Variation and Persistence in Latin American Beliefs About Evil Eye

Abstract

In a comparative study of evil eye (mal de ojo), we demonstrate a methodology appropriate for the study of cultural transmission of beliefs. We studied four diverse populations with historical links to Spain: Puerto Ricans in Connecticut, Mexican Americans in south Texas, Mexicans in Guadalajara, and rural Guatemalans. Using agreement on ideas or themes about evil eye within and across sites, we identify specific ideas that may have persisted through time. The relevance of specific themes was estimated with a cultural consensus analysis. Mal de ojo was widely recognized in each community and higher community prevalence was associated with higher agreement on reported causes, symptoms, and treatments. Each community exhibited a distinct model for ojo, although models were highly similar between sites. Agreement among individuals and across communities suggests a pan-regional description for mal de ojo and possible content of older versions of these beliefs in Latin America.

Keywords

evil eye mal de ojo Latin America/Latino consensus model age–area hypothesis

Introduction

The diffusion of culture—material and non-material—has been a focus of research in three of the four disciplines in our field (archeology, linguistics, and cultural anthropology). This study demonstrates a methodology appropriate for the study of cultural transmission of beliefs, an aspect of non-material culture. Here, we describe a comparative study of a single culture pattern, evil eye (mal de ojo or ojo), across four populations with historical links to 16th-century Spain. Beliefs about evil eye were most likely brought to Latin America by Spanish settlers and handed down within families and communities for centuries. Using contemporary data, we focus on consistency within and across regions to make inferences about the content of evil eye beliefs that may have persisted through time. We identify relevant thematic content in contemporary descriptions, and use agreement across people and regions to identify shared ideas that may have been part of older beliefs about mal de ojo.

Evil eye, believed to be caused by greed or envy, is a cultural phenomenon that is widespread across Indo-European and Semitic-derived cultures (Dundes, 1981; Levy & Zumwalt, 2002; Maloney, 1976). The basic concept is that one can cause harm to another, either intentionally or unintentionally, by expressing or thinking about praise or jealousy. In a detailed global study, Roberts (1976) suggested that evil eye may have developed in India or in the Near East and Europe and may be thousands of years old. Cultural transmission through migration and diffusion is thought to be responsible for the occurrence of the evil eye culture pattern around the world. Beliefs about evil eye were common in 16th-century Spain (archival sources contain descriptions of cases of evil eye; de Castañega, 1946), and were probably brought to Spain by the Moors. Beliefs about evil eye were then most likely exported from Spain to Latin America (Foster, 1953) as the Spanish colonized the New World.

In contemporary Latin American populations, evil eye continues to be widely recognized. Mexican Americans in the southwestern United States believe mal de ojo is caused by the glances or power of stronger persons acting on a weaker person, particularly a child (Schreiber & Homiak, 1981; Trotter, 2005; Trotter & Chavira, 1997). As with other Latin American folk illnesses, mal de ojo has a social dimension and can be caused by someone who has been more familiar than social and cultural norms permit (Rubel, 1960). Symptoms include severe headaches, high fever, fretfulness, and in the case of children, weeping (Rubel, 1960). Treatments often attempt to find the person responsible to break the “spell.” If this is not possible, a cure is attempted using an egg rubbed over the patient’s body, along with prayer (Rubel, 1960). The egg is put into a glass of water and placed under the bed of the affected person to drain off the disturbing power. Ojo is not considered fatal, although if not treated or treated incorrectly, it may develop into ojo pasado (characterized by vomiting and severe coughing), which can be fatal (Rubel, 1960).

Similar descriptions are obtained from contemporary indigenous and non-indigenous Latin Americans. Zapotecs (Sault, 1990) and Tarascans (Garro, 2000) in Mexico and the indigenous populations in Patzun (Mendez Dominguez, 1983) and Santa Maria de Jesus, Sacatepequez (Burleigh, Dardano, & Cruz, 1990) in Guatemala report mal de ojo. Mal de ojo is also recognized by non-indigenous populations in rural (Weller, 1983) and urban Guatemala (Solien de Gonzalez, 1964). Among Puerto Ricans, belief in mal de ojo is reported to be widespread and is the diagnosis used for a range of childhood symptoms that appear with a sudden onset (Harwood, 1981). More recently, beliefs in mal de ojo were reported by Central American immigrants in Washington, D.C. (Murguia, Peterson, & Zea, 2003).

This study describes intra- and inter-cultural variation in contemporary beliefs about evil eye. First, we aim to describe the “culture pattern” (Kroeber, 1948) within contemporary Latino populations, where pattern refers to the set of related ideas or behaviors about evil eye, a complex of cultural material that acts as a coherent unit or system (Chick, 2002; Roberts, Strand, & Burmeister, 1974; Romney & Moore, 1999, 2001). We use an “explanatory model” framework, which focuses on causes, symptoms, and treatments of illnesses (Kleinman, Eisenberg, & Good, 1978) and collected descriptions of causes, who is at risk, symptoms, and treatments for evil eye. We then examine patterns of within-community variation to see if there is consistency across individual descriptions of evil eye. We also examine whether community prevalence of evil eye is related to consistency and detail in the descriptions.

Second, we aim to identify possible longstanding core elements or themes in community culture patterns concerning evil eye. Elements in the evil eye belief system that are shared across regions may reflect older beliefs. More than 80 years ago, Wissler (1927, 1928) presented the age–area concept as a device for inferring time sequences from geographic distribution of related culture traits throughout a culture area (Kroeber, 1931). In this formulation, the “center” of a culture area radiates cultural content to surrounding areas, which then radiates the content to more peripheral areas. Meanwhile, the center may change its content, but older forms may be evident in peripheral areas. For example, the distribution of pottery styles in the southwestern United States matched stratigraphic evidence for age (Wissler, in Freed & Freed 1983). The more widely distributed elements within a culture area were the older elements; and the oldest versions of culture patterns appeared on the periphery of a culture area. Elements of a culture pattern may be dropped or added through time, but elements shared across a wide geographical region would reflect the older, original pattern. Here, we focus on the flow of evil eye beliefs from Spain to the New World and assume that shared features in the widely dispersed explanatory models of mal de ojo may be some of the older features.

The contributions of Wissler were criticized and largely ignored in anthropology (Freed & Freed, 1983). Critiques of his approach have included examples where the age–area concept did not hold and examples where Wissler had over-stated the geographical–age relationship present in cultural data (Dixon, discussed in Kroeber, 1931). Kroeber notes, however, that the age–area relationship is limited to the distribution of related traits and does not hold for inferences regarding the relative age of unrelated culture traits (e.g., mud-brick dwellings and bronze use). Also, the distribution of culture traits may not follow a predictable pattern of spread or diffusion from a culture “center” as Wissler suggested, but age–area inferences are supported within a historical context and geographic area (Kroeber, 1931).

Despite criticism, the age–area hypothesis and the idea of culture areas may still be useful for conceptualizing the flow of cultural ideas across space and time. Bashkow (2004) recently argued that the idea of culture areas may be useful for describing areas of cultural concentration with isobars of increasing and decreasing cultural influence. “Boundaries” of such areas are permeable and open to the flow of ideas and influence and are not synonymous with national–political boundaries. Urban (2010) also recently described the “motion,” the waxing and waning of salience, and exposure across time, of specific culture patterns (songs and the importation of French words into English), as empirical evidence of the changing nature of culture patterns and their influence.

The age–area hypothesis continues to be of use in reconstructing historical relations in the study of cultigens and anthropological linguistics. The historical pathways of bananas in Africa were re-interpreted using linguistic regularities in the distribution of words for bananas to conclude that bananas were most likely introduced on the Western coast of Africa (not the East) along with yams and other foods in the “tropical tool kit” proposed by Murdock (Blench, 2009). Similarly, the distribution of linguistic forms for the word for cacao throughout Latin America suggests that the change in economic importance of cacao associated with the Jesuits resulted in the importation of a new term for cacao in Ka’apor language spoken in the Gurupi and Turiaqu river basins in eastern Amazonia, Brazil (Balée, 2003).

