“Big men” in the office: The gender-specific influence of weight upon persuasiveness


Autoři: Kevin M. Kniffin aff001;  Vicki L. Bogan aff001;  David R. Just aff001
Působiště autorů: Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management, SC Johnson College of Business, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, United States of America aff001
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(11)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0222761

Souhrn

Height has been closely studied as a factor that influences myriad measures of leadership; however, the potential influence of weight on socially beneficial traits has been neglected. Using the anthropological concept of “big men” who relied on influence to lead their communities, we examine the role of weight upon persuasiveness. We present the results of six studies that suggest a tendency for raters to expect larger body mass to correspond with more persuasiveness among men. In the sixth, pre-registered study, we find evidence that fits the hypothesis that weight among men is positively associated with perceived persuasiveness. While the “big man” leadership concept is based on studies of pre-industrial societies where weight embodied status, our findings suggest an evolved bias to favor moderately big men–with respect to perceived persuasiveness–even in environments where there is no reason to interpret over-consumption of food and conservation of energy as a signal of wealth. Our studies contribute novel perspectives on the relevance of weight as an understudied dimension of “big” and offer an important qualification informed by evolutionary perspectives for the stigmatizing effects of relatively large body mass.

Klíčová slova:

Adults – Behavior – Body Mass Index – Evolutionary adaptation – Human evolution – Obesity – Social discrimination – Undergraduates


Zdroje

1. Sahlins M. Poor man, rich man, big-man, chief: Political types in Melanesia and Polynesia. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 5, 285–303 (1963).

2. Von Rueden C., Gurven M., & Kaplan H. The multiple dimensions of male social status in an amazonian society. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29, 402–415 (2008). doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2008.05.001 19884954

3. Von Rueden C., Gurven M., Kaplan H., & Stieglitz J. Leadership in an egalitarian society. Human Nature, 25, 538–566 (2014). doi: 10.1007/s12110-014-9213-4 25240393

4. Van Vugt M., Jepson S. F., Hart C. M., & De Cremer D. Autocratic leadership in social dilemmas: A threat to group stability. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 1–13 (2004).

5. Lundqvist E. Height and Leadership. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 94, 1191–1196 (2012).

6. Judge T. A., & Cable D. M. The effect of physical height on workplace success and income: Preliminary test of a theoretical model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 428–441 (2004). doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.3.428 15161403

7. Knapen J. E., Blaker N. M., & Van Vugt M. The Napoleon Complex: When Shorter Men Take More. Psychological Science, in press. (2018).

8. Addoum J. M., Korniotis G., & Kumar A. Stature, obesity, and portfolio choice. Management Science, 63, 3393–3413 (2016).

9. Ball S., Eckel C. C., & Heracleous M. Risk aversion and physical prowess: Prediction, choice and bias. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 41, 167–193 (2010).

10. Eckel C. C., Grossman P. J., Johnson C. A., de Oliveira A. C. M., Rojas C., & Wilson R. K. School environment and risk preferences: Experimental evidence. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 45, 265–292 (2012).

11. McCann S. J. H. Alternative formulas to predict the greatness of U.S. Presidents: Personological, situational, and zeitgeist Factors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 469–479 (1992).

12. Stulp G., Buunk A. P., Verhulst S., & Pollet T. V. Tall claims? Sense and nonsense about the importance of height of US Presidents. The Leadership Quarterly, 24, 159–171 (2013).

13. Blaker N. M., Rompa I., Dessing I. H., Vriend A. F., Herschberg C., & Van Vugt M. The height leadership advantage in men and women: Testing evolutionary psychology predictions about the perceptions of tall leaders. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 16(1), 17–27 (2013).

14. Murray G. R., & Schmitz J. D. Caveman Politics: Evolutionary leadership preferences and physical stature. Social Science Quarterly, 92, 1215–1235 (2011).

15. Brown P. J., & Konner M. An anthropological perspective on obesity. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 499, 29–46 (1987). doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1987.tb36195.x 3300488

16. Pollock N. J. Cultural elaborations of obesity-fattening practices in Pacific societies. Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 4, 357–360 (1995). 24394425

17. Swami V. Cultural Influences on Body Size Ideals: Unpacking the impact of westernization and modernization. European Psychologist, 20, 44–51 (2015).

