Men may find women with small feet relative to body size more attractive because foot size reliably indexes nubility—i.e., age and parity. I collected judgments of attractiveness in response to drawings of women with varying foot sizes from a sample of 159 Karo Batak respondents from North Sumatra, Indonesia, as part of a collaborative project on foot size and attractiveness. The data revealed a contrarian preference among the Karo Batak for women with big feet. The judgments were compared with the results of an existing cross-cultural study that found a preference for women with small feet in aggregate, but a mix of small- and large-foot preferences in the societies taken individually. Using contingency table analysis, I found that ecology and less exposure to Western media were associated with a preference for women with big feet; patriarchal values were not. The findings suggest that human mating preferences may arise in response to local ecological conditions, and may persist and spread via cultural transmission. This has implications for the concept of universality espoused in some versions of evolutionary psychology.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Ah-King, M. (2010). Flexible mate choice. In M. D. Breed & M. Janice (Eds.), Encyclopedia of animal behavior (pp. 730–737). Oxford: Academic.
Barber, N. (1995). The evolutionary psychology of physical attractiveness: sexual selection and human morphology. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16, 395–425.
Berliner, J. S. (1962). The feet of the natives are large: an essay on anthropology by an economist. Current Anthropology, 3(1), 47–77.
Brown, D. E. (1991). Human universals. NY: McGraw-Hill.
Buller, D. J. (2006). Adapting minds: Evolutionary psychology and the persistent quest for human nature. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–14. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00023992.
Buss, D. M. (1994). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating. NY: Basic Books.
Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. London: John Murray.
DeBruine, L. M., Jones, B. C., Crawford, J. R., Welling, L. L. M., & Little, A. C. (2010). The health of a nation predicts their mate preferences: cross-cultural variation in women’s preferences for masculinized male faces. Proceedings of the Royal Society London B, 277, 2405–2410. doi:10.1098/rspb.2009.2184.
Dickemann, M. (1981). Paternal confidence and dowry competition: A biocultural analysis of Purdah. In R. D. Alexander & D. W. Tinkle (Eds.), Natural selection and social behavior (pp. 417–438). NY: Chiron Press.
Dixson, B. J., Sagata, K., Linklater, W. L., & Dixson, A. F. (2010). Male preferences for female waist-to-hip ratio and body mass index in the highlands of Papua New Guinea. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 141(4), 620–625. doi:10.1002/ajpa.21181.
Ebrey, P. (1991). Shifts in marriage finance from the sixth to thirteenth century. In R. S. Watson & P. Ebrey (Eds.), Marriage and inequality in Chinese society (pp. 97–132). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Fessler, D. M. T. (2006). Steps toward an evolutionary psychology of a culture-dependent species. In P. Carruthers, S. Laurence, & S. Stich (Eds.), Innateness and the structure of the mind (Vol. II, pp. 91–117). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fessler, D. M. T., & Machery, E. (2012). Culture and cognition. In E. Margolis, R. Samuels, & S. Stich (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of philosophy of cognitive science (pp. 503–527). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fessler, D. M. T., Haley, K. J., & Lal, R. D. (2005a). Sexual dimorphism in foot length proportionate to stature. Annals Of Human Biology, 32(1), 44–59.
Fessler, D. M. T., Nettle, D., Afshar, Y., Pinheiro, I., Bolyanatz, A., Borgerhoff Mulder, M., et al. (2005b). A cross-cultural investigation of the role of foot size in physical attractiveness. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34(4), 267–276.
Fessler, D. M. T., Stieger, S., Asaridou, S. S., Bahia, U., Cravalho, M., de Barros, P., et al. (2012). Testing a postulated case of intersexual selection in humans: the role of foot size in judgments of physical attractiveness and age. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33, 147–164.
Firth, R. (1936). We, the Tikopia: A sociological study of kinship in primitive Polynesia. Boston: George Allen & Unwin, Ltd.
Firth, R. (1962). Comment on “The feet of the natives are large: an essay on anthropology by an economist” by J.S. Berliner. Current Anthropology, 3(1), 65.
Ford, C. S., & Beach, F. A. (1951). Patterns of sexual behavior. NY: Harper.
Gangestad, S. W., Haselton, M. G., & Buss, D. M. (2006). Evolutionary foundations of cultural variation: evoked culture and mate preferences. Psychological Inquiry, 17(2), 75–95.
Gates, H. (2008). Bound feet: how sexy were they? The History of the Family, 13, 58–70.
Gaulin, S. J. C. (1997). Cross-cultural patterns and the search for evolved psychological mechanisms. Ciba Foundation Symposium, 208, 195–207.
Geary, D. C., Vigil, J., & Byrd-Craven, J. (2004). Evolution of human mate choice. Journal of Sex Research, 41(1), 27–42.
Gottschall, J., Martin, J., Quish, H., & Rea, J. (2004). Sex differences in mate choice criteria are reflected in folktales from around the world and in historical European literature. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25(2), 102–112. doi:10.1016/s1090-5138(04)00007-8.
Jones, B. C., DeBruine, L. M., Little, A. C., Burriss, R. P., & Feinberg, D. R. (2007). Social transmission of face preferences among humans. Proceedings of the Royal Society London B, 274(1611), 899–903. doi:10.1098/rspb.2006.0205.
