Sex Difference on the Importance of Veiling: A Cross-Cultural Investigation

Abstract

Veiling is an ancient cultural practice endorsed by religion, social institutions, and laws. Recently, there have been adaptive arguments to explain its function and existence. Specifically, it is argued that veiling women is a form of male mate guarding strategy, which aims to increase sexual fidelity by decreasing overt displays of his mate’s physical attractiveness, thereby helping to secure his reproductive success. Furthermore, it is suggested that such mate retention strategies (veiling) should be more important when child survival is more precarious, as cues to sexual fidelity support higher paternal investment. Using publicly available data from the PEW Research Center encompassing 26,282 individuals from 25 countries, we tested the hypotheses that men should be more supportive of women’s veiling and this support should be more important in harsher environments, particularly those with poor health and high mortality rates, where paternal care is presumably more important. Our results show that men were more supportive of veiling than women, and this support increased as the environments became harsher. Overall, these findings support the male mate retention argument as well as the idea that the practice of veiling is sensitive to environmental differences.

Keywords

veiling hijab cross cultural study religion sex differences

“. . .In the daytime when on the highway . . . she goes about, she is to veil herself. The captive woman, who without the mistress [of the house] goes about on the highway, is to be veiled. The hierodule who is married to a man is to be veiled on the highway. The one who is not married is to have her head uncovered on the highway.” – The Assyrian Law Code, 12th century BC (Jastrow, 1921)

Veiling is an old cultural phenomenon and is endorsed by religion, social institutions, and laws. It has been practiced in ancient civilizations such as the Assyrians, Greeks and Persians (Cairns, 2002; Jastrow, 1921; Scarce, 1975), and has been adopted by religions mainly rooted in the Middle East, that is, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (Bronner, 1993; Chico, 2000, Tariq, 2013). The veil or hijab is an article of clothing or cloth worn by women to cover and conceal different parts of their bodies, such as their head, face, and at its most extreme, the entire body. Veiling allows women to go out while maintaining their seclusion. Although veiling was once practiced across various civilizations and cultures as a symbol of piety, purity, and class—that is, forbidden for prostitutes and slaves—(Graeber, 2012; Jastrow, 1921; Lerner, 1986), during the last century it is mostly associated with Islamic faith and identity (Ruby, 2006). Consistent with this, the practice of veiling, once a common practice in medieval Europe (Burghartz, 2015; Koslin, 2008) has diminished, while in the Islamic world it has continued to be practiced frequently up to present day.

While there are different arguments regarding social, political, cultural, and personal aspects of veiling in contemporary Islamic discourses (e.g., Carvalho, 2013; Droogsma, 2007; El Guindi, 2003), there are few proposals regarding the function of veiling. Dickemann’s hypothesis (1981) suggests that families tend to compete for high-status, valuable, and wealthy grooms through claustration of their daughters (e.g., veiling) and dowry competition. However, more recently it has been proposed that this old cultural practice is a form of male mate guarding strategy (Pazhoohi and Hosseinchari, 2014), that is, a strategy designed to preserve sexual access to a mate, preventing her from defecting from the “mateship” and the encroachment of intrasexual rivals (Buss, 2002; Buss & Shackelford, 1997). As such veiling seeks to increase sexual fidelity by decreasing the outward evidence of a women’s physical attractiveness, thereby helping to secure her mate’s reproductive success (Pazhoohi & Hosseinchari, 2014). Consistent with this idea are data demonstrating that veiling decreases a female’s facial attractiveness (Mahmoud & Swami, 2010; Sheen et al., 2018; but also see Pasha-Zaidi, 2015); and for more extensive forms of veiling it decreases visual access to a female’s curvaceous body regions that are considered to be potential cues to a female’s reproductive potential and attractiveness (Pazhoohi, Macedo, et al., 2017).

It is further suggested that such a mate guarding veiling strategy increases paternal certainty which may be particularly important in harsher environments where a child’s survival is more at risk, thereby ultimately contributing to higher paternal investment in one’s child or children (Pazhoohi, Lang, et al., 2017). It is shown that as men’s perception of fidelity increases (or men’s concern over paternity decreases), they invest more in their putative children (Apicella & Marlowe, 2004). Similarly, irrespective of the culture, biological fathers and those men with high paternity confidence invest more in their children than stepfathers and/or men low on paternity confidence (Anderson et al., 1999, 2007; Apicella & Marlowe, 2004; Burch & Gallup, 2000; Marlowe, 1999). Accordingly, veiling is considered as a cultural practice serving to raise paternal certainty as well as to help secure stable pair bonding especially where there is a higher demand and cost for paternal investment (Pazhoohi & Hosseinchari, 2014; Pazhoohi, Lang, et al., 2017). In harsh and demanding environments, especially where the mortality rate is high, providing resources for rearing and raising offspring is costlier, and the need for biparental care increases (Gangestad & Simpson, 2000; Pazhoohi, 2017; Schmitt, 2005).