18. Jucker J. L., Thornborrow T., Beierholm U., Burt D. M., Barton R. A., Evans E. H., Jamieson M. A., Tovee M. J. & Boothroyd L. G. Nutritional status and the influence of TV consumption on female body size ideals in populations recently exposed to the media. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 8438 (2017). doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-08653-z 28814743

19. Swami V., et al. The attractive female body weight and female body dissatisfaction in 26 countries across 10 world regions: Results of the International Body Project I. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 309–325 (2010). doi: 10.1177/0146167209359702 20179313

20. Crandall C. S. Prejudice against fat people: Ideology and self-interest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 882–894 (1994). doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.66.5.882 8014833

21. Puhl R., & Brownell K. D. Bias, discrimination, and obesity. Obesity Research, 9, 788–805 (2001). doi: 10.1038/oby.2001.108 11743063

22. Hebl M. R., & Xu J. Weighting the care: Physicians’ reactions to the size of a patient. International Journal of Obesity, 25, 1246–1252 (2001). doi: 10.1038/sj.ijo.0801681 11477511

23. Teachman B. A., & Brownell K. D. Implicit anti-fat bias among health professionals: Is anyone immune? International Journal of Obesity, 25, 1525–1531 (2001). doi: 10.1038/sj.ijo.0801745 11673776

24. Spillius, A. Biggest man in politics turns down the biggest job. The Daily Telegraph (London), October 5, p. 19 (2011).

25. Ruth, D. Christie’s weight political calculation. Tampa Bay Times, May 10, p. 15A (2013).

26. Granberg E. M. “Now my ‘old self’ is thin” Stigma Exits after Weight Loss. Social Psychology Quarterly, 74, 29–52 (2011).

27. King E. B., Shapiro J. R., Hebl M. R., Singletary S. L., & Turner S. The stigma of obesity in customer service: A mechanism for remediation and bottom-line consequences of interpersonal discrimination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 579–593 (2006). doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.579 16737356

28. Cuddy A. J., Schultz S. J., & Fosse N. E. P-Curving a more comprehensive body of research on postural feedback reveals clear evidential value for power-posing effects: Reply to Simmons and Simonsohn (2017). Psychological science, 29(4), 656–666 (2018). doi: 10.1177/0956797617746749 29498906

29. Simmons J. P., & Simonsohn U. Power posing: P-curving the evidence. Psychological science, 28(5), 687–693 (2017). doi: 10.1177/0956797616658563 28485698

30. Ackerman J. M., Nocera C. C., & Bargh J. A. Incidental haptic sensations influence social judgments and decisions. Science, 328, 1712–1715 (2010). doi: 10.1126/science.1189993 20576894

31. Jostmann N. B., Lakens D., & Schubert T. W. Weight as an embodiment of importance. Psychological Science, 20, 1169–1174 (2009). doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02426.x 19686292

32. Camerer C. F et al. Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015. Nature Human Behaviour, 1 (2018).

33. IJzerman, H., Padiotis, N., & Koole, S. L. Replicability of Social-Cognitive Priming: The Case of Weight as an Embodiment of Importance. Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2255726 (2013).

34. Jostmann N. B., Lakens D. D., & Schubert T. W. A short history of the weight-importance effect and a recommendation for pre-testing: Commentary on Ebersole et al. (2016). Journal of Experimental Social Psychology Journal of Experimental Social Psychology Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 67, 93–94 (2016).

35. Rabelo A. L., Keller V. N., Pilati R., & Wicherts J. M. No effect of weight on judgments of importance in the moral domain and evidence of publication bias from a meta-analysis. PloS one, 10(8), e0134808 (2015). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0134808 26241042

36. Kerry N., & Murray D. R. Strong personalities: Investigating the relationships between grip strength, self-perceived formidability, and Big Five personality traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 131, 216–221 (2018).

37. Petersen M. B., Sznycer D., Sell A., Cosmides L., & Tooby J. The ancestral logic of politics: Upper-body strength regulates men’s assertion of self-interest over economic redistribution. Psychological Science, 24(7), 1098–1103 (2013). doi: 10.1177/0956797612466415 23670886

38. Sell A. et al. Physically strong men are more militant: A test across four countries. Evolution and Human Behavior, 38(3), 334–340 (2017).

39. Lukaszewski A. W., Simmons Z. L., Anderson C., & Roney J. R. The role of physical formidability in human social status allocation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110(3), 385 (2016). doi: 10.1037/pspi0000042 26653896

40. Van Vugt M. Evolutionary origins of leadership and followership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 354–371 (2006). doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr1004_5 17201593

41. Barkow J. H., Cosmides L. E., & Tooby J. E. The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. New York, NY: Oxford University Press (1992).

