Advertisement

Human Nature

, Volume 27, Issue 4, pp 533–555 | Cite as

Disgust, Gender, and Social Change

Testing Alternative Explanations for the Decline of Cousin Marriage in Karo Society
  • Geoff Kushnick
  • Daniel M. T. Fessler
  • Fikarwin Zuska
Article

Abstract

Among the Karo of Indonesia, the frequency of matrilateral cross-cousin (impal) marriage has declined in recent decades. We conducted a vignette experiment to assess the contributions of a handful of factors in shaping this pattern. Surprisingly, we found that cosocialization of a hypothetical woman with her impal led to increased judgments of marriage likelihood and decreased feelings of disgust in male and female respondents (n = 154). We also found that females, more than males, judged impal marriage more likely when there were practical advantages. Finally, we found that younger men expressed more disgust in response to impal marriages than did older men, while women displayed an opposite but weaker reaction. This suggests the existence of gender-specific changes in attitudes toward the practice, indicating that a full understanding may require the application of sexual conflict theory. Our study illustrates the potential utility—and limitations—of vignette experiments for studying social change.

Keywords

Karo Batak Social change Cousin marriage Westermarck hypothesis Disgust Sexual conflict 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank our many Karo participants. The study would not have been possible without the hard work of research assistants Karmila Kaban, Iksan Ginting, and Lasma Sinaga. The fieldwork described in this paper was supported by grants from the Fulbright Scholars Program and the American Institute for Indonesian Studies awarded to GK. The archival portion of our project was funded by a grant to DF from UCLA’s Center for Culture, Brain, and Development. Research permission was granted by Indonesia’s Ministry of Research and Technology (RISTEK), Jakarta. Human subjects approval was granted by the Human Subjects Office at the University of Washington, Seattle (with approval to use those permissions from the Ethics Office at The Australian National University, Canberra). All participants provided informed consent before being enrolled in the study.

Supplementary material

12110_2016_9263_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (129 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 129 kb)