Kushnick, G. (2010a). Judgments of attractiveness based on foot size among the Karo Batak. Paper presented at the First International Conference on Indigenous and Cultural Psychology, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, July
Kushnick, G. (2010b). Resource competition and reproduction in Karo Batak villages. Human Nature, 21(1), 62–81. doi:10.1007/s12110-010-9082-4.
Laland, K. N., & Brown, G. R. (2011). Sense and nonsense: Evolutionary perspectives on human behaviour (2nd ed.). NY: Oxford University Press.
Levy, H. (1966). Chinese footbinding. NY: Walton Rawls.
Little, A. C., Jones, B. C., DeBruine, L. M., & Caldwell, C. A. (2011). Social learning and human mate preferences: a potential mechanism for generating and maintaining between-population diversity in attraction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society London B, 366(1563), 366–375. doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0192.
Marlowe, F. W. (2004). Mate preferences among Hadza hunter-gatherers. Human Nature, 15(4), 365–376.
Marlowe, F. W., & Wetsman, A. (2001). Preferred waist-to-hip ratio and ecology. Personality and Individual Differences, 30(3), 481–489. doi:10.1016/s0191-8869(00)00039-8.
Moorad, J. A., Promislow, D. E. L., Smith, K. R., & Wade, M. J. (2011). Mating system change reduces the strength of sexual selection in an American frontier population of the 19th century. Evolution and Human Behavior, 32, 147–155. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.10.004.
Norenzayan, A., & Heine, S. J. (2005). Psychological universals: what are they and how can we know? Psychological Bulletin, 131, 763–784.
Pillsworth, E. G. (2008). Mate preferences among the Shuar of Ecuador: trait rankings and peer evaluations. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29, 256–267. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2008.01.005.
Schaller, M., Norenzayan, A., Heine, S. J., Yamagishi, T., & Kameda, T. (Eds.). (2010). Evolution, culture, and the human mind. NY: Psychology Press.
Sear, R., & Marlowe, F. W. (2009). How universal are human mate choices? Size does not matter when Hadza foragers are choosing a mate. Biology Letters, 5(5), 606–609. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2009.0342.
Sefcek, J. A., Brumbach, B. H., Vasquez, G., & Miller, G. F. (2006). The evolutionary psychology of human mate choice: how ecology, genes, fertility, and fashion influence mating behavior. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 18, 125–182. doi:10.1300/J056v18n02_05.
Shackelford, T., Schmitt, D. P., & Buss, D. M. (2005). Universal dimensions of human mate preferences. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 447–458.
Singarimbun, M. (1975). Kinship, descent, and alliance among the Karo Batak. Berkeley: University of California.
Singh, D. (1993). Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness: role of waist-to-hip ratio. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(2), 293–307.
Smith, E. A. (2000). Three styles in the evolutionary analysis of human behavior. In N. C. Lee Cronk & W. Irons (Eds.), Human behavior and adaptation: An anthropological perspective (pp. 27–46). Hawthorne: Aldine de Gruyter.
Sugiyama, L. (2004). Is beauty in the context-sensitive adaptations of the beholder? Shiwiar use of waist-to-hip ratio in assessments of female mate value. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, 51–62.
Swami, V., & Furnham, A. (2007). The psychology of physical attractiveness. London: Routledge.
Swami, V., & Tovee, M. J. (2007). Differences in attractiveness preferences between observers in low- and high-resource environments in Thailand. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 5, 149–160.
Swami, V., & Tovee, M. J. (2012). The impact of psychological stress on men’s judgements of female body size. PLoS ONE, 7(8), e42593.
Swami, V., Henderson, G., Custance, D., & Tovée, M. J. (2011). A cross-cultural investigation of men’s judgments of female body weight in Britain and Indonesia. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42(1), 140–145. doi:10.1177/0022022110383319.
Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Symons, D. (1995). Beauty is in the adaptations of the beholder: The evolutionary psychology of human female sexual attractiveness. In P. R. Abramson & S. D. Pinkerton (Eds.), Sexual nature/sexual culture (pp. 80–118). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1989a). Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture, part I: theoretical considerations. Ethology and Sociobiology, 10, 29–49.
Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1989b). The innate versus the manifest: how universal does universal have to be? The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(1), 36–37.
Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1992). The psychological foundations of culture. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 19–124). NY: Oxford University Press.
Tovee, M. J., Swami, V., Furnham, A., & Mangalparsad, R. (2006). Changing perceptions of attractiveness as observers are exposed to a different culture. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27(6), 443–456. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2006.05.004.
Wetsman, A., & Marlowe, F. W. (1999). How universal are preferences for female waist-to-hip ratios? evidence from the Hadza of Tanzania. Evolution and Human Behavior, 20(4), 219–228. doi:10.1016/s1090-5138(99)00007-0.
Yu, D., & Shepard, G. (1998). Is beauty in the eye of the beholder? Nature, 396, 321–322.
Thanks to Dan Fessler for inviting me to participate in the study. Thanks to Lasma and Evi Sinaga for helping to collect data. Eric A. Smith provided invaluable feedback on the analyses, as did the participants in Biological Anthropology Seminar Series (BASS) in the Department of Anthropology, University of Washington, and the First International Conference on Indigenous and Cultural Psychology in Yogyakarta, Indonesia.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
(DOCX 30.7 kb)
About this article
Cite this article
Kushnick, G. Why Do the Karo Batak Prefer Women with Big Feet?. Hum Nat 24, 268–279 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-013-9171-2
- Mating preferences
- Evolutionary psychology
- Karo Batak