Note that if female veiling is a male mate guarding strategy, then men should be more supportive of veiling practices than women. Consistent with this position Blake et al. (2018) sampled Tunisian participants and found that men are significantly more supportive of Islamic veiling than women. The current study sought to expand the scope of the previous findings in three ways.

First, to extend the results of Blake et al. (2018) regarding a sex difference in support of veiling, the current study conducted a cross-cultural study by examining data from 25 countries and encompassing more than 26,000 individuals. Our hypothesis is that men are more supportive of veiling than women, as veiling is a practice that favors male sexuality by both minimizing female attractiveness and maximizing the chances of male reproductive success by imposing their control on female sexuality (Pazhoohi, 2016; Pazhoohi, Lang, et al., 2017; Pazhoohi & Burriss, 2016).

Second, we investigated if environmental health/harshness indices predict veiling attitudes at an individual level. In doing so we explicitly address and control for the possibility that variables aggregated at a national level may not be representative of the individuals present within them (Pollet et al., 2014). Moreover, we take into account the importance of religion and income at an individual level in our analysis. As veiling is understood to be an indicator of religiosity, we predict religion and veiling will be positively correlated, and this will be moderated by income as religious belief declines in economically developed countries as income security improves (Barber, 2011).

Finally, it is suggested that where there is an abundance of men compared to women (male-biased sex ratio), men compete more intensely for resources and mates, contributing to higher men’s aggression and violence (Barber, 2003; Hudson & Boer, 2002). We expect men’s preference for the veil, as a means for mate guarding, will be strongest in regions where women are scarce and rivals are abundant. Thus, we considered sex ratio. On a related note, we hypothesize that partnered men should be more supportive of veiling compared to single men to prevent unwanted attention to their partners from rival men.

Material and Methods

Data were acquired from Pew Research Center’s world’s Muslims dataset (Pew Center, 2012) which in face-to-face interviews surveyed respondents from October 2011 to November 2012. A total of 32,604 individuals from 26 countries (Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Malaysia, Morocco, Niger, Pakistan, Palestine, Russia, Tajikistan, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, Uzbekistan) participated in the survey. All participants were over 18 years of age at the time of participation and reported Islam as their faith. Participants from Iran were excluded from the analysis as the question for the veiling attitude was not asked from the participants of this country. After the exclusion of those participants and other individuals who provided inappropriate answers or those who refused to answer the questions of our interests (see below), the final number of participants was 26,282.

Measures

Sex

Sex of the participants was extracted from question Q95 of the survey indicating gender of the participants (1-men and 2-women).

Veiling attitude

For the veiling attitude we used Q58 of the survey which reads “Please tell me whether the FIRST statement or the SECOND statement comes closer to your own views—even if neither is exactly right.” The choices were “1-women should have the right to decide if they wear a veil” and “2-women should not have the right to decide whether to wear a veil”, and the codes were recoded to 0 and 1, respectively. Those participants with responses coded as “3-neither/both equally”, “4-husband/family should decide”, “8-don’t know”, and “9-refused” were removed from analysis.

Income level

For the income level the participants were asked how they would describe their personal economic situation (Q7 of the survey): “1-very good”, “2-somewhat good”, “3-somewhat bad” or “4-very bad”. The numbers were recoded in a reverse order, meaning the highest number (4) indicated very good personal economic situation. Those participants with codes “8-don’t know” and “9-refused” were removed from analysis.

Importance of religion

Question 36 of the survey (Q36) asked participants “How important is religion in your life?” and the responses of “1-very important”, “2-somewhat important”, “3-not too important”, or “4-not at all important”, were recoded in reverse order, meaning the higher number means higher importance of religion in daily life. Those participants with the codes “8-don’t know” and “9-refused”, were excluded from analysis.

Marital status

Marital status was limited to those who were 1-married and live with a partner, and 2-who have never been married. We excluded those identified as widowed, separated, or divorced, as their sexual relationship was not clear.

Environmental harshness—the National Health Index

The focus of this study is on a particular aspect of environmental harshness, namely poor health and high mortality. The National Health Index (NHI) from the World Health Organization Statistical Information System (WHOSIS, www.who.int/whosis) estimates the general health for each of the 25 countries with a number of indices. We take them to be biological proxies for harsh environments, and following previous research (see DeBruine et al., 2010; Marcinkowska et al., 2014; Pazhoohi, Lang, et al., 2017), the measures of interest concerned eight items: neonatal mortality rate, infant mortality rate, under-five mortality rate, adult mortality rate, life expectancy at birth, maternal mortality rate, healthy life expectancy, and years of life lost to communicable diseases. NHI was calculated using a principal components analysis to obtain a single composite variable for each of the countries (DeBruine et al., 2010; Marcinkowska et al., 2014). The obtained values were multiplied by −1, so that higher values of NHI reflect better health of a nation. NHI for Kosovo and Palestine was calculated as the average of all other countries’ NHI values, as the health items were not available for these two countries. Data for sex ratio of total population was obtained from World Factbook (CIA, 2016) and sex ratio value for Palestine was calculated as the average of all other countries’ sex ratios.

