Variable Preferences for
Sexual Dimorphism in
Stature (SDS) Might Not
Be Universal: Data From
a Semi-Nomad Population
(Himba) in Namibia
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology
43(1) 32­–37
© The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0022022110395140
jccp.sagepub.com
Piotr Sorokowski1, Agnieszka Sorokowska1,5,
Bernhard Fink2,3, and Mara Mberira4
Abstract
In Western societies women prefer relatively taller men as potential partners, whereas men prefer
women to be slightly shorter than them. Here we report data on relative height preferences
in a traditional ethnic group, i.e. the Himba, in which men and women do not show such a
strong preference. Thus our data challenges the view of a universal preference for taller men, by
suggesting that height preferences may be influenced by environmental and ecological conditions.
Keywords
body height; sexual dimorphism in stature (SDS); mate preferences; Himba
Evolutionary psychologists argue that body height is one of the most important characteristics of
male physical attractiveness and may thus serve as an initial criterion for women to decide upon
further interest and possible engagement in courtship. Body height is strongly sexually dimorphic across all human groups such that men are on average taller than women (Gray & Wolfe, 1980).
This sexual dimorphism is developed around puberty through the effect of testosterone on bone
growth (Antoszewska & Wolanski, 1992). Thus, the female preference for taller men might
indicate that women derive certain cues from height that are associated with testosterone and that
could provide them with certain fitness benefits. For example, Pawlowski, Dunbar, and Lipowicz
(2000) argue that there is active female selection for stature in male partners by showing that
taller men are reproductively more successful than shorter men.
The association between male height and women’s perception of their attractiveness has been
confirmed through both experimental studies (e.g., Graziano, Brothen, & Berscheid, 1978;
1
Institute of Psychology, University of Wroclaw, Wroclaw, Poland
Department of Sociobiology/Anthropology, University of Goettingen, Göttingen, Germany
3
Courant Research Center Evolution of Social Behavior, University of Goettingen, Göttingen, Germany
4
University of Namibia
5
Faculty of Management, Computer Science and Finance, Wroclaw University of Economics, Wroclaw, Poland.
2
Corresponding Author:
Piotr Sorokowski, University of Wroclaw, Dawida 1, Wroclaw 50-527 Poland.
Email: [email protected]
Sorokowski et al.
33
Shepperd & Strathman, 1989) and the analysis of personal (“lonely hearts”) advertisements
(e.g., Lynn & Shurgot, 1984; Salska et al., 2008). Men, in turn, at least in Western societies,
seem to have a preference for women who are slightly shorter than them. Based on data of matrimonial offers in the United States, Cameron, Oskamp, and Sparks (1977) showed that men
were searching for women who were smaller or around average height in the respective population, regardless of their own height. In a study of “lonely hearts” advertisements, Pawlowski and
Koziel (2002) found a negative correlation between women’s body height and the number of
men (“candidates”) who were interested in these women (see also Shepperd & Strathman, 1989).
Recent research has emphasized the significance of relative rather than absolute body height
when studying men’s and women’s height preferences in a romantic relationship. Such research
involves investigation of preferences towards the difference between one’s own height and the
height of a preferred partner (sexual dimorphism in stature [SDS]; Fink, Neave, Brewer, &
Pawlowski, 2007; Pawlowski, 2003). Pawlowski (2003) studied SDS preferences in a Polish
sample and found that both men and women adjust their SDS preferences according to their own
body height. Moreover, no participant chose the option of a woman being slightly taller than a
man. Similar results were reported by Fink et al. (2007) in a study of German, Austrian, and
British men and women, thus confirming the finding of Pawlowski (2003). Both studies argue
that preference adjustment according to one’s own height could be regarded as a mechanism to
increase the pool of potential partners. However, although these studies argue, to some extent,
for a universal preference pattern with men being taller than women, they were only studied in
Western societies.