42. Major B., Hunger J. M., Bunyan D. P., & Miller C. T. The ironic effects of weight stigma. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 51, 74–80 (2013).

43. Penny H., & Haddock G. Anti-Fat prejudice among children: The “mere proximity” effect in 5–10 year olds. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 678–683 (2006).

44. Tuller H. M., Bryan C. J., Heyman G. D., Christenfeld N. J. S. Seeing the other side: Perspective taking and the moderation of extremity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 59, 18–23 (2015).

45. Turner R. N., Wildschut T., & Sedikides C. Dropping the weight stigma: Nostalgia improves attitudes toward persons who are overweight. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 130–137 (2011).

46. Knapen J. E., Blaker N. M., & Pollet T. V. Size, skills, and suffrage: Motivated distortions in perceived formidability of political leaders. PloS One, 12, e0188485 (2017). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0188485 29267275

47. Sell A., Eisner M., & Ribeaud D. Bargaining power and adolescent aggression: The role of fighting ability, coalitional strength, and mate value. Evolution and Human Behavior, 37, 105–116 (2016).

48. Stets J. E., & Turner J. H. The sociology of emotions. In Handbook of emotions ( Lewis M., Haviland-Jones J. M. & Barrett L. F., Eds.). Pp. 32–46. New York, NY: Guilford Press (2008).

49. Huberman B. A., Loch C. H., & Önçüler A. Status as a valued resource. Social Psychology Quarterly, 67, 103–114 (2004).

50. Campbell D. T. On the conflicts between biological and social evolution and between psychology and moral tradition. American Psychologist, 30, 1103–1126 (1975).

51. Hughes V. The big fat truth. Nature, 497, 428–430 (2013). doi: 10.1038/497428a 23698426

52. DeWall C. N., Bushman B. J., Giancola P. R., & Webster G. D. The big, the bad, and the boozed-up: Weight moderates the effect of alcohol on aggression. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 619–623 (2010). doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2010.02.008 20526451

53. Von Rueden C., & Van Vugt M. Leadership in small-scale societies: Some implications for theory, research, and practice. The Leadership Quarterly, 26, 978–990 (2015).

54. Sammons J. T. Beyond the Ring: The role of boxing in American society. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press (1995).

55. Knapen J. E., Pollet T. V., & van Vugt M. When Better Seems Bigger: Perceived Performance of Adult Professional Football Players Is Positively Associated With Perceptions of Their Body Size. Evolutionary Psychology, 17(2), 1474704919841914 (2019).

56. DeBeaumont R. Occupational differences in the wage penalty for obese women. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 38, 344–349 (2009).

57. Henrich J., Heine S. J., & Norenzayan A. The weirdest people in the world?. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83 (2010). doi: 10.1017/S0140525X0999152X 20550733

58. Carr D., & Friedman M. A. Body weight and the quality of interpersonal relationships. Social Psychology Quarterly, 69, 127–149 (2006).

59. DeRue D. S., Nahrgang J. D., Wellman N., & Humphrey S. E. Trait and behavioral theories of leadership: An integration and meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Personnel Psychology, 64, 7–52 (2011).

60. Halpin A. W. Manual for the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire. Columbus, OH: Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University (1957).

61. Matthews W. J., & Stewart N. Psychophysics and the judgment of price: Judging complex objects as non-physical dimensions elicits sequential effects like those in perceptual tasks. Judgment and Decision Making, 4, 64–81 (2009).

62. Burkhauser R. V., & Cawley J. Beyond BMI: the value of more accurate measures of fatness and obesity in social science research. Journal of Health Economics, 27, 519–529 (2008). doi: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2007.05.005 18166236

63. Morris S. B., & DeShon R. P. Combining effect size estimates in meta-analysis with repeated measures and independent-groups designs. Psychological Methods, 7, 105–125 (2002). 11928886

64. Acker F. New findings on unconscious versus conscious thought in decision making: Additional empirical data and meta-analysis. Judgment and Decision Making, 3, 292–303 (2008).

65. Buhrmester M., Kwang T., & Gosling S. D. Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3–5 (2011). doi: 10.1177/1745691610393980 26162106

66. Chandler J. J., Reinhard D., & Schwarz N. To judge a book by its weight you need to know its content: Knowledge moderates the use of embodied cues. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 948–952 (2012).