Data analysis

Table 1 presents a descriptive breakdown for sample size, age, and importance of religion for each country. A mixed effects logistic regression (i.e., a multilevel regression model) was conducted to test the effect of sex as a predictor of veiling, with country nested within geographical region as a random effect. The importance of religion, income level, sex ratio, and NHI were added as control variables to the model. Religion and income level were also added as random effects for participants nested within each country within geographical regions. The national indices (values for sex ratio and NHI) were z-scored. Geographical region classifications were assigned as per the World Bank’s “Country and Leading Groups” classification. A second mixed model was performed to include the effect of men’s marital status on the support of the veiling. All the variables remained the same as the first model, except the addition of marital status into the model as well as exclusion of female participants. An alpha level of .05 was used for all statistical tests. All data were analyzed in R (version 3.4.1), using the lme4 (Bates et al., 2015) and lmerTest (Kuznetsova et al., 2015) packages. Data are available in an ESM data file.

Table 1.

List of Countries, Sample Sizes, Mean (Standard Deviation) of Age and Importance of Religion by Country and Sex.

Country	N			M (SD)
Country	Total	Men	Women	Men’s age	Women’s age	Importance of religion (Men)	Importance of religion (Women)	Income level
Afghanistan	961	550	411	34.50 (13.13)	33.05 (11.50)	3.93 (0.28)	3.89 (0.34)	2.79 (0.83)
Albania	690	341	349	40.52 (15.40)	37.43 (15.21)	2.64 (0.86)	2.48 (0.86)	2.67 (0.67)
Algeria	916	451	465	35.36 (13.78)	33.85 (12.60)	3.56 (0.74)	3.64 (0.69)	2.71 (0.85)
Azerbaijan	807	315	492	38.69 (15.80)	39.50 (14.30)	2.98 (0.86)	3.12 (0.81)	2.48 (0.72)
Bangladesh	1,600	801	799	36.57 (12.98)	32.96 (10.68)	3.8 (0.45)	3.79 (0.46)	2.79 (0.78)
Bosnia and Herzegovina	930	401	529	42.52 (17.49)	41.59 (15.96)	3.12 (0.79)	3.17 (0.75)	2.41 (0.83)
Egypt	1,603	805	798	37.64 (13.33)	37.33 (13.58)	3.75 (0.47)	3.74 (0.51)	2.03 (0.87)
Indonesia	1,753	826	927	38.92 (14.10)	35.95 (12.32)	3.9 (0.42)	3.92 (0.33)	2.67 (0.64)
Iraq	1,060	544	516	36.04 (12.80)	33.79 (11.68)	3.8 (0.45)	3.79 (0.46)	2.77 (0.75)
Jordan	875	457	418	34.41 (12.89)	36.49 (12.60)	3.83 (0.44)	3.85 (0.37)	2.17 (0.94)
Kazakhstan	813	377	436	40.02 (14.02)	39.10 (13.49)	2.92 (0.72)	2.97 (0.67)	2.81 (0.57)
Kosovo	1,118	591	527	36.81 (15.02)	38.69 (14.50)	3.25 (0.82)	3.37 (0.81)	2.37 (0.87)
Kyrgyzstan	921	427	494	39.11 (14.48)	39.09 (14.62)	3.37 (0.72)	3.34 (0.70)	2.80 (0.56)
Lebanon	492	241	251	39.92 (13.57)	37.80 (14.43)	3.51 (0.70)	3.53 (0.65)	1.87 (0.79)
Malaysia	1,066	483	583	36.05 (14.17)	36.86 (12.90)	3.91 (0.34)	3.89 (0.44)	3.04 (0.59)
Morocco	1,302	648	654	35.81 (12.81)	34.79 (12.66)	3.84 (0.57)	3.83 (0.63)	3.14 (0.85)
Niger	800	459	341	34.42 (13.65)	32.44 (14.11)	3.85 (0.38)	3.79 (0.52)	2.82 (0.87)
Pakistan	1,237	600	637	35.93 (15.46)	31.55 (10.54)	3.94 (0.31)	3.92 (0.30)	2.53 (0.94)
Palestine	868	420	448	36.24 (14.22)	34.53 (12.13)	3.84 (0.45)	3.87 (0.37)	2.66 (0.78)
Russia	846	420	426	39.57 (15.21)	41.21 (16.07)	3.25 (0.81)	3.27 (0.83)	2.67 (0.62)
Tajikistan	1,075	496	579	42.97 (15.20)	39.33 (13.85)	3.43 (0.66)	3.34 (0.70)	3.03 (0.65)
Thailand	945	323	622	41.01 (13.57)	40.15 (14.06)	3.94 (0.29)	3.95 (0.24)	2.79 (0.65)
Tunisia	1,381	680	701	38.58 (13.82)	35.82 (12.49)	3.73 (0.52)	3.76 (0.45)	2.36 (0.85)
Turkey	1,384	668	716	38.50 (15.15)	37.13 (13.62)	3.54 (0.75)	3.59 (0.71)	2.57 (0.88)
Uzbekistan	839	315	524	40.17 (15.41)	39.12 (14.43)	2.92 (0.82)	3.02 (0.82)	3.10 (0.61)