To this date, only one study has reported data that challenge the universality of the “male-taller
norm.” Sear and Marlowe (2009) reported that in the Hadza society (Tanzania), in 8.2% of
207 marriages the wife was taller than the husband. This is not different from the proportion of
female-taller marriages than one would expect by chance, whereas the proportion of femaletaller marriages in the United Kingdom, for example, is significantly lower than expected by
chance. It is important to note, though, that Sear and Marlow’s (2009) study investigated height
patterns in actual mate choice, not mate preferences like almost all of the other studies. This difference, as the authors note, may be important as preferences do not take into account the costs
and constraints involved in acquiring a partner, such as availability of a partner and one’s own
mate value.
Here we report data on men’s and women’s SDS preferences of a nomadic pastoral traditional ethnic group (i.e., the Himba of northern Namibia) that question the universality of the
“male-taller norm.”
Method
Participants
The present study was conducted among the Himba (Ovahimba) tribe, a nomadic pastoral traditional ethnic group living in the northern part of Namibia (Africa). The Himba are one of few
tribes in Africa who still preserve their traditional lifestyle (Malan, 2004). Our participants were
from Opuwo and villages around Opuwo, a region, which is only rarely visited by tourists.
Our sample comprised a total of 66 women aged between 15 and 80 years (M = 39.5, SD = 18.8)
and 42 men between 17 and 76 years (M = 50.3, SD = 18). Age was provided by self-report (often
the participants did not know exactly how old they were). The majority of the group was married
(95% of males and 74% of females) and 72% of the men had more than one wife. Mean height
of male participants was 174.8 cm (range: 161-186; SD = 7.33), and of female participants
34
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 43(1)
165.8 cm (range: 154-182; SD = 5.54). All participants received a fee of some US$3 for their
participation.
Procedure
Participants were shown six pairs of silhouettes, depicting an opposite sex couple differing in
SDS, calculated as the ratio of male height divided by female height. The SDS ratios ranged
from 1.19 (i.e., the man being much taller than the woman) to 0.96 (i.e., the woman being
slightly taller than the man), decreasing in steps of 0.05 (see for details on the material, Fink
et al., 2007; Pawlowski, 2003).
The participants were told that each pair represented partners in a romantic partnership where
the partners differed in their relative body height. They were then asked to choose (a) the
pair they would prefer as for their own (preferred) relationship and (b) the pair that corresponded
to the actual size difference between them and their actual partner (if they were in a close relationship). Participants who were currently not in a close relationship were allowed to skip the
second question, and men who had more than one partner were assessing the estimated average
height of their partners. After completing this task, the participants were measured for their body
height (in cm).
Results
Men’s Preferences
Distribution of SDS choices was not random (χ² = 23.9, df = 5, p < .001, V = .15). The largest
proportion of male participants had a preference for an SDS of 1.0 (31%), i.e., that where men
and women were of equal height, followed by a considerable number of males who preferred
being partner in a romantic couple with an SDS of 0.96 (21.4%), i.e., where the woman was
slightly taller than the man. SDS pairs where the men were taller than the women were less frequently preferred (SDS = 1.04 (16.6%), SDS = 1.09 (14.3%), SDS = 1.14 (11.9%), SDS = 1.19
(4.8%)) (Figure 1). A two-way test for differences between two proportions indicated that the pair
with an SDS = 1.0 was preferred significantly more frequently than the one with an SDS = 1.14
(p = .03, z = 2.1) and SDS = 1.19 (p < .01, z = 3.1). A close to significant difference was found
for the pair with an SDS = 1.09 (p = .07, z = 1.8). Moreover the pair depicting an SDS = 0.96 was
preferred more frequently than the one with an SDS = 1.19 (p = .02, z = 2.3). All other differences
failed to reach statistical significance.
Women’s Preferences
Like in men, the distribution of women’s SDS choices was not random (χ² = 25.9, df = 5,
p < .0001, V = .16). The largest proportion of female participants had a preference for an SDS = 1.0
(33,8%), i.e., for the figures where men and women were of equal height. The frequencies of
choices of other SDS pairs were lower (SDS = 0.96 (13.8%), SDS = 1.14 (18.5%), SDS = 1.04
(13.8%), SDS = 1.19 (13.8%), SDS = 1.09 (6.2%)) (Figure 1). Men who were of equal height to
women (i.e., those with an SDS = 1.0) were preferred significantly more often in comparison to
all other SDS figures (SDS = 0.96: p < .01, z = 2.7; SDS = 1.04: p <. 01, z = 2.7; SDS = 1.09:
p <. 001, z = 3.9; SDS = 1.14: p = 0.05, z = 2.0; SDS = 1.19: p < .01, z = 2.7). Also, an SDS = 1.14
was preferred more often than an SDS = 1.09 (p = .03, z = 2.1). All the other differences failed to
reach significance.
