Inbreeding in Finland

Datos Bibliográficos

ID8320958
AutoresL B Jorde (0000-0002-0606-1862, University of Helsinki), K J Pitkänen, Kari Pitkänen (0000-0001-5687-3108, University of Helsinki)
Año1991
Volumen84
Número2
Páginas127-139
Fecha de publicación1991-02-01
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoARTICLE
RevistaAmerican Journal of Physical Anthropology (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 0002-9483 • E-ISSN: 1096-8644
EditorialWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1002/ajpa.1330840203
PMID2021189
OpenAlexW2046474981
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas25
Referencias citadas31

We have compiled data on the frequency of first‐cousin marriages in Finland using royal dispensation records for the time period 1810–1872 and national population statistics for the time period 1878–1920. For the earlier period, 0.315% of Finland's marriages were contracted between first cousins (2,331 of 739,387). During the second time period, 0.174% of Finland's marriages took place between first cousins (1,325 of 761,976). These figures, which yield average kinship coefficients of 0.00020 and 0.00011, respectively, show that the level of inbreeding in Finland due to first‐cousin marriage has been quite low. An analysis of individual parishes shows that first‐cousin marriages are, on average, substantially less frequent than predicted by a random‐mating model. In order to evaluate determinants of first‐cousin marriage, several predictive variables have been examined: parish ethnic composition (proportion of Swedish and Finnish speakers), husband's occupation (graded into 6 socioeconomic levels), geographic distance between spouses' premarital residences, population density, parish endogamy, and urban vs. rural residence. Various logistic and linear regression models were analyzed in which consanguinity was the dependent variable. The best predictors of consanguinity were ethnic composition and occupation. The other variables were not in general significant predictors. These results show that many of the “mate availability” factors that would be predicted theoretically to account for consanguinity variation (population density, geographic isolation, urban vs. rural residence) do not. Instead, the best predictors of consanguinity at the first‐cousin level are cultural factors such as ethnicity and occupation. Evaluation of cultural variables can provide a greatly enriched interpretation of complex biosocial phenomena such as inbreeding

Consanguinity · Cousin · Ethnic group · Geography · Inbreeding · Kinship · Logistic regression · Population · Residence · Socioeconomic status · Sociology · Statistics · Demographic Trends and Gender Preferences · Demography · Mathematics · Names, Identity, and Discrimination Research