Results

Table 2 shows the fixed effects from the model predicting veiling attitude. Results show sex negatively predicting veiling attitude, suggesting that men more than women support veiling. Also, there was a significant, positive relationship between importance of religion and support for veiling. However, a significant association between NHI and veiling attitude was observed, suggesting that as the health index decreases in a country, individuals support veiling more. There was no significant association between income level and veiling attitude, nor sex ratio and veiling attitude. See Tables 3 and 4 for coefficients for each country and each geographical region, respectively. Results for the second model (testing the effect of marital status of men on veiling attitude) did not show significant effect for the marital status (see Table 5).

Table 2.

The Fixed Effects for the Model Predicting Veiling Attitude (N = 26,282, across 25 Countries within Five World Regions).

	Estimate (std. error)	z value	p value
Intercept	−1.34 (.54)	−2.48	.012*
Sex (male)	−.63 (.08)	−7.31	<.001***
Income level	−.05 (.05)	−1.08	.276
Importance of religion	.25 (.12)	1.97	.048*
NHI	−.51 (.19)	−2.60	.009**
Sex ratio	.01 (.18)	0.01	.993

Note. NHI = National Health Index.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 3.

Coefficients for Each Country on Importance of Veiling.

Country	Coefficients
Country	Intercept	Sex	Income level	Importance of religion
Afghanistan	0.14	−0.88	−0.03	0.05
Albania	−1.59	−0.71	−0.05	0.30
Algeria	−0.22	−0.57	0.12	−0.29
Azerbaijan	−3.96	−0.65	−0.22	0.82
Bangladesh	−0.80	−0.53	−0.21	0.33
Bosnia and Herzegovina	−2.32	−0.45	0.04	0.17
Egypt	1.17	−0.68	−0.04	−0.11
Indonesia	−0.02	−0.28	0.10	−0.41
Iraq	−0.89	−1.03	−0.30	0.58
Jordan	0.37	−0.56	−0.06	0.09
Kazakhstan	−2.20	−0.68	−0.09	0.37
Kosovo	−2.22	−0.18	0.05	−0.01
Kyrgyzstan	−1.48	−0.53	0.06	0.21
Lebanon	−2.75	−0.97	−0.30	1.08
Malaysia	−0.94	−0.47	0.09	−0.05
Morocco	−3.82	−0.39	−0.08	0.46
Niger	0.04	−0.50	0.20	−0.27
Pakistan	−1.43	−0.77	−0.12	0.24
Palestine	−1.28	−0.63	−0.16	0.45
Russia	−1.22	−1.12	−0.14	0.73
Tajikistan	−0.09	−0.98	−0.35	0.37
Thailand	−1.99	−0.65	−0.05	0.47
Tunisia	−3.22	−0.49	0.08	0.30
Turkey	−0.75	−0.33	0.08	−0.19
Uzbekistan	−0.72	−0.91	−0.07	0.45

Table 4.

Coefficients for Each Region on Importance of Veiling.

Region	Intercept	Sex	Income level	Importance of religion
East Asia and Pacific	−1.53	−0.60	−0.05	0.30
Europe and Central Asia	−1.74	−0.66	0.01	0.22
Middle East and North Africa	−1.48	−0.50	−0.12	0.45
South Asia	−0.31	−0.78	−0.10	0.04
Sub-Saharan Africa	−1.41	−0.65	−0.04	0.24

Table 5.

The Fixed Effects for the Model Predicting Veiling Attitude Including Marital Status for Male Participants (N = 12,066, across 25 Countries within Five World Regions).

	Estimate (Std. Error)	z value	p value
Intercept	−2.69 (.49)	−5.41	<.001***
Marital status	−.01 (.07)	−0.04	.963
Income level	−.05 (.06)	−0.86	.386
Importance of religion	.43 (.10)	4.03	<.001***
NHI	−.57 (.18)	−3.12	.001**
Sex Ratio	−.10 (.19)	−0.52	.597

Note. NHI = National Health Index.

p < .01. ***p < .001.