References

  1. Alexander, C. S., & Becker, H. J. (1978). The use of vignettes in survey research. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 42(1), 93–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Antfolk, J., Karlsson, M., Bäckström, A., & Santtila, P. (2012a). Disgust elicited by third-party incest: the roles of biological relatedness, co-residence, and family relationship. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33(3), 217–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Antfolk, J., Lieberman, D., & Santtila, P. (2012b). Fitness costs predict inbreeding aversion irrespective of self-involvement: support for hypotheses derived from evolutionary theory. PLoS One, 7(11), e50613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Apostolou, M. (2007). Sexual selection under parental choice: the role of parents in the evolution of human mating. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 403–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aritonang, J. S., & Steenbrink, K. A. (Eds.). (2008). A history of christianity in Indonesia. Boston: Brill Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  6. Assaf, S., & Khawaja, M. (2009). Consanguinity trends and correlates in the Palestinian territories. Journal of Biosocial Science, 41, 107–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Atzmüller, C., & Steiner, P. M. (2010). Experimental vignette studies in survey research. Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 6(3), 128–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ayoub, M. (1959). Parallel cousin marriage and endogamy: a study in sociometry. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 15, 266–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Barth, F. (1954). Father’s brother’s daughter marriage in Kurdistan. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 10, 164–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Beatty, A. (1990). Asymmetric alliance in Nias, Indonesia. Man, 25(3), 454–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bener, A., & Alali, K. (2006). Consanguineous marriage in a newly developed country: the Qatari population. Journal of Biosocial Science, 38, 239–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bernard, H. R. (2011). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (5th ed.). Lanham: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
  13. Birnbaum, M. H. (1999). How to show that 9 > 221: collect judgments in a between-subjects design. Pychological Methods, 4, 243–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bittles, A. H. (2012). Consanguinity in context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Borgerhoff Mulder, M. (2007). Hamilton’s rule and kin competition: the Kipsigis case. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 299–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Borgerhoff Mulder, M., & Rauch, K. L. (2009). Sexual conflict in humans: Variations and solutions. Evolutionary Anthropology, 18(5), 201–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Carmack, R. M. (2013). Anthropology and global history: From tribes to the Modern World-System. NY: Altamira Press.Google Scholar
  18. Chamberlin, T. C. (1890). The method of multiple working hypotheses. Science (old series), 15, 92–96.Google Scholar
  19. Croucher, C., Calder, A., Ramponi, C., Barnard, P., & Murphy, F. (2011). Disgust enhances the recollection of negative emotional images. PLoS ONE, 6, e26571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Curtis, V., Aunger, R., & Rabie, T. (2004). Evidence that disgust evolved to protect from risk of disease. Proceedings of the Royal Society London Series B: Biological Sciences, 271, S131–S133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dochtermann, N. A., & Jenkins, S. H. (2011). Developing multiple hypotheses in behavioral ecology. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 65, 37–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fessler, D. M. T. (2007). Neglected natural experiments germane to the Westermarck hypothesis: the Karo Batak and the Oneida community. Human Nature, 18, 355–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fessler, D. M. T., & Navarrete, C. D. (2004). Third-party attitudes toward sibling incest: evidence for Westermarck’s hypotheses. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25(5), 277–294.Google Scholar
  24. Fisher, R. (1935). The design of experiments. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
  25. Flinn, M. V. (1981). Uterine vs. agnatic kinship variability and associated cousin marriage preferences: An evolutionary biological analysis. In R. Alexander & D. W. Tinkle (Eds.), Natural selection and social behavior (pp. 439–475). New York: Chiron Press.Google Scholar
  26. Forth, G. (1990). From symmetry to asymmetry: an evolutionary interpretation of Eastern Sumbanese relationship terminology. Anthropos, 85(4/6), 373–392.Google Scholar
  27. Good, A. (1981). Prescription, preference and practice: marriage patterns among the Kondaiyankottai Maravar of South India. Man, 16(1), 108–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gorelik, G., & Shackelford, T. K. (2011). Human sexual conflict from molecules to culture. Evolutionary Psychology, 9(4), 564–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Guillot, E. G., Hazelton, M. L., Karafet, T. M., Lansing, J. S., Sudoyo, H., & Cox, M. P. (2015). Relaxed observance of traditional marriage rules allows social connectivity without loss of genetic diversity. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 32(9), 2498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hamamy, H., Jamhawi, L., Al-Darawsheh, J., & Ajlouni, K. (2005). Consanguineous marriages in Jordan: why is the rate changing with time? Clinical Genetics, 67(6), 511–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hicks, D. (1988). Change, adjustment, and persistence in generalized exchange: a case study from Indonesia. Anthropos, 83(4/6), 395–402.Google Scholar