The study of cultural values among immigrants also illustrates the dispersion of older aspects of culture. Oscar Handlin’s (1973) study of immigrants to the United States describes “old world” (European) values and how immigrants conserve elements of their cultures, such as religion. The immigrants held onto their old ways because they resided in ghettos and were alienated from mainstream society. Identity and alienation may be related to maintenance of older culture patterns. Meanwhile, the old-world cultures from which the immigrants came (the Irish, the Jews, the Italians, the Poles, etc.) evolved, as all cultures do. This process would predict that earlier cultural features would be preserved in immigrant communities.

We feel that the age–area hypothesis may deserve new consideration and explore its relevance with regard to regional variation and historical elements in beliefs about evil eye. This article describes the contemporary set of beliefs or themes about evil eye in each of four Latino communities and identifies thematic elements in those community culture patterns that are shared across regions and thus may have persisted over time. As there are no systematic data on evil eye from 16th-century Spain, we rely on assumptions and techniques from historical linguistics and theories regarding the distribution of culture traits to attempt to estimate older beliefs. Similarly, Swadesh (1950) estimated a proto-Salishan vocabulary from the percent of shared vocabulary between Salishan languages based only on synchronous information (see also Kronenfeld & Thomas, 1983; Weller & Buchholtz, 1986). Here, we attempt a similar reconstruction based on the sharing of descriptive themes across populations and draw on the age–area hypothesis and linguistic methods. We acknowledge the limitations of such inferences, due to the possibility that evil eye features can be added or dropped over time in each of the populations. We also examine whether descriptions from geographically closer samples or samples with the strongest historical link (e.g., Mexico and Mexican Americans in Texas) have the highest similarity in the content of their explanatory models (Dow & Eff, 2008; Naroll, 1961).

Method

Setting

We studied four populations to sample the diversity in beliefs within and across Latino communities. The localities include Puerto Ricans in a small city in Connecticut, Mexicans and Mexican Americans in a small town in Texas on the Mexican border, Mexicans in a large city in central Mexico, and Guatemalans living in small rural villages on the Pacific Coast of Guatemala. These sites differ in the prevalence of specific diseases and access to care. Health care in the United States and other developed nations focuses more on chronic diseases. Puerto Rico and Mexico have made the demographic transition to greater longevity and now also struggle with chronic diseases, whereas infectious diseases are primary health issues in Guatemala. Mexico has a nationally organized health care system that provides heath services to many workers, whereas the United States and Puerto Rico do not. Access to care in rural Guatemala is a function of the distance to government health post and/or pharmacy, and in this case, it is more than a half hour by dirt road. The sites represent a great diversity in social and political histories as well as health contexts and challenges and have the potential to maximize differences in beliefs and practices concerning mal de ojo.

Each of the populations derive part of their current culture and religious traditions from those of Spain. In Puerto Rico, indigenous cultures largely did not survive the immediate conquest period. Immigration from Spain, as well as populations originally brought as slaves from Africa, resulted in the present population, which is a mix of Spanish and African influences. Puerto Rico became a possession of the United States in 1989, and residents became U.S. citizens in 1917. Large-scale migration to the United States mainland began after World War II, initially to New York City, and later to smaller cities in the northeast (Harwood, 1981). Guatemalan indigenous groups strongly resisted the Spanish colonizers, as well as later attempts on the part of the Guatemalan government to integrate them into national life. Although many aspects of their current culture derive from those of Spain, these are built over strong and enduring pre-Columbian Mayan traditions. Areas of west Mexico, the site of contemporary Guadalajara, were somewhat separate from the more well-known pre-Columbian cultures of the Valley of Mexico, such as the Aztecs. Nevertheless, in contemporary Jalisco, most cultural patterns follow those of larger Mexican mestizo culture; however, the political separation/orientation somewhat apart from that of central Mexico has persisted. Mexican American cultures in the contemporary southwest of the United States derive from a variety of influences and periods of migration from Mexico. In Texas, the original settlements were established by those who accompanied the original explorers of the area. The area became part of the United States in 1845, following the Mexican American War. Migration from northern Mexico to areas in what is now Texas has continued over the period since then. The culture of this area combines that of Mexico with strong influences from the culture of Texas, as well as that of the mainstream United States.

We selected the communities for study based on the long-term research and participant observation by one or more of the authors at each site and then selected people for interviewing from the community at-large. In rural Guatemala on the Pacific Coastal Plain, in the Department of Esquintla, four small rural communities (with a population of 500) were selected. Residents are Spanish-speakers of mixed European–Mayan Indian descent and support themselves with wage labor on sugar cane and cotton plantations. In Mexico, Guadalajara (metropolitan area population 3.7 million, 2000) was selected. It is the second largest city in Mexico and is a modern industrial city. Residents of Guadalajara come from both rural and urban backgrounds and are predominately Spanish-speakers of mixed ancestry. In the United States, Edinburg (2000 population 48,465), Texas, was selected because it is located on the Mexican border in the Lower Rio Grande Valley and is predominately Mexican American. The region is agricultural and includes one of the three poorest Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas in the United States. Hartford (2000 population 121,578), Connecticut, in the Northeast United States was selected because approximately one third of the population is Puerto Rican. It is a medium-sized industrial and commercial center.

Development of Interview Materials

To understand local beliefs about ojo, a two-step process was used. First, open-ended interviews collected descriptions of evil eye and second, the responses to those interviews were used to design a structured interview to facilitate comparisons across people and sites. The initial phase of interviews elicited salient ideas, descriptions, and themes relevant to mal de ojo to capture the breadth of individual descriptions in each community. To do this, descriptive and free-listing interviews were conducted with 15 to 21 people at each site. These interviews collected ideas about who is susceptible to ojo and possible causes, symptoms, and treatments. We use “theme” to refer to the ideas, descriptions, and features associated with evil eye. Themes mentioned by at least 10% of people at each site appear in Table 1 (the number of people mentioning each theme appears to the left of each theme).

Table 1.

Mal de ojo Themes Mentioned in Open-ended Interviews.

Who is susceptible	Causes	Symptoms	Treatments
Esquintla, Guatemala (n = 20)
12 infants 7 young children 6 those with weak blood	4 from a strong stare 8 people with strong blood 14 drunken men 6 pregnant women 7 menstruating women 6 sweaty people	18 crying alot 17 fever 8 restlessness 8 diarrhea 5 boils 4 hot head 3 vomiting 2 headache 2 limp neck 2 bad smelling head	20 passing an egg over the body 14 with herbs 12 liquor and a cigar 8 allspice 7 rubbing alcohol 17 cure at home 8 midwife-healer 5 older women 16 can die without treatment
Guadalajara, Mexico (n = 21)
21 children	9 a strong stare 3 a handsome child 2 jealousy	13 vomiting 11 diarrhea 8 weepy eyes that do not stop 6 eye problems 6 fever 4 nervous and sad 2 headache	9 with an egg 4 doctor or medicine 3 massage 2 spearmint or herbal tea 2 prayers
Edinburg, Texas (n = 20)
8 everyone 7 Hispanics, Mexicans 6 those who believe in it 4 some who stands out 2 adults 2 animals	15 staring when you attract attention for prettiness/ugliness 5 envy, jealousy, anger 5 person who gives ojo has very strong eyes	15 headaches 14 fever 6 body aches 4 stomach ache 4 nausea 4 weight loss/loss of appetite 3 babies cry 3 red eyes, watery eyes 3 vomiting 3 tired weak	20 sweep with egg/Barrida 14 can not prevent it 7 person who complimented you must touch you 6 prevent it with ojo de venado 3 sweep with special herbs 2 prayer
Hartford, Connecticut (n = 15)
10 children (defenseless) 8 babies (defenseless) 2 newborns	4 adult places curse on baby 3 saying a baby is beautiful without saying God Bless You 2 ill-meaning envious person	7 loss of appetite 5 gets very sick 4 crying 4 child does not get better when you visit doctor 3 fever 3 diarrhea 2 vomiting 2 will not be active	7 go to someone who can drive out curse 6 rub baby’s body with oil and different herbs; say prayers to drive curse out of baby’s body

Note. The number of people mentioning each theme appears to the left of each theme.