67. Singh D. Adaptive significance of female physical attractiveness: Role of waist-to-hip ratio. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 293–307 (1993). doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.65.2.293 8366421

68. Singh D. Female judgment of male attractiveness and desirability for relationships: Role of waist-to-hip ratio and financial status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1089–1101 (1995). doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.69.6.1089 8531056

69. Burch R. L., & Johnsen L. Captain Dorito and the bombshell: Supernormal stimuli in comics and film. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, in press (2019).

70. Harp J. B., & Hecht L. Obesity in the national football league. JAMA, 293(9), 1058–1062 (2005).

71. Tomiyama A. J., Hunger J. M., Nguyen-Cuu J., & Wells C. Misclassification of cardiometabolic health when using body mass index categories in NHANES 2005–2012. International Journal of Obesity, 40(5), 883–886 (2016). doi: 10.1038/ijo.2016.17 26841729

72. Cowart K. O., & Brady M. K. Pleasantly plump: Offsetting negative obesity stereotypes for frontline service employees. Journal of Retailing, 90, 365–378 (2014).

73. Kniffin K. M., & Wilson D. S. The effect of nonphysical traits on the perception of physical attractiveness: Three naturalistic studies. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, 88–101 (2004).

74. Kniffin K. M., Wansink B., Griskevicius V., & Wilson D. S. Beauty is in the in-group of the beholded: Intergroup differences in the perceived attractiveness of leaders. The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 1143–1153 (2014).

75. Antonakis J., Bendahan S., Jacquart P., & Lalive R. On Making Causal Claims: A review and recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 21, 1086–1120 (2010).

76. Open Science Collaboration. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349, aac4716 (2015).

77. Schafer M. H., & Ferraro K. F. The stigma of obesity does perceived weight discrimination affect identity and physical health?. Social Psychology Quarterly, 74, 76–97 (2011).

78. Burmeister J. M., Kiefner A. E., Carels R. A., & Musher‐Eizenman D. R. Weight bias in graduate school admissions. Obesity, 21, 918–920 (2013). doi: 10.1002/oby.20171 23784894

79. Nickson D., Timming A. R., Re D., & Perrett D. I. Subtle increases in bmi within a healthy weight range still reduce women’s employment chances in the service sector. PLoS One, 11, e0159659 (2016). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0159659 27603519

80. Murray G. R. Evolutionary preferences for physical formidability in leaders. Politics & Life Sciences, 33, 33–53 (2014).

81. Poutvaara P. Facial appearance and leadership: An overview and challenges for new research. The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 801–804 (2014).

82. Riggio H. R., & Riggio R. E. Appearance-based trait inferences and voting: Evolutionary roots and implications for leadership. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 34, 119–125 (2010).

83. Spisak B. R., Homan A. C., Grabo A., & Van Vugt M. Facing the situation: Testing a biosocial contingency model of leadership in intergroup relations using masculine and feminine faces. The Leadership Quarterly, 23, 273–280 (2012).

84. Spisak B. R., Grabo A. E., Arvey R. D., & Van Vugt M. The age of exploration and exploitation: Younger-looking leaders endorsed for change and older-looking leaders endorsed for stability. The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 805–816 (2014).

85. Campbell L., Simpson J. A., Stewart M., & Manning J. G. The formation of status hierarchies in leaderless groups. Human Nature, 13, 345–362 (2002).

86. Stulp G., Pollet T. V., Verhulst S., & Buunk A. P. A curvilinear effect of height on reproductive success in human males. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 66, 375–384 (2012). doi: 10.1007/s00265-011-1283-2 22389549

87. Pierpoint, G. Trump’s medical sparks online “girther” movement. BBC News. http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-42716443 (2018).

88. Hu Y., Parde C. J., Hill M. Q., Mahmood N., & O’Toole A. J. First Impressions of Personality Traits From Body Shapes. Psychological Science, 29(12), 1969–1983 (2018).

89. Sorokowski P. Politicians' estimated height as an indicator of their popularity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 1302–1309 (2010).

90. Wood W., & Ridgeway C. L. Gender: An interdisciplinary perspective. Social Psychology Quarterly, 73, 334–339 (2010).

91. Li N. P., van Vugt M., & Colarelli S. M. The evolutionary mismatch hypothesis: Implications for psychological science. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27(1), 38–44 (2018).


Článek vyšel v časopise

PLOS One


2019 Číslo 11