  32. Hilborn, R., & Stearns, S. C. (1982). On inference in ecology and evolutionary biology: the problem of multiple causes. Acta Biotheoretica, 31, 145–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hirschman, C. (1994). Population and society in twentieth-century Southeast Asia. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 25(02), 381–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Homans, G. C., & Schneider, D. M. (1955). Marriage, authority, and final causes: A study in unilateral cross-cousin marriage. Glencoe: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  35. Howell, S. (1995). Rethinking the mother’s brother: gendered aspects of kinship and marriage among the Northern Lio, Indonesia. Indonesia Circle, 23(67), 293–317.Google Scholar
  36. Hughes, R. & Huby, M. (2004). The construction and interpretation of vignettes in social research. Social Work and Social Sciences Review, 243–9.Google Scholar
  37. Jones, G. W. (1997). Fertility levels and trends in Indonesia. Population Studies, 31, 29–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Joosten Ginting, L. (2006). Mbuah page nisuan: perkembangan gereja Katolik di Tanah Karo khususnya Paroki Kabanjahe, 1939–2006. Kabanjahe.Google Scholar
  39. Jurdi, R., & Saxena, P. (2003). The prevalence and correlates of consanguineous marriages in Yemen: similarities and contrasts with other Arab countries. Journal of Biosocial Science, 35, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kipp, R. S. (1983). A political system of highland Sumatra, or rethinking Edmund Leach. In R. S. Kipp & R. D. Kipp (Eds.), Beyond Samosir: Recent studies of the Batak peoples of North Sumatra (pp. 125–138). Athens: Ohio University Center for International Studies.Google Scholar
  41. Kipp, R. S. (1986). Terms of endearment: Karo Batak lovers as siblings. American Ethnologist, 13(4), 632–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kipp, R. S. (1990). The early years of a Dutch colonial mission: The Karo field. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kipp, R. S. (1993). Dissociated identities: Ethnicity, religion, and class in an Indonesian society. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Koc, I. (2008). Prevalence and sociodemographic correlates of consanguineous marriages in Turkey. Journal of Biosocial Science, 40, 137–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kunstadter, P., Buhler, R., Stephan, F. F., & Westoff, C. F. (1963). Demographic variability and preferential marriage patterns. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 21, 511–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kushnick, G. (2006). Parent-offspring conflict among the Karo of North Sumatra, Indonesia. PhD Dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle.Google Scholar
  47. Kushnick, G. (2010). Resource competition and reproduction in Karo Batak villages. Human Nature, 21, 62–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kushnick, G. (2012). Helper effects on breeder allocations to direct care. American Journal of Human Biology, 24, 545–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kushnick, G. (2013). Access to resources shapes maternal decision-making: evidence from a factorial vignette experiment. PLoS ONE, 8, e75539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kushnick, G., & Fessler, D. M. T. (2011). Karo Batak cousin marriage, cosocialization, and the Westermarck hypothesis. Current Anthropology, 52(3), 443–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kushnick, G., Fessler, D. M. T., & Zuska, F. (2016). Impal experiment – data, codebook, and data form. figshare. doi: 10.6084/m9.figshare.1619669.Google Scholar
  52. Leach, E. R. (1951). The structural implications of matrilateral cross-cousin marriage. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 81(1/2), 23–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Leach, E. R. (1962). The determinants of differential cross-cousin marriage. Man, 62, 153. doi: 10.2307/2796712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Leonetti, D. L., Nath, D. C., & Hemam, N. S. (2007). In‐law conflict: Women’s reproductive lives and the roles of their mothers and husbands among the matrilineal Khasi. Current Anthropology, 48(6), 861–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Levi-Strauss, C. (1949). Les structures élémentaires de la parenté [The elementary structures of kinship]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  56. Lieberman, D. (2009). Rethinking the Taiwanese minor marriage data: evidence the mind uses multiple kinship cues to regulate inbreeding avoidance. Evolution and Human Behavior, 30, 153–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lieberman, D., & Billingsley, J. (2015). Current issues in sibling detection. Current Opinions in Psychology, 7(2016), 57–60. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.07.014.Google Scholar