Then, in a second phase of interviews, a structured interview was designed so that people at each site could be asked about all themes, allowing for detailed comparisons across people and sites. The structured interview included all themes in Table 1 (regardless of which site generated the theme), as well as themes from published descriptions of Latin American folk illnesses and a range of bodily symptoms (adapted from the Cornell Medical Index by Brodman, Erdmann, & Wolff, 1949; Finkler, 1981). We also sought feedback from experts in the field about content.¹ The final interview consisted of 128 questions about evil eye: 43 questions on causes and susceptibility, 41 possible symptoms, and 44 questions on treatments and healers. We attempted to balance the number of positive and negative questions. Additional questions covered socio-demographic characteristics and enquired about personal experience with evil eye to determine community lifetime prevalence of ojo. Interview materials were translated into the Spanish dialect appropriate for each site and English.

Procedure

To validate impressions from the initial open-ended interviews and gain a more representative picture of ojo beliefs in each community, the structured interview was conducted with a larger, more representative community sample at each site. A multistage random sampling strategy was used, where first a village, neighborhood, or census tract was selected, and then blocks and households. In Hartford, two census tracts with the highest concentration of Puerto Ricans were used, and blocks and households were randomly selected from within those tracts. In Edinburg, census tracts were used to sample blocks and then households. In Guadalajara, three neighborhoods were selected that represented middle, working, and poor socioeconomic classes. Then, blocks were randomly chosen within each neighborhood and a household randomly selected from each block. In rural Esquintla, four villages were selected and an equal number of households selected from each village, from the center of the villages to the periphery (to capture economic variation). A target or quota sample size of 40 (41 in Texas) was designated for each site.

Local interviewers conducted the interviews in the language preferred by the respondent (English, Spanish, or a combination). Only adults who heard of the illness and believed that it existed were invited to participate. Respondents had to self-identify as Mexican, Mexican American, or Chicano in Texas, or as Puerto Rican in Connecticut. Assuming that women had more responsibility for health, especially children’s health, the preferred respondent was the female head of household. Data collection was carried out in the mid-1990s.

Analysis

A cultural consensus analysis was used to determine the degree of consistency in individual responses to the 128 questions and to identify beliefs about ojo shared within each community. This approach provided information on the likelihood that beliefs were shared among community members and identified the more salient descriptors concerning ojo within each community sample. Although the majority answer to each question can be used to estimate beliefs (D’Andrade, 1987), moderate agreement among respondents is a prerequisite to a meaningful aggregation of responses. Cultural consensus analysis (Batchelder & Romney, 1988; Romney, Weller, & Batchelder, 1986; Weller, 2007) can be used to determine whether or not responses are sufficiently homogeneous to describe responses as a single belief system and to estimate the culturally correct answers to questions. Knowledge is not assumed to be uniformly and universally shared, but when there is high agreement or consistency across participants, responses can be described with a single set of answers. The consensus model provides an estimate of the culturally preferred answer to each question and a probability value indicating the degree of confidence in each answer. The model also estimates the degree to which each person knows (cultural competence or cultural knowledge scores) or shares the group normative beliefs (the set of culturally preferred answers). Cultural knowledge scores range from 0 to 1 and are also expressed as percentages, where higher scores indicate greater knowledge or correspondence with group beliefs.

When using the cultural consensus model, a few parameters must be specified. For this analysis, the covariance method was used to measure the similarity between individual response profiles because it is less sensitive to response bias (Batchelder & Romney, 1988; Weller & Mann, 1997). Also, a conservative level of confidence was used to classify the answers. Cultural consensus models were estimated separately for each community and also for all four communities together. A confidence level (Bayesian posteriori probability level) of >.99 was used to classify answers for each sample (n = 40) and >.999 was used for all samples together (n = 160).

Comparisons between communities were made based on the relevance of each theme for each community. A cultural consensus analysis estimated the likelihood that each of the 128 themes was relevant for each community. Themes also were classified by the percent of respondents that endorsed each answer: (1) themes with a strong majority, consistently reported by community members (66% or more reported the theme as relevant); (2) those judged by some respondents to be part of the explanatory model and judged by others to be absent (34%-65% reported the theme); and (3) those consistently judged as absent with a strong negative majority (0%-33% reported the theme). Thus, themes in the explanatory models were considered as two (present/absent) or three categories (continuum). Similarity between communities was estimated for dichotomous models with Yule’s Q (equivalent to Goodman and Kruskal’s gamma; the odds ratio expressed as a −1.0 to +1.0 correlation) and a simple count of matching themes. For the three category continuum, Goodman and Kruskal’s gamma (an ordinal correlation coefficient, ranging from 0.0 no association to 1.0 perfect monotonic association) compared the relative presence of themes between samples.

Results

In total, 236 people were interviewed. In the first phase, open-ended interviews with 76 people (15-21 from each locality) elicited descriptions of causes, symptoms, treatments, and so on for mal de ojo. Then, in the second phase of interviewing, 160 people who had heard of ojo and believed in it, were interviewed (approximately 40 per site) with the structured interview. Detailed comparisons within and across sites are based on the structured interviews. Women were approximately 40 years of age in each sample, although samples differed in average educational level (p < .05) and household size (p < .05). (Sample characteristics appear in Table 2.) In the Texas sample, 76% were born in the United States; 32% of interviews were completed in Spanish, 46% in a combination of Spanish–English, and 22% in English. In Connecticut, 5% were born in mainland United States and 88% were interviewed in Spanish.

Table 2.

Sample Description.

	Guatemala (n = 38)	Mexico (n = 39)	Texas (n = 41)	Connecticut (n = 42)
Age	34.5 (18-65)	38.5 (18-69)	41.6 (19-68)	42.7 (18-82)
Education	1.6 (0-6)	6.4 (0-16)	8.7 (0-16)	8.9 (2-15)
Household size	5.3 (2-13)	5.8 (1-20)	4.1 (2-9)	3.5 (1-8)
Total children	5.1 (1-15)	4.3 (0-17)	3.6 (1-11)	4.1 (0-13)
Ojo experience
Has known someone	97%	87%	100%	81%
Someone in family	97%	69%	90%	48%
Has had it personally	32%	21%	61%	17%

The Culture Pattern of Evil Eye Within Each Region

Mal de ojo was widely recognized in each community. Almost everyone in the samples knew someone who had experienced ojo and many had experienced it in their own family (Table 2). Among those approached for interviews in Mexico, belief in ojo varied by neighborhood social class (89% lower class, 70% working class, and 40% middle class). The lifetime prevalence of mal de ojo in each community was 56% in Texas, 30% in Guatemala, 15% in Connecticut, and 13% in Mexico.²

A single, shared set of beliefs about mal de ojo existed within each community; with agreement across respondents on the responses to the 128 questions. The cultural consensus model appeared to have an adequate fit to the response data for each of the four samples (Table 3). Average cultural knowledge levels indicated that there were 66% shared beliefs among Mexican Americans in Texas, 58% among rural Guatemalans, 50% among Puerto Ricans in Connecticut, and 45% among Mexicans in Guadalajara. Higher within-community agreement was related to higher lifetime community prevalence of ojo. For example, the Texas sample had the highest agreement (66% shared beliefs or average cultural knowledge) and the highest lifetime prevalence of ojo (56%). The Mexico sample had the lowest agreement (45% shared beliefs) and the lowest prevalence (13%). Thus, the consensus model indicator of salience (average cultural knowledge level or agreement) and an independent measure of community salience (the actual occurrence or prevalence of evil eye in the community) resulted in the same ordering of samples in terms of evil eye salience: (a) Texas, (b) Guatemala, (c) Connecticut, and (d) Mexico.

