchange. Empirical analyses confirm that educational homogamy correlates with persistent economic divides, independent of other factors like skill-biased . On political dimensions, increasing assortative mating aligns partners on ideologies, exacerbating societal polarization as fewer mixed-viewpoint households transmit diverse perspectives across generations. Couples with opposing political affiliations exhibit higher separation risks, particularly following major events, which incentivizes ideological similarity in mate selection and reduces bridging social ties. This homogamy contributes to echo chambers within families, potentially intensifying partisan divides and undermining broader civic cohesion. Assortative mating also influences demographic stability, with educational homogamy linked to lower rates among high-attainment couples, though it may suppress overall by prioritizing career-aligned pairings over larger families. In contexts of rising , such matching correlates with stabilized union dissolution but altered patterns, affecting renewal and labor supply dynamics. Collectively, these trends solidify class-based subcultures, challenging narratives of meritocratic fluidity while highlighting mating preferences as a causal driver of enduring societal divides.

Debates and Critical Perspectives

Controversies on Causation and Preference

A central controversy in the study of assortative mating concerns the relative roles of active mate preferences versus structural factors in generating observed partner similarity. Structural explanations argue that assortative patterns emerge passively from constraints on partner availability, such as segregated social networks, educational institutions, or residential patterns, which limit encounters to similar individuals without requiring deliberate choice for similarity. In contrast, preference-based accounts posit that individuals actively seek and select partners resembling themselves in traits like , , or , leading to non-random matching even when opportunities are varied. Empirical decompositions of mating trends highlight the interplay but underscore ongoing disputes over causation. A analysis of Swedish marriage data from 1991 to 2017 found that the 6.4 percentage point rise in educational homogamy resulted equally from structural shifts (e.g., expanded higher education access altering partner pools, contributing 3.2 points) and from assortative mating (non-random selection, also 3.2 points), indicating that preferences explain only part of the pattern but cannot be dismissed. Critics of pure structural models note that such decompositions often assume independence between factors, potentially underestimating preferences when social contexts themselves reflect prior choices. Simulations using Japanese data from 2000 further illustrate how random matching within sequentially updating marriage markets—where new entrants resemble the married more than the unmarried—can produce educational and age assortativeness without any preference for similarity, challenging claims of universal active selection. Evidence favoring preferences includes controlled settings that minimize structural biases. Speed-dating experiments reveal "likes-attract" choices, where participants disproportionately select partners similar in traits such as extraversion and , deviating from evolutionary predictions and aligning with phenotypic assortment over random opportunity. Similarly, genetic studies detect spouse correlations at polygenic scores for traits under recent selection (e.g., , ), exceeding expectations from population structure alone and implying mechanisms like heritable mate preferences or direct phenotypic . A 2017 review of mechanisms concluded that active preference for similarity likely predominates, though convergence (partners becoming alike post-pairing) and social homogamy contribute, with structural factors amplifying rather than solely causing patterns. Disentangling causation remains contentious due to methodological challenges, including endogeneity (e.g., preferences shaping the structures that constrain opportunities) and reliance on observational data versus experiments. Online dating platforms, which expand choice beyond traditional networks, still exhibit strong educational homophily in contacts and pairings, suggesting preferences persist independently of opportunity. However, some scholars argue that even these reveal revealed preferences shaped by socialization rather than innate drives, fueling debates over whether assortative mating reflects causal agency or emergent network effects.

