Advertisement

Human Nature

, Volume 20, Issue 3, pp 269–281 | Cite as

Materteral and Avuncular Tendencies in Samoa

A Comparative Study of Women, Men, and Fa’afafine
  • Paul L. VaseyEmail author
  • Doug P. VanderLaan
Article

Abstract

Androphilia refers to sexual attraction and arousal to adult males, whereas gynephilia refers to sexual attraction and arousal to adult females. In Independent Samoa, androphilic males, most of whom are effeminate or transgendered, are referred to as fa’afafine, which means “in the manner of a woman.” Previous research has established that fa’afafine report significantly higher avuncular tendencies relative to gynephilic men. We hypothesized that Samoan fa’afafine might adopt feminine gender role orientations with respect to childcare activity. If so, then the fa’afafine’s femininity might be a proximate mechanism for promoting their elevated avuncular tendencies. Our analyses indicated that fa’afafine had significantly higher willingness to assist in the childcare of nieces and nephews than childless women, mothers, or men, none of whom differed from each other on this measure. Thus, femininity does not appear to explain the fa’afafine’s pattern of avuncular tendencies, nor the women’s pattern of materteral (i.e., aunt-like) tendencies, relative to gynephilic men. We discuss how the fa’afafine “third” gender status might influence the expression of their elevated avuncular tendencies.

Keywords

Gender roles Sexual orientation Kin selection Aunts Uncles Samoa 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Resitara Apa, Nancy H. Bartlett, Vester Fido Collins, Peniamina Tolovaa Fagai, Liulauulu Faaleolea Ah Fook, Tyrone Laurenson, Jeannette Mageo, Gaualofa Matalavea, Nella Tavita-Levy, David S. Pocock, Trisha Tuiloma, the Kuka family of Savai’i, the Government of Samoa, and all of the individuals who agreed to participate in our study. We also thank three anonymous reviewers and Andrea Camperio Ciani for helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper. We extend special thanks to Alatina Ioelu, without whose help this study would not have been possible. PLV was funded by the University of Lethbridge and a NSERC of Canada Discovery Grant. DPV was funded by an Alberta Graduate Scholarship, a NSERC of Canada Graduate Scholarship-D3, and a Grant-In-Aid of Research from Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society.