Table 3.

Community Prevalence of Ojo, Agreement, and Number of Themes in Explanatory Models for each Site.

Site	Community lifetime prevalence	Agreement (ratio)^a	No. themes
Texas	56%	66% (15:1)	30
Guatemala	30%	58% (8:1)	37
Connecticut	15%	50% (8:1)	28
Mexico	13%	45% (5:1)	27
All four samples together (N = 160)	—	47% (5:1)	33

Results from the cultural consensus analyses. The average cultural knowledge score (0.66) is expressed as the average amount of agreement (66%). Eigenvalue ratios indicate the goodness of fit of the model; values of 5:1 and larger should indicate a good fit.

Detail in the community-level models varied across sites with 55 themes relevant to one or more sites. Although all 128 themes were analyzed together, cultural consensus results identifying themes relevant in one or more samples are presented here in three tables: Table 4 contains causes, Table 5 contains symptoms, and Table 6 contains treatments and outcomes. Guatemala had the most detail (37 themes were endorsed), followed by Texas (30 themes), Connecticut (28 themes), and Mexico (27 themes. However, there was not a clear linking of agreement and community prevalence of evil eye to the detail (number of themes) in the explanatory models.

Table 4.

Causes and Susceptibility.

GUA	MEX	TEX	CON	TOT
Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	6. Do babies get mal de ojo?
Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	4. Do young children get mal de ojo?
N	Y	Y	Y	Y	30. Can mal de ojo be caused by a hard, envious stare?
Y	Y	Y	N	Y	39. Can mal de ojo be caused by someone with strong blood?
N	N	Y	Y	Y	5. Do older children get mal de ojo?
N	N	Y	Y	Y	3. Do adults get mal de ojo?
N	N	Y	Y	Y	7. Can anyone get mal de ojo regardless of age and gender/sex?
—	N	Y	Y	Y	10. Occur more often to very pretty or handsome people?
Y	Y	—	—	Y	9. Does mal de ojo occur mainly in weak people?
Y	N	N	N	N	14. Can people with low resistance get mal de ojo?
Y	N	N	N	N	40. Caused by drunk or hung-over men?
Y	N	N	N	N	41. Caused by pregnant or menstruating women?
N	N	Y	N	N	29. Can mal de ojo be caused by strong emotions (good or bad)?
N	N	N	Y	N	32. Does brujeria (witchcraft) cause mal de ojo?

Note. GUA = Guatemala, MEX = Mexico, TEX = Texas, and CON = Connecticut; TOT = total. Y and N indicate classifications of themes as “yes” or “no” with high confidence. “—” indicates themes that may be in the model (with low confidence).

Table 5.

Symptoms.

GUA	MEX	TEX	CON	TOT
Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	80. Is weakness a symptom of mal de ojo?
Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	81. With mal de ojo are you tired (fatigue, loss of energy)?
Y	Y	Y	—	Y	71. Are crankiness and irritability symptoms of mal de ojo?
Y	Y	Y	N	Y	79. Is fever a symptom of mal de ojo?
Y	Y	Y	N	Y	72. Is crying a symptom of mal de ojo?
Y	Y	Y	N	Y	74. Is sadness (and depression) a symptom of mal de ojo?
N	Y	Y	Y	Y	60. Is vomiting a symptom of mal de ojo?
Y	—	Y	Y	Y	54. Is a lack of appetite a symptom of mal de ojo?
Y	N	Y	Y	Y	73. Is agitation a symptom of mal de ojo?
Y	—	Y	—	Y	44. Is a headache a symptom of mal de ojo?
Y	—	Y	Y	Y	55. Is weight loss a symptom of mal de ojo?
N	Y	Y	Y	Y	59. Is nausea a symptom of mal de ojo?
Y	Y	N	N	—	82. Do you have muscle and body aches/pains with mal de ojo?
—	Y	N	N	N	62. Is diarrhea a symptom of mal de ojo?
N	Y	N	N	N	63. Change in the color of bowel movements?
N	N	N	Y	N	58. Is a swollen or bloated stomach a symptom of mal de ojo?
Y	N	N	N	N	45. Are red and inflamed eyes a symptom of mal de ojo?
Y	N	N	N	—	46. Does mal de ojo cause your eyes to water?
Y	N	N	N	N	67. Are boils a symptom of mal de ojo?
Y	N	N	N	N	68. Is itching a symptom of mal de ojo?
Y	N	N	N	N	76. Is a limp neck a symptom of mal de ojo?
Y	N	N	N	N	77. A bad smelling head (like a rotten egg)?
Y	N	N	N	N	78. Tossing and screaming during sleep?

Table 6.

Treatments.

GUA	MEX	TEX	CONN	TOT
Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	122. Would you go to a curandero to treat mal de ojo?
Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	124. A wise old woman or grandmother to treat mal de ojo?
Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	128. If mal de ojo is not treated, can one die?
N	Y	Y	Y	Y	96. Does praying help treat mal de ojo?
N	Y	Y	Y	Y	101. Holy water sprinkled on the body in the shape of a cross?
Y	Y	N	Y	Y	106. Does sweeping a person with herbs help treat mal de ojo?
Y	Y	Y	N	Y	107. Rubbing the person with an egg help treat mal de ojo?
Y	Y	Y	N	Y	113. To prevent ojo, do you use an ojo de venado (deer’s eye)?
Y	Y	Y	N	Y	117. Must the person who caused the illness touch the sick person?
Y	Y	N	Y	Y	121. Do you need to go to an herbalist to treat mal de ojo?
Y	—	Y	Y	Y	126. Best person to treat mal de ojo, the woman of the family?
Y	N	N	—	Y	105. Does a barrida (sweeping a person) with pine or rue (ruda) help?
N	Y	N	Y	N	85. Does yerbabuena (spearmint) tea help treat mal de ojo?
N	—	N	Y	N	97. Do massages help treat mal de ojo?
N	N	N	Y	N	98. Does massaging the stomach with warm oil help?
—	N	N	Y	N	123. Would you go to a brujo to treat mal de ojo?
Y	N	N	N	N	115. Does a barrida (sweeping a person) with liquor and a cigar help?
Y	N	N	—	N	125. Would you go to a midwife to treat mal de ojo?

To identify interpretable intra-cultural variation in knowledge about mal de ojo, we compared cultural knowledge scores (how well each person’s answers matched the aggregated group answers) within each sample with socio-demographic characteristics (age, educational level, etc.). Cultural knowledge scores did not vary significantly by socio-demographic characteristics within the Connecticut, Mexico, and Guatemalan samples, but did within the Texas sample. In Texas, women who were born in Mexico (p ≤ .01), interviewed in Spanish (p ≤ .003), were older (p ≤ .0005), less educated (p ≤ .0005), and had more children (p ≤ .0005) were more knowledgeable about ojo. Older, less educated women were also more likely to have experienced ojo (p ≤ .0005).