Discussion

Results of the current study show that men are more supportive of veiling than women, supporting the male mate guarding proposal whereby veiling serves the function of securing sexual fidelity (Pazhoohi & Hosseinchari, 2014). This result is also consistent with the sex difference results from the participants from Tunisia (Blake et al., 2018), where men were more supportive of veiling than women. Interestingly, the regression coeffects for each country and each geographical region returned a negative relationship, indicating that men from all 25 countries and every geographical region support veiling more than women (see Tables 3 and 4).

However, other factors can also contribute to the sex difference in endorsement of the veiling, in addition to what is suggested in the current paper (i.e., a mate guarding argument). For example, women’s familiarity with the practical inconvenience of the garment might contribute to women being less supportive of veiling than men. Previous research has also shown that veiled women are considered less attractive when compared with unveiled ones (Mahmoud & Swami, 2010; Sheen et al., 2018; see Pasha-Zaidi, 2015 for contrary results). Thus, the influence of veiling on women’s perceived attractiveness might contribute to their lower endorsement of the practice, as they may oppose something that reduces their attractiveness and conflicts with their mate choice strategy (Barber, 1999; Grammer et al., 2004). Future research is encouraged to investigate these ideas, for example, the hypothesis that women’s position on veiling is an indicator of their reproductive strategy.

Another aim of this study was to test the relationship between NHI and the importance of veiling. Results showed that support for veiling increases as the NHI decreases, supporting the argument that the importance of paternal certainty is greater in harsh environments where child survival is more precarious (Pazhoohi, Lang, et al., 2017). By increasing paternal certainty by mate guarding through veiling, paternal care is enhanced in such environments. It should be noted that the current study does not rule out other possible explanations for greater veiling in harsher environments. For example, the prevalence of pathogenic diseases, which is an indicator of environmental harshness, is positively associated with religiosity (Fincher & Thornhill, 2008) and support of conservative values (Tybur et al., 2010). And evidence supports the relationship between women’s sexual restrictiveness (as well as overall restricted sexual strategies), women’s subordination to men’s status, and social conservatism, with pathogen prevalence and environmental harshness (Thornhill et al., 2009; Tybur et al., 2015). Moreover, the role of harsher environments might be explained by the cultural tightness-looseness theory (Gelfand et al., 2011). This theory suggests that harsher environments, including those with disease, environmental threats, or low natural resources, may have stronger social norms and a low tolerance for deviant behavior (Gelfand et al., 2011; Roos et al., 2015). In sum, while the association between a support for veiling and harsh environments, measured by health and mortality indicators, is clear from the results of the current study, multiple variables may be at play, such as paternity confidence (proposed here), social conservatism, cultural tightness, and the like; any or all of which may moderate the association.

Our results also showed that support for veiling (an indicator of sexual conservative morality) is associated with importance of religion. Similarly, recent evidence has shown that in line with Reproductive Religiosity Model (Weeden et al., 2008; Weeden & Kurzban, 2013) religious belief and norms serve to moralize sexual promiscuity (Jacquet et al., 2020; Moon et al., 2019; Van Slyke & Szocik, 2020). Accordingly, all religious traditions condemn extramarital sexual relations (Burdette et al., 2007) and religiosity regulates female sexuality in favor of males’ paternity (Pazhoohi, Lang, et al., 2017; Strassmann et al., 2012) eliciting higher paternal care and family ties (Anderson et al., 2007; Pashos & McBurney, 2008). Previous research has also shown that support for veiling among both Muslim men and women is associated with their religiosity (Mahmoud & Swami, 2010; Pasha-Zaidi, 2015). While the association between religiosity and veiling is supported here and in previous studies, it would be beneficial if future research investigated whether this association is moderated by reproductive strategies and concerns over women’s sexual promiscuity.

While the support for veiling was, as predicted, associated with the importance of religion, no relationship was found between veiling attitude and income level. This dovetails with Pazhoohi, Lang, et al. (2017) who also failed to find any reliable relationship between country-level data for GDP and the importance of veiling. Income level is suggested to be negatively associated with religiosity (Herzer & Strulik, 2017; McCleary & Barro, 2006; Norris & Inglehart, 2011); and religiosity itself is a correlate of veiling as is shown here as well as in the previous research. However, the null results of the relationship between both the national-level (Pazhoohi, Lang, et al., 2017) and the individual-level income levels (current study) with veiling attitude, may indicate environmental unpredictability and harshness, but not wealth and income level, contribute to the importance of veiling.