Implications for Inequality Narratives

Positive assortative mating on and amplifies household-level economic disparities, contributing to overall inequality trends that challenge narratives attributing rising s solely to labor market , shortcomings, or unequal access to opportunities. Empirical models demonstrate that shifts toward greater marital homogamy explain a substantial share of inequality growth; in the United States, for instance, if mating patterns resembled those of 1960, the 2008 family would have been 0.34 rather than the observed 0.43, indicating that assortative mating accounted for roughly 25% of the actual inequality level. Similarly, educational assortative mating increased the U.S. by 5 points in 2013, elevating it from 0.412 to 0.432 in counterfactual simulations holding other factors constant. This concentration of high earners into dual-income households not only boosts between-household variance but also enhances intergenerational persistence of advantage, as children inherit compounded human and financial capital. Research across countries, including , , the , and , confirms positive assortative mating at all education levels, with its effects on income inequality varying by female labor force participation but consistently nontrivial. For inequality, positive sorting on assets similarly drives disparities; absent wealth-based assortative mating, the between-household wealth Gini would decline by 7%. These patterns hold in emerging economies as well, where educational homogamy correlates with elevated household income inequality. Such findings imply that inequality narratives emphasizing exogenous institutional barriers may understate the role of endogenous behavioral preferences in mate selection, which multiply disparities even amid expanding educational access. While peer-reviewed studies quantify these contributions without partisan framing, public and policy discourses often prioritize structural reforms over acknowledging how voluntary sorting—potentially reinforced by cultural norms—sustains inequality dynamics. This oversight risks incomplete causal accounts, as assortative mating operates independently of wage polarization in some models, highlighting individual agency in perpetuating economic stratification.

Policy Debates and Empirical Critiques

Assortative mating has been invoked in policy discussions on , with proponents arguing it exacerbates and disparities by concentrating resources among similar high-status partners. A 2014 study estimated that rising educational assortative mating, combined with increased female labor force participation, accounted for approximately 25-40% of the increase in U.S. income inequality between 1960 and 2005, as high-earning couples form and amplify top-end incomes. Similarly, analyses of suggest that mating based on parental or personal contributes to intergenerational persistence of inequality, independent of other factors like laws. Policy advocates, particularly in egalitarian frameworks, have proposed interventions such as desegregating schools or housing to increase mixing opportunities, though such measures remain theoretical and face criticism for overlooking individual preferences. Critics of these inequality narratives contend that emphasizing assortative mating overstates its causal role and distracts from structural drivers like or . For instance, a 2014 analysis argued that the temporal mismatch—inequality rising before significant increases in assortative mating—indicates it is a secondary effect rather than a primary driver, with spousal correlations better explained by women's entry than deliberate sorting. Empirical models often treat assortative mating as exogenous, yet endogeneity arises from shared environmental factors, such as residential segregation, which correlate with but do not necessitate preference-driven matching. Moreover, studies assuming random mating in genetic research underestimate biases, as assortative mating inflates observed trait correlations by up to 10-20% across phenotypes like , , and , complicating causal inferences about . Further critiques highlight of correlation with causation in spousal similarity. While phenotypic assortative mating appears strong (e.g., correlations of 0.4-0.6 in recent U.S. cohorts), structural mechanisms like educational homogamy in expanded higher education systems can produce patterns without explicit preferences, as modeled in agent-based simulations. Genetic analyses reveal that spousal resemblance for traits like extraversion stems roughly equally from shared ancestry and direct mating choices, challenging claims of purely environmental causation. outcome studies provide mixed evidence; a review found only weak positive associations between parental similarity and child , often mediated by family stability rather than trait matching per se. These findings underscore the need for longitudinal and twin-design to disentangle preferences from convergence, as cross-sectional surveys overestimate volitional sorting amid rising opportunity constraints.

