Maternal stress and sex ratio at birth in Sweden over two and a half centuries: a retest of the Trivers-Willard hypothesis.

Abstract

STUDY QUESTIONIs there a negative relationship, as predicted in the Trivers–Willard hypothesis (TWH), between the intensity of maternal stress and sex ratio at birth (SRB)?SUMMARY ANSWERUsing a comprehensive data set with multiple indicators of maternal stress, most measures of stress show no statistically significant association with SRB over a period spanning 243 years, indicating no support for the TWH.WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADYEvolutionary biologists have proposed a widely discussed hypothesis that women in poor and stressful conditions during pregnancy are more likely to give birth to girls, and exposure to stressful events may therefore lead to a reduction in sex (male-to-female) ratio at birth. The empirical evidence so far is mixed.STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATIONAnnual time series data, spanning 243 years between 1749 and 1991 for Sweden at the national level, were drawn from multiple sources. The outcome is defined as the percentage of male births relative to all births in Sweden in a given year. The covariates include a set of economic and climatic variables as proxies for maternal stress.PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODSWe conduct a series of ARIMA (autoregressive integrated moving average) models to examine the relationship between maternal stress and SRB during three periods: 1749–1991, 1749–1861 and 1862–1991.MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCEIn 1749–1991, economic proxies for maternal stress showed no statistically significant association with SRB. In 1749–1861, two indicators were significantly associated with SRB, but the coefficients were opposite in direction to the TWH. In 1862–1991, five out of six covariates showed no significant association with SRB. An additional analysis found no significant correlation between sex ratio of stillbirths and all covariates in 1862–1991. Our results are incompatible with the TWH and suggest that previous findings in support of the TWH are not robust.LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTIONThis study provides population-level evidence that may not necessarily reflect the nature of all individuals due to the ecological fallacy. The time series analysed in this study are annual data, and we cannot examine the potential seasonality due to the lack of disaggregated monthly data. Our findings may not be generalised to the contexts of extreme maternal stress conditions such as famine and war.WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGSThe results from existing studies in this topic may be speculative, and additional research with more comprehensive design, data and covariates is needed to reconsider the robustness of previous findings.STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)The author receives no external funding and has no conflict of interest to declare.TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERN/A.