35
Sorokowski et al.
Frequency of choices [%]
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
Male choices
10.0%
Female choices
5.0%
0.0%
1.19
1.14
1.09
1.04
1.00
0.96
SDS
Figure 1. Percentages of SDS Figures Preferred by Men and Women
Note: SDS values > 1 denote pairs with men being taller than women, and SDS of 1 refers to a pair where the man
and the woman are of equal height, and an SDS < 1 depicts a pair where the woman is taller than the man.
To test whether the preferred SDS was affected by one’s own body height, an ANCOVA was
conducted, separately for males and females, with body height as the dependent variable, SDS
preference as a factor, and weight and age as covariates. The adjustment of preferences in relation to own height was not significant (men: F5,34 = 0.18, p = .97; women F5,57 = 1.39, p = .24).
However, we found that women who chose the highest SDS (woman considerably shorter than
man) were shorter (162.4 cm) than other groups (from 165.9 to 170.3 cm). Still, the only significant difference in height was found in women that preferred SDS 1.19 and SDS 1.09 (p < 0.01,
Tukey’s LSD test). Considering age and weight, this did not significantly affect these results (all
ps > .05). Similar results were obtained with reports of SDS of actual partners as dependent variables. An analysis of correlations confirmed that the observed preferences were not significantly
correlated with either own height (for males: r = -.09, p = .6; for females: r = .01, p = .9), age
(for males: r = - .19, p = .2; for females: r = -.02, p = .8), or weight of the participants (for males:
r = - .23, p = .2; for females: r = -.05, p =.7).
To check whether the observed preferences matched the ones in actual relationships in the
Himba, the distributions of “choices of ideal partners” and “real partners” were compared. Among
men and women who were in a relationship (N = 89), the distribution of choices of particular SDS
figures representing dimorphism in their partnerships was as follows: SDS 1.19 (13%), SDS 1.14
(17%), SDS 1.09 (10%), SDS 1.04 (20%), SDS 1.0 (31%), and SDS 0.96 (11%). This distribution
differed significantly from preferences of the male participants (χ2 = 21, df = 5, p < .001, V = .14),
whereas it resembled preferences of the female participants (χ2 = 4.5, df = 5, p = .48, V = .07).
We also tested whether the distribution of percentage of choices of each SDS pair obtained
from the Himba people differed significantly from those of European samples reported in Fink
et al. (2007). It was found that both male (χ2 = 598.9, df = 5, p < .0001, V = .77) and female participants (χ2 = 593.6, df = 5, p < .0001, V = .77) from Namibia had significantly different preferences towards presented SDS figures than the European sample.
Discussion
Our results show that Himba preferences for SDS differ from preferences in European samples
(Fink et al., 2007). In the Himba tribe a significant percentage of participants (over 30%)
36
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 43(1)
preferred partners’ body height to be similar to their own, this being true for both men and
women. However, in comparison to almost all previous findings (Fink et al., 2007; Pawlowski,
2003; Pawlowski & Koziel, 2002; Pierce, 1996; Salska et al., 2008; Shepperd & Strathman, 1989;
Swami et al., 2008), many Himba men preferred relatively taller women, which cannot be
explained through the actual SDS in this tribe. The most common response in our sample (for
both men and women) was a preference for the pair where men were taller than women (about
50% of participants). Some 30% of the sample preferred no height difference, and about 20%
preferred the pair where the man is shorter than the woman. While this pattern basically follows
the one reported in Western samples, it is noteworthy that in the Himba the “male-taller-norm” is
less pronounced.