Previous research has shown that male-biased sex ratios (an abundance of men) is associated with men’s higher intrasexual competition, contributing to higher aggression and violence amongst men (Barber, 2003; Hudson & Boer, 2002). Accordingly, we predicted that the relationship between men’s support for veiling would be strongest in regions that have male-biased sex ratios. As a male-biased sex ratio may lead into allocating more resources toward mating efforts in men, mate guarding practices (such as veiling) that secure men’s sexual access to their partners, and decreases the costs and chances of potential conflict and competition in such environments (of high intrasexual competition) may therefore be beneficial. However, in our model, the sex ratio did not return a significant relationship. The discrepancy between the results here and previous research for sex ratio and correlates of men’s intersexual competition (Barber, 2003; Griskevicius et al., 2012) could be due to the fact that the analyses are based on aggregate data (see Pollet et al., 2017 for a discussion on the potential pitfall of using aggregate data for sex ratio).

Finally, the results of this study did not find an effect for men’s marital status on their support for partner’s veiling. It appears that men’s religiosity is important in their opinion about their partner’s veiling, regardless of their marital status, again supporting the moderating effect of religiosity on veiling support.

Limitations and Concluding Remarks

It should be noted that using a dataset that was not collected to study the current hypotheses could be considered a limitation of this paper. On the other hand, this allowed us to test our hypotheses cross-culturally using a very large sample size, increasing the reliability and robustness of our results. Nevertheless, there are certainly advantages to collecting data to test specific hypothesis, and our present study indicates that one can expect real value from future studies that collect data to test hypotheses related to veiling attitude and support. We specifically suggest that such studies examine if support for veiling is driven mainly by concerns over female sexual promiscuity or if it is primarily a function of religious belief.

Using a large cross-cultural sample, the current study extended the literature on sex differences in support of veiling, as well as the importance of mate retention strategies (importance of women’s fidelity) in harsher and more demanding health and mortality environments. In conclusion, these new findings support the link between the ancient cultural practice of veiling and biological variation. Specifically, they converge with adaptive arguments such as human mate guarding (Buss, 2002; Pazhoohi & Hosseinchari, 2014), paternal investment, and ecological variation (Pazhoohi, Lang, et al., 2017); suggesting that veiling serves to increase paternal certainty, eliciting paternal investment in more demanding environments.

Supplemental Material

Table_S1_2 – Supplemental material for Sex Difference on the Importance of Veiling: A Cross-Cultural Investigation

Supplemental material, Table_S1_2 for Sex Difference on the Importance of Veiling: A Cross-Cultural Investigation by Farid Pazhoohi and Alan Kingstone in Cross-Cultural Research

Supplemental Material

Table_S2_1 – Supplemental material for Sex Difference on the Importance of Veiling: A Cross-Cultural Investigation

Supplemental material, Table_S2_1 for Sex Difference on the Importance of Veiling: A Cross-Cultural Investigation by Farid Pazhoohi and Alan Kingstone in Cross-Cultural Research

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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Farid Pazhoohi is a Killam postdoctoral research fellow in the department of psychology at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. His research focus is ethological, evolutionary, and neural models of human behavior as it relates to perception, attention, judgement, and decision making.

Alan Kingstone is a professor and distinguished scholar at the University of British Columbia. His research focuses on the brain mechanisms of social cognition and human behavior in controlled and natural settings.

References

Anderson

K. G.

Kaplan

Lam

Lancaster

(1999). Paternal care by genetic fathers and stepfathers II: Reports by Xhosa high school students. Evolution and Human Behavior, 20(6), 433–451.

Anderson

K. G.

Kaplan

Lancaster

J. B.

(2007). Confidence of paternity, divorce, and investment in children by Albuquerque men. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28(1), 1–10.

Apicella

C. L.

Marlowe

F. W.

(2004). Perceived mate fidelity and paternal resemblance predict men’s investment in children. Evolution and Human behavior, 25(6), 371–378.

Barber

(1999). Women’s dress fashions as a function of reproductive strategy. Sex Roles, 40(5–6), 459–471.

Barber

(2003). The sex ratio and female marital opportunity as historical predictors of violent crime in England, Scotland, and the United States. Cross-Cultural Research, 37(4), 373–392.

Barber

(2011). A cross-national test of the uncertainty hypothesis of religious belief. Cross-Cultural Research, 45(3), 318–333.

Bates

Mächler

Bolker

B. M.

Walker

S. C.

(2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48.

Blake

K. R.

Fourati

Brooks

R. C.

(2018). Who suppresses female sexuality? An examination of support for Islamic veiling in a secular Muslim democracy as a function of sex and offspring sex. Evolution and Human Behavior, 39(6), 632–638.

Bronner

L. L.

(1993). From veil to wig: Jewish women’s hair covering. Judaism: A Quarterly Journal of Jewish Life and Thought, 42(4), 465–478.

10.

Burch

R. L.

Gallup

G. G.

Jr. (2000). Perceptions of paternal resemblance predict family violence. Evolution and Human Behavior, 21(6), 429–435.