To validate the content of themes included in the cultural consensus models, we compared themes in the initial descriptive interviews with those obtained with a consensus analysis. Overall, themes in the initial descriptive interviews (Table 1) matched well with those identified in the cultural consensus analysis on the structured interviews (Tables 4 -6), with few exceptions. Sometimes themes not mentioned at a particular site in the initial descriptive interviews were reported when people from that site were specifically asked about the theme in the structured interviews. For example, the idea that people with strong blood can cause ojo was mentioned in the open-ended interviews only in Guatemala (Table 1), but in the structured interviews Guatemalans, Mexicans, and Mexican Americans in Texas endorsed this idea (Table 4: #39). Occasionally, a theme reported in the initial interviews was not reported in the structured interviews. For example, the idea that ojo only occurs in those who believe in it, reported by Mexican Americans in Texas during the open-ended interviews (Table 1) was not endorsed in the structured interviews by any of the four sites. This may have been due to sampling differences: We used small, convenience samples for the descriptive interviews and larger, more representative samples for the structured interviews. So, the structured interviews would be expected to give a better picture of the salience of features in the community at-large. Ideas not mentioned by anyone at any of the sites during the initial interviews, were not included in the structured interview. However, we had also included themes from published descriptions of other folk illnesses and an expanded list of symptoms from the Cornell Medical Index, so that, some themes appeared in the regional models, even though they were not mentioned during the initial descriptive interviews. For example, witchcraft was not explicitly mentioned in the initial interviews, but was included in our structured interview and was endorsed by the Connecticut sample (Table 4: #32, Table 6: #123).

Comparison of Regional Explanatory Models

Although each community had a distinct model, similarity between pairs of samples was very high and indicated that highly salient themes in one community were also salient in another (Table 7). Even a simple count of matching themes (positive themes present) between pairs of samples shows the high similarity between samples. When themes were considered as a three-category continuum by the percent of respondents that endorsed each answer and the direction of responses (strongly positive, intermediate, or strongly negative), it was evident that highly salient themes at one site were more likely to have a strong majority or to fall into the intermediate category at another site rather than to be judged as absent (correlations ranged from 0.50 to 0.88). Thematic content in the regional models of Texas and Mexico was most similar (γ = 0.88) and the Guatemalan and Connecticut models were the least similar (γ = 0.50). When the dichotomous consensus answers (Tables 4 -6) were used, the Connecticut and Mexican answers were most similar and the Guatemalan and Connecticut answers were least similar.

Table 7.

Similarity in Themes Between Pairs of Samples.

	Three-category continuum	Cultural consensus themes present/absent		Matching positive themes
Pairs of sites	Gamma	Yule’s Q	Driver’s G	Count
Texas–Mexico	.88	.87	.53	20
Texas–Connecticut	.81	.72	.41	20
Mexico–Guatemala	.78	.74	.43	19
Texas–Guatemala	.77	.81	.53	20
Connecticut–Mexico	.76	.92	.61	15
Connecticut–Guatemala	.50	.26	.28	13

Identification of a Shared, Pan-Regional Explanatory Model

A core set of themes or features was shared across sites. Using individual data from all sites to maximize heterogeneity (n = 160), a consensus analysis indicated that a core explanatory model was shared across the four sites for the 128 questions. The level of agreement was low (0.47), but the eigenvalue ratio (5:1) suggested a shared model (Table 3). Each site reported 27 to 37 themes in their explanatory model and the pooled or pan-regional model contained 33 themes, and the Texas sample had the highest match (29/33) with this model. There were 9 themes concerning susceptibility and potential causes, 12 symptoms, and 12 treatments from the 128 potential themes. Detail on the explanatory model themes for all respondents together is presented in Tables 4 to 6 in the TOT column.

We conducted an additional analysis to ensure that the shared explanatory model was stable not an artifact of items that were not part of the explanatory model (63 items were classified as absent or “no” by all four sites). Although when performing a cultural consensus analysis on dichotomous responses half of the answers should be positive and half negative, we ran a consensus analysis after randomly omitting three quarters of the items classified as “no” by all four sites. After omission of 48 negative items (80 total questions retained), the results were unchanged, indicating a shared model across the four sites (shared level of knowledge was 0.46 and the goodness-of-fit ratio exceeded 5:1). Thus, we conclude that the four groups shared a core model of ojo and that agreement was not due to the proportion of features judged to be absent from the explanatory model.

In the core or pan-regional model, ojo can be caused by an envious stare or someone with strong blood. Anyone can get ojo regardless of age or gender; babies, young children, older children, and adults can get mal de ojo. It occurs more often in weaker or very pretty/handsome people. (Causes and susceptibility appear in Table 4, TOT column.) Ojo has symptoms of weakness, lack of energy, lack of appetite, weight loss, headache, nausea, vomiting, fever and emotional symptoms like irritability, crying, agitation, and sadness/depression (symptoms appear in Table 5, TOT column). Treatment for mal de ojo is usually sought from a folk healer. Doctors and pharmacists are not believed to be effective for treatment. Instead, a curandero/healer, an herbalist, or a wise old woman would be consulted to treat ojo (treatments appear in Table 6, TOT column). Rubbing the afflicted person with an egg, having the person that caused ojo touch the afflicted person, sprinkling holy water on the body in the shape of a cross, prayer, and a barrida or spiritual cleansing of the afflicted person with herbs are thought to be effective in treating ojo. Ojo may be prevented with an ojo de venado (a seed which looks somewhat like a deer’s eye). All four sites reported that ojo will not go away by itself and if left untreated, one can die.

The pan-regional model contained themes consistently reported at each site and also some themes that may be in transition. Themes identified in the community models of three or four sites were included in the pan-regional model. In addition, five susceptibility themes (Table 4: #3 and #5 on older age, #7 age and gender, #10 pretty or handsome, and #9 weak) and one symptom (Table 5: #44 headache) identified in only two community models were included. One treatment (Table 6: #105 the barrida or ritual cleansing) was present in only one community-level model but was included in the overall model. These latter themes did not have a strong majority at each site and were not part of the community explanatory models, but sufficient numbers of people in each community reported the themes to render the theme relevant to the overall shared model. These themes may be in transition. For example, people from all sites consistently reported that babies and young children can get ojo (Table 4). The overall model, however, shows that anyone can get ojo (older children, adults, and anyone regardless of age or gender), although themes concerning older age are less important or may be losing relevance in Guatemala and Mexico. Similarly, ojo being caused by a hard stare, strong blood, and the susceptibility of weak or pretty/handsome people was reported by sufficient numbers of people across the four sites, to be included in the overall model, although these themes have diminished relevance in some regional models.

Themes that are similar across sites can come from a common source or from the independent addition or omission of items, although themes strongly classified by three or more sites may be likely to share a common source. Also when two sites strongly classify a theme and the other two sites have only moderate endorsement, it may be that the theme had been shared and is diminishing in importance, as for vulnerability of older children, adults, and the idea that anyone can get ojo in Guatemala and Mexico. Although we cannot rule-out the independent addition or deletion of themes, themes detected in the pan-regional model may reflect the content of an older, shared version of an ojo explanatory model.

Distinctive patterns in agreement across sites may identify thematic content that is in transition. When a theme has a strong majority at one site, but negligible endorsement at other sites it may reflect adaptations to local cultural values by addition or omission of features. In Guatemala for example, drunk or hung-over men can cause ojo (Table 4: #40). The percent of people who agreed with this were: 92% in Guatemala, 21% in Mexico, 0% in Texas, and 2% in Connecticut. At the two U.S. sites, this feature was not even recognized suggesting this aspect of ojo was dropped long ago or this is a new addition in Guatemala. The Guatemalan symptoms of boils, itching, limp neck, bad smell, and tossing during sleep (Table 4), as well as using liquor and a cigar with a barrida for treatment (Table 5) also may be elaborations of local values. This pattern contrasts with that of strong agreement at one site and moderate agreement at the other sites. For example, the belief in Connecticut that witchcraft can cause ojo (Table 3) may also suggest an older theme, although the theme is not part of the contemporary core model. Witchcraft is reported by 18% in Guatemala, 49% in Mexico, 34% in Texas, and 76% in Connecticut. Although only one site has strong agreement, the intermediate level of agreement at two additional sites makes it less likely that this is a new addition in Connecticut. The possibility of independent additions and omissions across sites cannot be entirely ruled-out and it is possible that all four sites have introduced a literal translation of mal ojo, as red and inflamed eyes (Table 5: #45, reported by 68% in Guatemala, 41% in Mexico, and 37% in Texas, and 21% in Connecticut).