Moreover, and contrary to previous reports (Fink et al., 2007; Pawlowski, 2003), we found no
evidence for an adjustment of SDS preferences in relation to one’s own height in women, as only
the shortest women had preferences for a partner who was much taller than them. In men, even
the tallest participants expressed preferences towards women taller than them, which is contrary to
results obtained in Western cultures (e.g., Fink et al., 2007; Pawlowski, 2003).
It is known that people’s variation in body height is affected not only by genetic differences but
also by environmental influences. Lower height in humans can result from malnutrition, stress, or
various infectious diseases (Beard & Blaser, 2002) and may therefore be a cue to low “quality” of
an individual (in terms of health). This could be a reason why in adverse environmental conditions
such as in the study site of the semi-desert areas of Kaokoland, northern Namibia, short women
were not preferred. Men in Western countries choose female partners shorter than themselves possibly because they do not face the ecological constraints that are present in other societies, such as
the Himba in Africa. Hence, height preferences of men and women in highly demanding environments, as in northern Namibia, may be shifted compared to the ones observed in Western cultures
because of resources other than what is expressed through body height. This assumption seems to
be supported also by the study on actual mate choice conducted among other indigenous society of
the Hadza people (Sear & Marlowe, 2009). Thus, the reported preferences of studies in Western
societies (Fink et al., 2007; Pawlowski, 2003) towards women shorter than men might be biased by
a socioculturally affected stereotype that is altered by environmental and ecological conditions.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared that they had no conflicts of interests with respect to their authorship or the publication of this article.
Financial Disclosure/Funding
The first author (P.S.) was supported by Foundation for Polish Science and a grant of the University of
Wroclaw.
References
Antoszewska, A., & Wolanski, N. (1992). Sexual dimorphism in newborns and adults. Studies in Human
Ecology, 10, 23-38.
Beard, A. S., & Blaser, M. J. (2002). The ecology of height. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 45, 475-498.
Cameron, C., Oskamp, S., & Sparks W. (1977). Courtship American style: Newspaper ads. The Family
Coordinator, 26, 27-30.
Fink, B., Neave, N., Brewer, G., & Pawlowski, B. (2007). Variable preferences for sexual dimorphism in
stature (SDS): Further evidence for an adjustment in relation to own height. Personality and Individual
Differences, 43, 2249-2257.
Gray, J. P., & Wolfe, L. D. (1980). Height and sexual dimorphism of stature among human societies.
American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 53, 441-456.
Sorokowski et al.
37
Graziano, W. G., Brothen, T., & Berscheid, E. (1978). Height and attraction: Do men see women eye to
eye? Journal of Personality, 46, 128-145.
Lynn, M., & Shurgot, B. A. (1984). Responses to lonely hearts advertisements: Effects of reported physical
attractiveness, physique, and coloration. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10, 349-357.
Malan, J. S. (2004). Peoples of Namibia. Windhouk: Rhino Publishers.
Pierce, C. A. (1996). Body height and romantic attraction: A meta-analytic test of the male-taller norm.
Social Behavior and Personality, 24, 143-149.
Pawlowski, B. (2003). Variable preferences for sexual dimorphism in height as a strategy for increasing
the pool of potential partners in humans. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 270, 709-712.
Pawlowski, B., Dunbar, R. I. M., & Lipowicz, A. (2000). Evolutionary fitness: Tall men have more reproductive success. Nature, 403, 156.
Pawlowski, B., & Koziel, S. (2002). The impact of traits offered in personal advertisements on response
rates. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23, 139-149.
Salska, I., Frederick, D. A., Pawlowski, B., Reilly, A. H., Laird, K. T., & Rudd, N. A. (2008). Conditional
mate preferences: Factors influencing preferences for height. Personality and Individual Differences,
44, 203-215.
Sear, R., & Marlowe, F. W. (2009). How universal are human mate choices? Size doesn’t matter when
Hadza foragers are choosing a mate. Biology Letters, 5, 606-609.
Shepperd, J., & Strathman, A. (1989). Attractiveness and height: The role of stature in dating preference,
frequency of dating and perceptions of attractiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15,
617-627.
Swami, V., Furnham, A., Balakumar, N., Williams, C., Canaway, K., & Stanistreet, D. (2008). Factors
influencing preferences for height: A replication and extension. Personality and Individual Differences,
45, 395-400.