  58. Lieberman, D., & Lobel, T. (2012). Kinship on the kibbutz: coresidence duration predicts altruism, personal sexual aversions and moral attitudes among communally reared peers. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33(1), 26–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Lieberman, D., Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2003). Does morality have a biological basis? an empirical test of the factors governing moral sentiments relating to incest. Proceedings of the Royal Society London B, 270, 819–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Lieberman, D., Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2007). The architecture of human kin detection. Nature, 445, 727–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Mace, R. (2013). Cooperation and conflict between women in the family. Evolutionary Anthropology, 22(5), 251–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Mattison, S. M., Brown, M. J., Floyd, B., & Feldman, M. W. (2015). Adoption does not increase the risk of mortality among Taiwanese girls in a longitudinal analysis. PLoS ONE, 10(4), e0122867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. McVicar, T. (1935). Sibs, privileged familiarity, and cross-cousin marriage among the Waluguru. Primitive Man, 8(3), 57–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Mock, D. W., & Parker, G. A. (1997). The evolution of sibling rivalry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Needham, R. (1961). Notes on the analysis of asymmetric alliance. Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde, 117(1), 93–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Needham, R. (1962). Structure and sentiment: A test case in social anthropology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  67. Needham, R. (1978). Classification and alliance among the Karo: an appreciation. Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde, 134, 116–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Needham, R. (1986). Alliance. Oceania, 56(3), 165–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Needham, R., & Elkin, A. P. (1973). Prescription. Oceania, 43(3), 166–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Norton, M. I., Frost, J. H., & Ariely, D. (2007). Less is more: the lure of ambiguity, or why familiarity breeds contempt. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 97–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Norton, M. I., Frost, J. H., & Ariely, D. (2011). Does familiarity breed contempt or liking? Comment on Reis, Maniaci, Caprariello, Eastwick, and Finkel (2011). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(3), 571–574.Google Scholar
  72. Othman, H., & Saadat, M. (2009). Prevalnce of consanguineous marriages in Syria. Journal of Biosocial Science, 41, 685–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Parker, G. A. (1979). Sexual selection and sexual conflict. In M. Blum & N. Blum (Eds.), Sexual selection and reproductive competition in insects (pp. 123–166). New York: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Pederson, P. (1970). Batak blood and Protestant soul: The development of national Batak churches in North Sumatra. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.Google Scholar
  75. Radovanovic, Z., Shah, N., & Behbehani, J. (1999). Prevalence and correlates of consanguinity in Kuwait. Annals of Saudi Medicine, 19, 206–10.Google Scholar
  76. Rae, S. (1994). Breath becomes the wind: Old and new in Karo religion. Dunedin: University of Otago Press.Google Scholar
  77. Railsback, L. B. (2004). T.C. Chamberlin’s “method of multiple working hypotheses”: an encapsulation for modern students. Houston Geological Society Bulletin, 47, 68–69.Google Scholar
  78. Rantala, M., & Marcinowska, U. (2011). The role of sexual imprinting and the Westermarck effect in mate choice in humans. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 65, 859–873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Reis, H. T., Maniaci, M. R., Caprariello, P. A., Eastwick, P. W., & Finkel, E. J. (2011a). Familiarity does indeed promote attraction in live interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(3), 557–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Reis, H. T., Maniaci, M. R., Caprariello, P. A., Eastwick, P. W., & Finkel, E. J. (2011b). In live interaction, does familiarity promote attraction or contempt? Reply to Norton, Frost, and Ariely (2011). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(3), 575–578.Google Scholar
  81. Singarimbun, M. (1975). Kinship, descent, and alliance among the Karo Batak. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  82. Steedly, M. M. (1993). Hanging without a rope: Narrative experience in colonial and postcolonial Karoland. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  83. Trivers, R. L. (1974). Parent-offspring conflict. American Zoologist, 14, 249–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Tybur, J. M., Lieberman, D., & Griskevicius, V. (2009). Microbes, mating, and morality: individual differences in three functional domains of disgust. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(1), 103–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. van Wouden, F. (1935). Sociale structuurtypen in de groote oost [Types of social structure in eastern Indonesia]. (R. Needham, Trans.) Leiden: J. Ginsberg.Google Scholar
  86. Westermarck, E. (1891). The history of human marriage. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  87. Wolf, A. P. (1966). Childhood association, sexual attraction, and the incest taboo: a Chinese case. American Anthropologist, 68, 883–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Wolf, A. P. (1995). Sexual attraction and childhood association: A Chinese brief for Edward Westermarck. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  89. Wolf, A. P., & Huang, C. S. (1980). Marriage and adoption in China, 1845–1945. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Geoff Kushnick
    • 1
  • Daniel M. T. Fessler
    • 2
  • Fikarwin Zuska
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Archaeology and AnthropologyThe Australian National UniversityCanberraAustralia
  2. 2.Center for Behavior, Evolution, & Culture, and Department of AnthropologyUniversity of California, Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA
  3. 3.Department of AnthropologyUniversity of North SumatraMedanIndonesia

Personalised recommendations