References

  1. Bailey, J. M., Dunne, M. P., & Martin, N. G. (2000). Genetics and environmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlates in an Australian twin sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 524–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bartlett, N. H., & Vasey, P. L. (2006). A retrospective study of childhood gender: atypical behavior in Samoan fa’afafine. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35, 559–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bell, A. P., & Weinberg, M. S. (1978). Homosexualities: A study of diversity among men and women. New York: Simon and Shuster.Google Scholar
  4. Bobrow, D., & Bailey, J. M. (2001). Is male homosexuality maintained via kin selection? Evolution and Human Behavior, 22, 361–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brooks, P., & Bocahut, L., directors. (1998). Woubi cheri [motion picture]. San Francisco: California Newsreel.Google Scholar
  6. Chiñas, B. (1995). Isthmus Zapotec attitudes toward sex and gender anomalies. In S. O. Murray (Ed.), Latin American male homosexualities (pp. 293–302). Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar
  7. Chung, Y. B., & Harmon, L. W. (1994). The career interests and aspirations of gay men: how sex-role orientation is related. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45, 223–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., & Reno, R. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human conduct. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), The development of prosocial behavior (pp. 339–359). New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  9. Colker, R., & Widom, C. (1980). Correlates of female athletic participation: masculinity, femininity, self-esteem, and attitudes toward women. Sex Roles, 6, 47–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Croall, H., & Wunderman, E., directors. (1999). Paradise bent: Gender diversity in Samoa [motion picture]. New York: Filmakers Library.Google Scholar
  11. Danielsson, B., Danielsson, T., & Pierson, R. (1978). Polynesia’s third sex: the gay life starts in the kitchen. Pacific Islands Monthly, 49, 10–13.Google Scholar
  12. Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. B. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. In T. Eckes & H. M. Trautner (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 123–174). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  13. Essock-Vitale, S. M., & McGuire, M. T. (1985). Women’s lives viewed from an evolutionary perspective, II: patterns of helping. Ethology and Sociobiology, 6, 155–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Etaugh, C., & Poertner, P. (1991). Effects of occupational prestige, employment status, and mental status on perceptions of mothers. Sex Roles, 26, 311–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Etaugh, C., & Poertner, P. (1992). Perceptions of women: influence of performance, marital, and parental variables. Sex Roles, 24, 345–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Freeman, D. (1983). Margaret Mead and Samoa: The making and unmaking of an anthropological myth. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Haldane, J. B. S. (1955). Population genetics. New Biology, 18, 34–51.Google Scholar
  18. Hamer, D., & Copeland, P. (1994). The science of desire: The search for the gay gene and the biology of behavior. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  19. Hamilton, W. D. (1963). The evolution of altruistic behavior. American Naturalist, 97, 354–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Harrison, L. A., & Lynch, A. B. (2005). Social role theory and the perceived gender role orientation of athletes. Sex Roles, 52, 227–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Holmes, L. D. (1987). Quest for the real Samoa: The Mead/Freeman controversy and beyond. South Hadley: Bergin and Garvey.Google Scholar
  22. Iemmola, F., & Camperio Ciani, A. (2008). New evidence of genetic factors influencing sexual orienation in men: female fecundity increases in the maternal line. Archives of Sexual Behaviour, doi: 10.1007/s10508-008-9381-6.
  23. Kendler, K. S., Thornton, L. M., Gilman, S. E., & Kessler, R. C. (2000). Sexual orientation in a US national sample of twin and non-twin sibling pairs. American Journal of Psychiatry, 157, 1843–1846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human male. Philadelphia: Saunders.Google Scholar
  25. Kitts, S. (2006). Front gardens of Samoa. Lewes: Old Inn.Google Scholar
  26. Koca, C., Aşçı, F. H., & Kirazcı, S. (2005). Gender role orientation of athletes and non-athletes in a patriarchal society: a study in Turkey. Sex Roles, 52, 217–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lal, B. V., & Fortune, K. (2000). Pacific islands: An encyclopedia. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
  28. Lantz, C., & Schroeder, P. J. (1999). Endorsement of masculine and feminine gender roles: differences between participation in and identification with the athletic role. Journal of Sport Behavior, 22, 545–557.Google Scholar
  29. Lippa, R. A. (2005). Gender, nature, nurture (2nd ed.). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  30. Mageo, J. M. (1998). Theorizing self in Samoa: Emotions, genders and sexualities. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  31. Mead, M. (1928). Coming of age in Samoa. New York: William Morrow and Sons.Google Scholar
  32. Murray, S. O. (2000). Homosexualities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  33. Mustanski, B. S., Chivers, M. L., & Bailey, J. M. (2002). A critical review of recent biological research on human sexual orientation. Annual Review of Sex Research, 13, 89–140.Google Scholar
  34. Nanda, S. (1998). Neither man nor woman: The hijras of India. Belmont: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  35. Nardi, B. A. (1983/84). Infant feeding and women’s work in Western Samoa: a hypothesis, some evidence and suggestions for future research. Ecology of Food and Nutrition, 13/14, 277–286.Google Scholar
  36. Nash, G. (2001). The subversive male: Homosexual and bestial images on European Mesolithic rock art. In L. Bevan (Ed.), Indecent exposure: Sexuality, society and the archaeological record (pp. 43–55). Glasgow: Cruithne.Google Scholar
  37. Ochs, E. (1988). Culture and language development: Language acquisitions and language socialization in a Samoan village. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Partners, Y. (1994). A Yankelovich MONITOR perspective on gays/lesbians. Norwalk: Yankelovich Partners.Google Scholar
  39. Poe, C., series producer. (2004). National Geographic taboo: Sexual identity [motion picture]. Washington: National Geographic Film and Television.Google Scholar
  40. Pollet, T. V., Kuppens, T., & Dunbar, R. I. M. (2006). When nieces and nephews become important: differences between childless women and mothers in relationships with nieces and nephews. Journal of Cultural and Evolutionary Psychology, 4, 83–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rahman, Q., & Hull, M. S. (2005). An empirical test of the kin selection hypothesis for male homosexuality. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34, 461–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Riggs, J. M. (1997). Mandates for mothers and fathers: perceptions of breadwinners and caregivers. Sex Roles, 37, 565–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ritchie, J., & Ritchie, J. (1983). Polynesian child rearing: an alternative model. Alternative Lifestyles, 5, 126–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ruse, M. (1982). Are there gay genes? Sociobiology and homosexuality. Journal of Homosexuality, 6, 5–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Saghir, M. T., & Robins, E. (1973). Male and female homosexuality: A comprehensive investigation. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins.Google Scholar
  46. Saville, D. J. (1990). Multiple comparison procedures: the practical solution. American Statistician, 44, 174–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schmidt, J. (2003). Paradise lost? Social change and fa’afafine in Samoa. Current Sociology, 51, 417–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stevenson, M. C. (1901–1902). The Zuni Indians. Bureau of American Ethology Annual Report, 23. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  49. Totman, R. (2003). The third sex—kathoey: Thailand’s ladyboys. London: Souvenir.Google Scholar
  50. Van de Ven, P., Rodden, P., Crawford, J., & Kippax, S. (1997). A comparative demographic and sexual profile of older homosexually active men. Journal of Sex Research, 34, 349–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Vasey, P. L., & Bartlett, N. H. (2007). What can the Samoan fa’afafine teach us about the Western concept of “gender identity disorder in childhood”? Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 50, 481–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Vasey, P. L., & VanderLaan, D. P. (2008). Avuncular tendencies in Samoan fa’afafine and the evolution of male androphilia. Archives of Sexual Beahvior, doi: 10.1007/s10508-008-9404-3.
  53. Vasey, P. L., Pocock, D. S., & VanderLaan, D. P. (2007). Kin selection and male androphilia in Samoan fa’afafine. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 159–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Weinrich, J. D. (1987). Sexual landscapes: Why we are what we are, why we love whom we love. New York: Scribner.Google Scholar
  55. Whitam, F. L. (1983). Culturally invariant properties of male homosexuality: tentative conclusions from cross-cultural research. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 12, 207–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wikan, U. (1977). Man becomes woman: transsexualism in Oman as a key to gender roles. Man, 12, 304–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Williams, W. (1992). The spirit and the flesh: Sexual diversity in American Indian culture. Boston: Beacon.Google Scholar
  58. Wilson, E. O. (1975). Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Cambridge: Belknap.Google Scholar
  59. Wilson, G., & Rahmen, Q. (2005). Born gay: The psychobiology of sex orientation. London: Peter Owen.Google Scholar
  60. Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men: implications for the origins of sex differences. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 699–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Yates, T. (1993). Frameworks for an archaeology of the body. In C. Tilley (Ed.), Interpretive archaeology (pp. 31–72). Providence: Berg.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of LethbridgeLethbridgeCanada

Personalised recommendations