References

  1. https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/spc3.12337
  2. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsbl.2021.0463
  3. https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3000108
  4. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-46939-9
  5. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38531929/
  6. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6705135/
  7. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-60483-0
  8. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3276760/
  9. https://academic.oup.com/sf/article/102/2/454/7165260
  10. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/assortative-mating
  11. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/670160
  12. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6491930/
  13. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5297874/
  14. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.03.19.484997v1.full-text
  15. https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/2041-210X.12837
  16. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1321426111
  17. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165176506000838
  18. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040580924000650
  19. https://bmcecolevol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12862-025-02394-8
  20. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-28774-y
  21. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/670160
  22. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/701124
  23. https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1365-2656.13851
  24. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10033844/
  25. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003347224002252
  26. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6400405/
  27. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31738105/
  28. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/genetics/articles/10.3389/fgene.2023.1150697/full
  29. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abo2059
  30. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.02.03.636375v1
  31. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-28294-9
  32. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022103182900531
  33. https://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/eli-finkel/documents/InPress_TidwellEastwickFinkel_PersonalRelationships_000.pdf
  34. https://lebs.hbesj.org/index.php/lebs/article/download/lebs.2024.117/355/
  35. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10967253/
  36. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6553655/
  37. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/dtingley/files/ajpsscents.pdf
  38. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0054186
  39. https://www.icns.es/en/news/people_select_partners_with_similar_physical_attractiveness
  40. https://paa2011.populationassociation.org/papers/111953
  41. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-73971-8
  42. https://online.ucpress.edu/collabra/article/10/1/125635/203943/Assortative-Mating-Patterns-Based-on-Longitudinal
  43. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.937146/full
  44. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4434718/
  45. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0276562423000537
  46. https://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol44/7/44-7.pdf
  47. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14616696.2023.2290238
  48. https://direct.mit.edu/euso/article/26/4/1137/127367/Structural-opportunities-or-assortative-mating
  49. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10680-021-09592-2
  50. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1081602X.2024.2352539
  51. https://matthijskalmijn.nl/onewebmedia/Kalmijn%20-%20AJS%20-%20Status%20homogamy.pdf
  52. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12176447/
  53. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w20271/w20271.pdf
  54. https://read.dukeupress.edu/demography/article/61/5/1293/390842/Eight-Decades-of-Educational-Assortative-Mating-A
  55. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6048969/
  56. https://www.lisdatacenter.org/newsletter/nl-2025-34-im-1/
  57. https://quillette.com/2019/10/18/rich-like-me-how-assortative-mating-is-driving-income-inequality/
  58. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/14747049241249072
  59. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3000020/
  60. https://www.demographic-research.org/articles/volume/41/3
  61. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18665894/
  62. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09567976251365900
  63. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/assortative-mating
  64. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10716518/
  65. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10246151/
  66. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9335313/
  67. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.104.5.348
  68. https://www.nber.org/digest/may14/assortative-mating-and-income-inequality
  69. https://www.nber.org/papers/w20271
  70. https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/assortative-mating-and-wealth-inequality-debate
  71. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086%252F702018
  72. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/opposites-dont-attract-assortative-mating-and-social-mobility/
  73. https://web.stanford.edu/~pista/assmat.pdf
  74. https://ccpr.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Assortative-Mating_-Intergenerational-Mobility_-and-Educational-Inequality.pdf
  75. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/27/upshot/marriages-of-power-couples-reinforce-income-inequality.html
  76. https://academic.oup.com/sf/article/103/4/1581/7763502
  77. https://www.demogr.mpg.de/en/news_events_6123/news_press_releases_4630/press/couples_with_opposing_political_views_face_higher_risk_of_separation_14394
  78. https://read.dukeupress.edu/demography/article/62/3/1059/401006/Sleeping-With-the-Enemy-Partners-Heterogamy-by
  79. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w15725/w15725.pdf
  80. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00324728.2017.1371477
  81. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0705290104
  82. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249285731_Who_Contacts_Whom_Educational_Homophily_in_Online_Mate_Selection
  83. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3444291/
  84. https://bfi.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/BFI-WP-2019-20.pdf
  85. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2503.02713
  86. https://www.nber.org/papers/w19829
  87. https://www.nber.org/papers/w29903
  88. https://www.epi.org/blog/misdirection-assortative-mating-income-inequality/
  89. https://theconversation.com/people-dont-mate-randomly-but-the-flawed-assumption-that-they-do-is-an-essential-part-of-many-studies-linking-genes-to-diseases-and-traits-194793
  90. https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1003451
  91. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090513807001419
  92. https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-soc-071312-145544
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.