11.

Burdette

A. M.

Ellison

C. G.

Sherkat

D. E.

Gore

K. A.

(2007). Are there religious variations in marital infidelity? Journal of Family Issues, 28(12), 1553–1581.

12.

Burghartz

(2015). Covered women? Veiling in early modern Europe. History Workshop Journal, 80(1), 1–32.

13.

Buss

D. M.

(2002). Human mate guarding. Neuroendocrinology Letters, 23(4), 23–29.

14.

Buss

D. M.

Shackelford

T. K.

(1997). From vigilance to violence: Mate retention tactics in married couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(2), 346–361.

15.

Cairns

D. L.

(2002). The meaning of the veil in ancient Greek culture. In Llewellyn-Jones

(Ed.), Women’s dress in the ancient Greek world (pp. 73–93). Classical Press of Wales.

16.

Carvalho

J. P.

(2013). Veiling. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 128(1), 337–370.

17.

Chico

(2000). Gender headwear traditions in Judaism and Islam. Dress, 27(1), 18–36.

18.

DeBruine

L. M.

Jones

B. C.

Crawford

J. R.

Welling

L. L.

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 B: Biological Sciences, 277(1692), 2405–2410.

19.

Dickemann

(1981). Paternal confidence and dowry competition: A biocultural analysis of purdah. In Alexander

Tinkle

(Eds.), Natural selection and social behavior (pp. 417–438). Cheiron Press.

20.

Droogsma

R. A.

(2007). Redefining Hijab: American Muslim women’s standpoints on veiling. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 35(3), 294–319.

21.

El Guindi

(2003).Veil: modesty, privacy and resistance. Berg.

22.

Fincher

C. L.

Thornhill

(2008). Assortative sociality, limited dispersal, infectious disease and the genesis of the global pattern of religion diversity. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 275(1651), 2587–2594.

23.

Gangestad

S. W.

Simpson

J. A.

(2000). The evolution of human mating: Trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(4), 573–587.

24.

Gelfand

M. J.

Raver

J. L.

Nishii

Leslie

L. M.

Lun

Lim

B. C.

. . .Aycan

(2011). Differences between tight and loose cultures: A 33-nation study. Science, 332(6033), 1100–1104.

25.

Graeber

(2012). Debt: The first 5000 years. Penguin UK.

26.

Grammer

Renninger

Fischer

(2004). Disco clothing, female sexual motivation, and relationship status: Is she dressed to impress? Journal of sex research, 41(1), 66–74.

27.

Griskevicius

Tybur

J. M.

Ackerman

J. M.

Delton

A. W.

Robertson

T. E.

White

A. E.

(2012). The financial consequences of too many men: Sex ratio effects on saving, borrowing, and spending. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(1), 69–80.

28.

Herzer

Strulik

(2017). Religiosity and income: A panel cointegration and causality analysis. Applied Economics, 49(30), 2922–2938.

29.

Hudson

V. M.

Boer

A. D.

(2002). A surplus of men, a deficit of peace: Security and sex ratios in Asia’s largest states. International Security, 26(4), 5–38.

30.

Jacquet

P. O.

Pazhoohi

Findling

Mell

Chevallier

Baumard

(2020). Predictive multivariate modelling of religiosity, prosociality and moralizing in 295, 000 individuals from EuropeanWEIRD and non-EuropeanWEIRD populations. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/hvpgq

31.

Jastrow

(1921). An Assyrian law code. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 41, 1–59.

32.

Koslin

D. G.

(2008). He hath couerd my soule inwarde: Veiling in medieval Europe and the early Church. In Heath

(Ed.), The veil: Women writers on its history, lore, and politics. University of California Press.

33.

Kuznetsova

Brockhoff

P. B.

Christensen

R. H. B.

(2015). lmerTest: Tests for random and fixed effects for linear mixed effect models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13). https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13

34.

Lerner

(1986). The origin of prostitution in ancient Mesopotamia. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 11(2), 236–254.

35.

Mahmud

Swami

(2010). The influence of the hijab (Islamic head-cover) on perceptions of women’s attractiveness and intelligence. Body Image, 7(1), 90–93.

36.

Marcinkowska

U. M.

Kozlov

M. V.

Cai

Contreras-Garduño

Dixson

B. J.

Gavita

O. A.

Kaminski

N. P.

Lyons

M. T.

Onyishi

I. E.

Prasai

Pazhoohi

Prokop

Cardozo

Sydney

Yong

J. C.

(2014). Cross cultural variation in men’s preferences for sexual dimorphism in women faces. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 10(4), 20130850.

37.

Marlowe

(1999). Male care and mating effort among Hadza foragers. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 46(1), 57–64.

38.

McCleary

R. M.

Barro

R. J.

(2006). Religion and economy. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(2), 49–72.

39.