Discussion

This study demonstrates a methodology appropriate for the study of cultural transmission of beliefs within a historical context. We first began with four Latin American populations with historical links to Spain, spanning over 500 years. Second, we elicited explanatory model descriptions of evil eye from those four diverse populations. Third, a structured interview was created from their thematic content and administered to larger, more representative community samples at each site. Fourth, individual responses were examined for consistency in responses for each community and for all individuals together using cultural consensus analysis. A detailed analysis of the thematic content of community-level models facilitated the identification of salient themes that are likely to be a mixture of new and old elements. The pan-regional model identified shared themes that may represent older elements of the explanatory model. Using a single snap-shot or cross-sectional sampling of contemporary beliefs about evil eye, we combined the historical relationship among sites with methods from cultural consensus analysis and linguistic historical reconstruction to estimate older evil eye beliefs. This methodological approach might be adapted to research on other cultural beliefs and their transmission.

A first goal of this study was to describe beliefs about evil eye in contemporary Latin American populations. In examining patterns of intra-cultural or within-community variation in individual descriptions of evil eye, we found that each of the four communities studied, despite their diversity, had meaningful consistency in explanatory models across individuals. Our findings indicated that a shared, cultural model about mal de ojo exists within each of these communities. The shared model is consistent with a distributional model of culture (Atran, Medin, & Ross, 2005; Roberts, 1964). Even though individuals’ responses varied in some of the descriptive elements linked to mal de ojo, the themes were sufficiently homogeneous across individuals to enable us to identify and describe an explanatory model for each community.

Ojo, however, appears to thrive in some communities more than others. The Mexican American community in Texas and rural Guatemala reported a fairly high lifetime prevalence of ojo with many individuals in these communities personally having had experienced mal de ojo. Community prevalence was much lower among Puerto Ricans in Connecticut and Mexicans in Guadalajara. Community prevalence was associated with consistency in reporting of causes, symptoms, and treatments for ojo, so that communities with greater experience with ojo also agreed more on what ojo is. The linking of these two independent measures (prevalence and agreement) also validates the relative salience of evil eye in these communities. Thematic detail in explanatory models (number of themes), however, was not clearly related to prevalence or agreement, although the Texan and Guatemalan models also had the most detail.

Second, we sought to identify themes that were shared across regions. The consistency of reports from individuals across the four regions enabled us to identify a shared, pan-regional explanatory model. This core model likely reflects content of older descriptions, as it is unlikely that there has been much formal exchange of knowledge and beliefs about ojo between these sites. Although migration and media are generally important to the study of globalization, their effects are not at all clear in this case. The most contact has been between the Texan and Mexican populations, the two closest sites, linked by historical ties as well as contemporary patterns of migration. We would predict the highest flow of ideas between these two sites. There is, however, little evidence for a role of media in diffusion of beliefs about evil eye. In Latin America and in the United States, formal institutions and media do not discuss evil eye as they do other biomedical illnesses, such as the common cold and influenza. And in the United States, mainstream culture does not share a belief in evil eye.

Beliefs about ojo have themes unique to individuals, themes shared within a community but unique to that community, and themes that are shared within and across communities. The pattern of shared and distinct themes may offer information about historical changes in the culture pattern across regions. Although the dropping or adding of features for evil eye may have occurred over time and independently in each region, it is important to note that the effect of these changes would be to reduce the similarity between samples. Over time, the correlation between samples would then approach zero. Instead, what we found was a consistent description of evil eye across four regions with highly correlated answers across those sites. An alternative explanation is that all four groups added or dropped the same themes, possibly due to factors that affected all four sites. While it is unlikely that media or inter-site migration between the four sites has had this effect, it is possible that longer term influences on all four sites possibly by the Roman Catholic Church may have had some effect on evil eye beliefs over time. The Roman Catholic Church may have affected these beliefs, as evil eye is explicitly mentioned in church policies concerning exorcisms. In a recent revision of 17th-century policies, exorcisms may be used in cases of possession, but not for those with psychological problems or for superstitious beliefs like for “evil eye or some other form of black magic” (von Reisswitz, n.d.). The strikingly high agreement between sites, however, especially given the lack of evil eye beliefs in the dominant U.S. culture surrounding the Texas and Connecticut Latinos, seems to suggest that the core set of shared themes reflects a shared source.

The age–area hypothesis also would predict that the shared elements across the wide geographic region would be older elements. The age–area hypothesis posits that communities on the periphery of a culture area are more likely to retain older versions of culture patterns (Kroeber, 1931), and perhaps that is one reason why ojo beliefs are so pronounced among Mexican Americans in Texas. In terms of the Spanish colonization, the most likely flow of ideas was directly from Spain to Puerto Rico, Mexico, and Guatemala, then from Puerto Rico to Connecticut and from Mexico to Texas. Central Mexico would represent an older version of Spanish influence and Texas would be more peripheral to contemporary Mexican culture patterns. In historical linguistics, the sample that is most similar to all other samples is assumed to be closest to the ancestral dialect (Swadesh, 1950). For these samples, the Texas and Mexican models have the highest average correlation to all other samples, and the Texas explanatory model has the highest proportion of matching themes with the pan-regional model.

Third, we tested whether explanatory model themes with the highest agreement within a community were more likely to be shared across communities. The correlation between regional explanatory models indicated that the sites were more likely to agree than disagree on whether a theme was present or absent in the ojo explanatory model. Furthermore, when disagreement occurred, a theme with high agreement in one community was more likely to have moderate agreement in another community than to be judged as absent. This patterning may distinguish themes that once were recognized across regions, themes with a strong majority in one or more communities and moderate agreement in other communities may reflect more recent changes in beliefs than those that with strong agreement at one site and very low agreement in other communities.

Finally, the patterning of responses within- and across regions suggests that an estimation of older ojo beliefs may be possible. The consensus-derived pan-regional model appears to provide a sensitive means of pooling information across sites. Some themes identified as relevant in the pan-regional model were significant in only one or two community models. The pooling of individual-level data across sites detected a sufficient amount of “minority” opinions at each site to carry a theme into the pan-regional model. When a few sites demonstrated strong endorsement and the other sites demonstrated moderate—rather than negligible—endorsement of a theme, it suggests that the theme may have been more important previously than it is today. This distinctive pattern facilitates identification of themes that are most likely in transition, those that no longer have a strong majority within a community but are still present in the population to some degree. These themes are the ones most likely to be losing ground. Thus, the pan-regional model may be a more sensitive estimate of shared, older elements in the explanatory model than either the Mexican or Mexican American models, although the correspondence between the pan-regional and Texas model is quite high. Notably, the pan-regional model identified four themes not present in the Texas model that may have been part of the older beliefs (Table 4: #9 does ojo occur in weak people; Table 6: #105 and #106 ritual sweeping of a person with herbs, and #121 can an herbalist treat ojo).

This approach, however, cannot detect themes already diminished at multiple sites. For example, earlier emphases on the role of heat as a cause of evil eye (Cosminsky, 1976) may be declining as no one explicitly mentioned hot–cold forces in the initial interviews. However, people with strong blood, pregnant or menstruating women, and drunken men may represent potentially “hot” exposures increasing risk for ojo (Cosminsky, 1976). Strong blood appears as a possible cause at all sites except Connecticut and is included in the pan-regional model, whereas drunk or hung-over men and pregnant or menstruating women appear to be important only in the Guatemalan model. Whether these features have been retained only in Guatemala or added to the Guatemalan belief system is unclear.