Moon

J. W.

Krems

J. A.

Cohen

A. B.

Kenrick

D. T.

(2019). Is nothing sacred? Religion, sex, and reproductive strategies. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(4), 361–365.

40.

Norris

Inglehart

(2011). Sacred and secular: Religion and politics worldwide. Cambridge University Press.

41.

Pasha-Zaidi

(2015). The Hijab Effect: An exploratory study of the influence of hijab and religiosity on perceived attractiveness of Muslim women in the United States and the United Arab Emirates. Ethnicities, 15(5), 742–758.

42.

Pashos

McBurney

D. H.

(2008). Kin relationships and the caregiving biases of grandparents, aunts, and uncles. Human Nature, 19(3), 311–330.

43.

Pazhoohi

(2016). On the practice of cultural clothing practices that conceal the eyes: an evolutionary perspective. Evolution, Mind and Behaviour, 14(1), 55–64.

44.

Pazhoohi

(2017). Polygyny as a strategy for controlling male sexuality to secure child survival. Human Ethology Bulletin, 32(2), 24–35.

45.

Pazhoohi

Burriss

R. P.

(2016). Hijab and “hitchhiking”: A field study. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 2(1), 32–37.

46.

Pazhoohi

Hosseinchari

(2014). Effects of religious veiling on Muslim men’s attractiveness ratings of Muslim women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43(6), 1083–1086.

47.

Pazhoohi

Lang

Xygalatas

Grammer

(2017). Religious veiling as a mate guarding strategy: Effects of environmental pressures on cultural practices. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 3(2), 118–124.

48.

Pazhoohi

Macedo

A. F.

Arantes

(2017). The effect of religious clothing on gaze behavior: An eye-tracking experiment. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 39(3), 176–182.

49.

Pew Center. (2012) ‘The world’s Muslims: Unity and diversity. www.pewforum.org/2012/08/09/the-worlds-musl

50.

Pollet

T. V.

Stoevenbelt

A. H.

Kuppens

(2017). The potential pitfalls of studying adult sex ratios at aggregate levels in humans. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 372(1729), 20160317.

51.

Pollet

T. V.

Tybur

J. M.

Frankenhuis

W. E.

Rickard

I. J.

(2014). What can cross-cultural correlations teach us about human nature? Human Nature, 25(3), 410–429.

52.

Roos

Gelfand

Nau

Lun

(2015). Societal threat and cultural variation in the strength of social norms: An evolutionary basis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 129, 14–23.

53.

Ruby

T. F.

(2006). Listening to the voices of hijab. Women’s Studies International Forum, 29(1), 54–66.

54.

Scarce

J. M.

(1975). The development of women’s veils in Persia and Afghanistan. Costume, 9(1), 4–14.

55.

Schmitt

D. P.

(2005). Sociosexuality from Argentina to Zimbabwe: A 48-nation study of sex, culture, and strategies of human mating. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(2), 247–275.

56.

Sheen

Yekani

H. A. K.

Jordan

T. R.

(2018). Investigating the effect of wearing the hijab: Perception of facial attractiveness by Emirati Muslim women living in their native Muslim country. PLoS ONE, 13(10), e0199537.

57.

Strassmann

B. I.

Kurapati

N. T.

Hug

B. F.

Burke

E. E.

Gillespie

B. W.

Karafet

T. M.

Hammer

M. F.

(2012). Religion as a means to assure paternity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(25), 9781–9785.

58.

Tariq

(2013). Let modesty be her raiment: The classical context of ancient-Christian veiling. Implicit Religion, 16(4), 493–506.

59.

Thornhill

Fincher

C. L.

Aran

(2009). Parasites, democratization, and the liberalization of values across contemporary countries. Biological Reviews, 84(1), 113–131.

60.

Tybur

J. M.

Inbar

Güler

Molho

(2015). Is the relationship between pathogen avoidance and ideological conservatism explained by sexual strategies? Evolution and Human Behavior, 36(6), 489–497.

61.

Tybur

J. M.

Merriman

L. A.

Hooper

A. E. C.

McDonald

M. M.

Navarrete

C. D.

(2010). Extending the behavioral immune system to political psychology: Are political conservatism and disgust sensitivity really related? Evolutionary Psychology, 8(4), 147470491000800406.

62.

Van Slyke

J. A.

Szocik

(2020). Sexual selection and religion: Can the evolution of religion be explained in terms of mating strategies? Archive for the Psychology of Religion, 42(1), 123–141.

63.

Weeden

Cohen

A. B.

Kenrick

D. T.

(2008). Religious attendance as reproductive support. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29(5), 327–334.

64.

Weeden

Kurzban

(2013). What predicts religiosity? A multinational analysis of reproductive and cooperative morals. Evolution and Human Behavior, 34(6), 440–445.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.09 MB

0.07 MB