With regard to cultural transmission (in this case inter-generational transmission of beliefs and the preservation of those beliefs), an interesting issue is why some features are maintained and others disappear. The Texas and Mexico explanatory models are similar, yet the prevalence of having had ojo was highest in Texas and lowest in Mexico. This pattern is consistent with the age–area hypothesis, that patterns will be conserved further from their source. In Texas, the older, less educated, Mexican-born respondents, who preferred to be interviewed in Spanish, knew more about ojo. The Texas site reported older children and adults as susceptible, but Mexico retained only the vulnerability of young children. Texas also did not report the diarrheal symptoms that Mexico did. The Texas sample also contrasts with the Connecticut sample, where ojo is less prevalent and perhaps less important. These two “immigrant” groups also differ in their patterns of acculturation and identity, and possibly border communities experience mores stress and alienation which is expressed in folk illnesses such as mal de ojo.

Over time, some folk illnesses have transformed into entities compatible with newer contexts. Beliefs about folk illnesses contrast with those for biomedical diseases because they are not reinforced through formal systems. Folk illnesses in each of these populations have evolved and modified within each locality, resulting in higher levels of heterogeneity in beliefs between localities. The result is greater regional heterogeneity in beliefs about folk illnesses than for biomedical illnesses (Weller & Baer, 2002). However, some folk illnesses overlap with biomedical conditions resulting in more interaction between the condition and biomedical health care. Kay (1979) described the transformation of the folk illness empacho from a bolus that becomes stuck in the stomach into “a more serious version of ‘irregularity’” (Kay, 1979). She suggested also that the folk illness caida de mollera was “moving toward legitimization as the scientific condition of dehydration” (Kay, 1979).

The descriptions of mal de ojo in the four populations we studied and those in ethnographic work done over the past 50 years, however, are fairly consistent (Madsen, 1964; Rubel, 1960; Trotter, 1991). The persistence of ojo beliefs is striking, particularly in that the most likely place where beliefs of this type would be learned is within the family (inter-generational transfer of beliefs, probably in the context of communication from mothers and grandmothers about child care) and, possibly, within the community. Kay (1979) also noted this and reported that ojo has been “impervious to meaning change from scientific medicine, for these are not diseases that would be brought to a medical doctor, or are last resorts in folk diagnosis to be used when explanations from scientific medicine fail” (Kay, 1979, p.89). However, we now see that some people report a literal translation of mal ojo as red and inflamed eyes.

This study focused on a set of beliefs that can only be transmitted culturally. Mal de ojo has persisted among Latin Americans for more than five centuries, most likely passed down informally within families and communities. This is a remarkable case of inter-generational transmission of beliefs and the maintenance and preservation of those beliefs. Beliefs about ojo must be learned from others and cannot be learned by independent observation. In contrast, studies of cultural transmission of ecological knowledge (Atran et al., 2005) must grapple with the confounding effect that a person can walk through the forest and gain ecological knowledge by observation. Ecological knowledge can be gained by learning or by personal experience and observation. Studies of cultural transmission are difficult if knowledge can be gained from sources other than sharing of knowledge from others (e.g., from personal experience). Evil eye offers an important contrast as it cannot be independently observed; it can only be taught.

A strength of this study is in the mixed-method approach to estimate beliefs about evil eye. A combination of qualitative, open-ended interviews with structured interviews takes advantage of the strengths of each approach. Also, the use of representative sampling allows for better generalization of findings and the estimation of prevalence. Thus, the combination of interview types and sampling methods should result in more complete and reliable descriptions. Without systematic historical data on ojo beliefs over time, however, we cannot be absolutely sure about the content of those older beliefs.

We conclude that mal de ojo is alive and well for the present in the populations studied, although there are meaningful regional variations in features and prevalence. This study demonstrates a methodology appropriate for the study of cultural transmission of beliefs with the estimation of a pan-regional model using cultural consensus analysis. Future research might investigate the models of ojo in populations that share historical relations with the populations sampled in this study, perhaps Puerto Rico, Spain, and cultures of the Mediterranean and Middle East, to see how models of evil eye have fared in the 21st century in those cultural contexts (Baer, Weller, Gonzales Faraco, & Martin, 2006). Another avenue of research might be to investigate how models of mal de ojo seen at present compare with written descriptions in Spanish sources from previous centuries (de Castañega & Fray, 1946; Kay, 1977). Although only limited comparisons can be made with archival texts, the sources could confirm some aspects of evil eye. Also, systematic, inter-generational comparisons within a community might shed insight on the maintenance and preservation of beliefs and features. The persistence of ojo through time remains intriguing and additional systematic data would help to understand the patterns we see in contemporary beliefs about ojo.

In summary, we have demonstrated a methodology with respect to the diffusion of cultural beliefs, a key focus in our discipline. We used qualitative data to create a structured interview and analyzed responses with consensus analysis to estimate core patterns or older beliefs about evil eye concepts. We then used concepts from historical linguistics as well as ideas from Wissler’s age–area hypothesis to interpret those patterns. We feel this is an innovative use of consensus theory, as well as an innovative contribution to cultural anthropology. Wissler’s contributions were criticized years ago, but as often happens in our field, the critique led to abandonment of the method rather than improvement. In this study, we have reconsidered these approaches and suggest a way to estimate older culture patterns from shared, contemporary culture patterns.

Our findings suggest that that the complete dismissal of the age–area hypothesis may have been premature, and that more work should be done to establish the situations in which the age–area hypothesis does or does not work. The consistency of reports from our four samples enabled the identification of a single, core explanatory model. This shared pan-regional model likely reflects content of older descriptions, as it is unlikely that there has been much formal exchange of knowledge and beliefs about evil eye between these sites. Thus, our findings seem to agree with an age–area interpretation. We suggest that this approach might be explored to understand other types of cultural patterns.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Susan C. Weller and Roberta D. Baer received funding for this research from the National Science Foundation (NSF, BNS-920455, SBR-9727322, BCS-0108232).

Notes

Author Biographies

Susan C. Weller, PhD, is a professor in the Departments of Preventive Medicine and Community Health, and the director of the Research Program in the Department of Family Medicine, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX.

Roberta D. Baer, PhD, is a professor in the Department of Anthropology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL.

Javier Garcia de Alba Garcia, MD, PhD, is the director of the Social, Epidemiological and Health Services Research Unit of the Instituto Mexicano de Seguro Social (IMSS), Guadalajara; a physician at the Hospital Civil of Guadalajara, J. 1., Menchaca, Guadalajara; and co-coordinator of the Socio-Medicine Program of the University of Guadalajara, Mexico.

Mark Glazer, PhD, is professor emeritus, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Texas - Pan American, Edinburg, TX.

Robert Trotter II, PhD, is associate vice president for Heath Research Initiatives, Arizona Regent’s Professor in anthropology, University of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff, AZ.

Ana L. Salcedo Rocha, MD, PhD, is a researcher in the Social, Epidemiological, and Health Services Research Unit of the Instituto Mexicano de Seguro Social (IMSS), Guadalajara, and co-coordinator of the Social-Medicine Program of the University of Guadalajara, Mexico.

Robert E. Klein, PhD, past director, University of the Valley of Guatemala and Medical Entomology Research Training Unit/Guatemala (MERTU/G), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Guatemala City, Guatemala.

Lee M. Pachter, DO, is a professor in the Department of Pediatrics at Drexel University College of Medicine and chief of the Section of General Pediatrics at St. Christopher’s Hospital for Children in Philadelphia, PA.

References

Atran

Medin

Ross

(2005). The cultural mind: Environmental decision making and cultural modeling within and across populations. Psychological Review, 112, 744-776.

Baer

R. D.

Weller

S. C.

Gonzales Faraco

J. C.

Martin

J. F.

(2006). Las enfermedades populares en la cultura española actual: Un estudio comparado sobre el mal de ojo.[Folk illness in contemporary Spanish culture: A comparative study about evil eye.] Revista de Dialectología y Tradiciones Populares, 61(1), 139-156.

Balée

(2003). Historical-ecological influences on the word for cacao in Ka’apor. Anthropological Linguistics, 45, 259-280.

Bashkow

(2004). Neo-Boasian conception of cultural boundaries. American Anthropologist, 106, 443-458.

Batchelder

Romney

(1988). Test theory without an answer key. Psychometrika, 53, 1-92.

Blench

(2009). Bananas and plantains in Africa: Re-interpreting the linguistic evidence. Ethnobotany Research & Applications, 7, 363-380.

Brodman

Erdmann

A. J.

Jr. Wolff

H. G.

(1949). Cornell Medical Index Health Questionnaire manual. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Burleigh

Dardano

Cruz

J. R.

(1990). Colors, humors and evil eye; indigenous classification and treatment of childhood diarrhea in highland Guatemala. Medical Anthropology, 12, 419-441.

Chick

(2002). Writing culture reliably: The analysis of high concordance codes. Ethnology, 39, 365-393.

10.

Cosminsky

(1976). The evil eye in a Quiche community. In Maloney

(Ed.), The evil eye (pp. 163-173). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

11.

D’Andrade

R. G.

(1987). Modal responses and cultural expertise. American Behavioral Scientist, 31, 194-202.

12.

de Castañega

M., R. P. F.

(1946). Tratado de Las Supersticiones Y Hechicerias.[Treatise on superstitions and witchcraft] Madrid, Spain: La Sociedad de Bibliófilos Españoles.

13.

Dow

M. M.

Eff

E. A.

(2008). Global, regional, and local network autocorrelation in the standard cross-cultural sample. Cross-Cultural Research, 42, 148-171.

14.

Dundes

(1981). The evil eye: A folklore casebook. New York, NY: Garland Publishing.

15.

Finkler

(1981). Comparative study of health seekers: Or why do some people go to doctors rather than spiritualist healers? Medical Anthropology, 5, 383-424.

16.

Foster

G. M.

(1953). Relationships between Spanish and Spanish-American folk medicine. Journal of American Folklore, 66(261), 201-217.

17.

Freed

S. A.

Freed

R. S.

(1983). Clark Wissler and the development of anthropology in the United States. American Anthropologist, 85, 800-815.

18.

Garro

L. C.

(2000). Cultural meaning, explanations of illness, and the development of comparative frameworks. Ethnology, 39, 305-334.

19.

Handlin

(1973). The uprooted. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.

20.

Harwood

(1981). Mainland Puerto Ricans. In Harwood

(Ed.), Ethnicity and medical care (pp. 397-481). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

21.

Kay

(1977). The Florilegio medicinal: Source of southwest ethnomedicine. Ethnohistory, 24, 251-259.

22.

Kay

(1979). Lexemic change and semantic shift in disease names. Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry, 3, 73-94.

23.

Kleinman

Eisenberg

Good

(1978). Culture, illness, and care: Clinical lessons from anthropologic and cross-cultural research. Annals of Internal Medicine, 88, 251-258.

24.

Kroeber

A. L.

(1931). The culture-area and age-area concepts of Clark Wissler. In Rice

(Ed.), Methods in social science (pp. 248-265). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

25.

Kroeber

A. L.

(1948). Anthropology. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace.

26.

Kronenfeld

D. B.

Thomas

L. L.

(1983). Revised lexicostatistical classification of Salishan languages. American Anthropologist, 85, 372-378.

27.

Levy

I. J.

Zumwalt

R. L.

(2002). Ritual medical lore of Sephardic women: Sweetening the Spirits, healing the sick. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

28.

Madsen

(1964). The Mexican Americans of South Texas. New York, NY: Holt, Reinhart and Winston.

29.

Maloney

(1976). The evil eye. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

30.

Mendez Dominguez

(1983). Illness and medical theory among Guatemalan Indians. In Kendall

(Ed.), Heritage of conquest: Thirty years later (pp. 267-298). Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

31.

Murguia

Peterson

Zea

M. C.

(2003). Use and Implications of ethnomedical health care approaches among central American immigrants. Health & Social Work, 28, 43-51.

32.

Naroll

(1961). Two solutions to Galton’s problem. In Moore

F. W.

(Ed.), Readings in cross-cultural methodology (pp. 15-39). New Haven, CT: HRAF Press.

33.

Roberts

J. M.

(1964). The self-management of cultures. In Goodenough

W. H.

(Ed.), Explorations in cultural anthropology (pp. 433-454). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

34.

Roberts

J. M.

(1976). Belief in the evil eye in world perspective. In Maloney

(Ed.), The evil eye (pp. 223-278). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

35.

Roberts

J. M.

Strand

R. F.

Burmeister

(1974). Preferential pattern analysis. In Kay

(Ed.), Explorations in mathematical anthropology (pp. 266-279). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

36.

Romney

A. K.

Moore

C. C.

(1999). Toward a theory of culture as shared cognitive structures. Ethos, 26, 314-337.

37.

Romney

A. K.

Moore

C. C.

(2001). Systemic culture patterns as basic units of cultural transmission and evolution. Journal of Cross-Cultural Research, 35, 154-178.

38.

Romney

A. K.

Weller

S. C.

Batchelder

W. H.

(1986). Culture as consensus: A theory of cultural and informant accuracy. American Anthropologist, 88, 313-338.

39.

Rubel

(1960). Concepts of disease in Mexican-American culture. American Anthropologist, 62, 795-814.

40.

Sault

(1990). The evil eye, both hot and dry. Journal of Latin American Lore, 16(1), 69-89.

41.

Schreiber

J. M.

Homiak

J. P.

(1981). Mexican Americans. In Harwood

(Ed.), Ethnicity and medical care (pp. 264-336). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

42.

Solien

Gonzalez

(1964). Beliefs and practices concerning medicine and nutrition among lower-class urban Guatemalans. American Journal of Public Health, 54, 1726-1734.

43.

Swadesh

(1950). Salish internal relationships. International Journal of American Linguistics, 16, 157-167.

44.

Trotter

R. T.

II . (1991). A survey of four illnesses and their relationship to intracultural variation in a Mexican-American community. American Anthropologist, 93, 115-125.

45.

Trotter

R. T.

II . (2005). Latin American Curanderismo. In Miccozzi

(Ed.), Fundamentals of complementary and alternative medicine (3rd ed., pp. 578-595). New York, NY: Churchill Livingstone.

46.

Trotter

R. T.

II Chavira

J. A.

(1997). Curanderismo: Mexican American folk healing (2nd ed.). Athens: University of Georgia Press.

47.

Urban

(2010). A method for measuring the motion of culture. American Anthropologist, 112, 122-139.

48.

von Reisswitz

C. K.

(n.d.). Exorcism rite reformed [Web article]. Retrieved from http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=2824 accessed on 02-28-14.

49.

Weller

S. C.

(1983). New data on intra-cultural variability: The hot-cold classification of illness. Human Organization, 42, 249-257.

50.

Weller

S. C.

(2007). Cultural consensus theory: Applications and frequently asked questions. Field Methods, 19, 339-368.

51.

Weller

S. C.

Baer

R. D.

(2002). Measuring within and between group agreement: Identifying the proportion of shared and unique beliefs across samples. Field Methods, 14, 6-25.

52.

Weller

S. C.

Buchholtz

C. H.

(1986). When a single clustering method creates more than one tree: A re-analysis of the Salish languages. American Anthropologist, 88, 667-674.

53.

Weller

S. C.

Mann

N. C.

(1997). Assessing rater performance without a “gold standard” using consensus theory. Medical Decision Making, 17, 71-79.

54.

Wissler

(1927). The culture-area concept in social anthropology. American Journal of Sociology, 32, 881-891.

55.

Wissler

(1928). The culture-area concept as a research lead. American Journal of Sociology, 33, 894-900.