Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T03:56:06.430Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evolutionary preferences for physical formidability in leaders

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

Gregg R. Murray
Gregg R. Murray*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Texas Tech University, 10 Holden Hall, Lubbock, TX 79409-1015. g.murray@ttu.edu

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This research uses evolutionary theory to evaluate followers' preferences for physically formidable leaders and to identify conditions that stimulate those preferences. It employs a population-based survey experiment (N ≥ 760), which offers the advantages to internal validity of experiments and external validity of a highly heterogeneous sample drawn from a nationally representative subject pool. The theoretical argument proffered here is followers tend to prefer leaders with greater physical formidability because of evolutionary adaptations derived from humans' violent ancestral environment. In this environment, individuals who allied with and ultimately followed physically powerful partners were more likely to acquire and retain important resources necessary for survival and reproduction because the presence of the physically powerful partner cued opponents to avoid a challenge for the resources or risk a costly confrontation. This argument suggests and the results indicate that threatening (war) and nonthreatening (peace, cooperation, and control) stimuli differentially motivate preferences for physically formidable leaders. In particular, the findings suggest threatening conditions lead to preferences for leaders with more powerful physical attributes, both anthropometric (i.e., weight, height, and body mass index) and perceptual (i.e., attributes of being “physically imposing or intimidating” and “physically strong”). Overall, this research offers a theoretical framework from which to understand this otherwise seemingly irrational phenomenon. Further, it advances the emerging but long-neglected investigation of biological effects on political behavior and has implications for a fundamental process in democratic society, leader selection.

Keywords

Leadersfollowersevolutionary theoryformidabilityresource holding potential
Type
Research Articles
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 33 , Issue 1 , Spring 2014 , pp. 33 - 53
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 

References

1. Lau, Richard R. and Redlawsk, David P., “Advantages and disadvantages of cognitive heuristics in political decision making,” American Journal of Political Science, 2001, 45(4): 951–971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Lau, and Redlawsk, , p. 954.Google Scholar
3. Todorov, Alexander, Mandisodza, Anesu N., Goren, Amir, and Hall, Crystal C., “Inferences of competence from faces predict election outcomes,” Science, 2005, 308(5728): 1623–1626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Banducci, Susan A., Karp, Jeffrey A., Thrasher, Michael, and Rallings, Colin, “Ballot photographs as cues in low-information elections,” Political Psychology, 2008, 29(6): 903–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Berggren, Niclas, Jordahl, Henrik, and Poutvaara, Panu, “The looks of a winner: Beauty and electoral success,” Journal of Public Economics, 2010, 94(1–2): 8–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Hart, William, Ottati, Victor C., and Krumdick, Nathaniel D., “Physical attractiveness and candidate evaluation: A model of correction,” Political Psychology, 2011, 32(2): 181–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Little, Anthony C., Craig Roberts, S., Jones, Benedict C. and DeBruine, Lisa M., “The perception of attractiveness and trustworthiness in male faces affects hypothetical voting decisions differently in wartime and peacetime scenarios,” Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 2012, 65(10):2018–2032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Praino, Rodrigo, Stockemer, Daniel, and Ratis, James, “Looking good or looking competent? Physical appearance and electoral success in the 2008 congressional elections,” American Politics Research, 2014, 42(6): 1096–1117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Schubert, James N., Curran, Margaret Ann, and Strungaru, Carmen, “Physical attractiveness, issue agreement, and assimilation effects in candidate appraisal,” Politics and the Life Sciences, 2011, 30(1): 33–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Lenz, Gabriel S. and Lawson, Chappell, “Looking the part: Television leads less informed citizens to vote based on candidates' appearance,” American Journal of Political Science, 2011, 55(3): 574–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Mattes, Kyle, Spezio, Michael, Kim, Hackjin, Todorov, Alexander, Adolphs, Ralph, and Michael Alvarez, R., “Predicting election outcomes from positive and negative trait assessments of candidate images,” Political Psychology, 2010, 31(1): 41–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Bailenson, Jeremy N., Iyengar, Shanto, Yee, Nick, and Collins, Nathan A., “Facial similarity between voters and candidates causes influence,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 2008, 72(5): 935–961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Little, Anthony C., Burriss, Robert P., Jones, Benedict C., and Craig Roberts, S., “Facial appearance affects voting decisions,” Evolution and Human Behavior, 2007, 28(1): 18–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Spisak, Brian R., Dekker, Peter H., Krüger, Max, and Van Vugt, Mark, “Warriors and peacekeepers: Testing a biosocial implicit leadership hypothesis of intergroup relations using masculine and feminine faces,” PLoS ONE, 2012, 7(1): e30399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Gregory, Stanford W. Jr., and Gallagher, Timothy J., “Spectral analysis of candidates' nonverbal vocal communication: Predicting U.S. presidential election outcomes,” Social Psychology Quarterly, 2002, 65(3): 298–308.Google Scholar
16. Klofstad, Casey A., Anderson, Rindy C. and Peters, Susan, “Sounds like a winner: Voice pitch influences perception of leadership capacity in both men and women,” Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 2012, 279(1738): 2698–2704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Tigue, Cara C., Borak, Diana J., O'Connor, Jillian J.M., Schandl, Charles, and Feinberg, David R., “Voice pitch influences voting behavior,” Evolution and Human Behavior, 2012, 33(3): 210–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Roehling, Patricia V., Roehling, Mark V., Brennan, Ashli, Drew, Ashley R., Johnston, Abbey J., Guerra, Regina G., Keen, Ivy R., Lightbourn, Camerra P. and Sears, Alexis H., “Weight bias in U.S. candidate selection and election,” Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, 2014, 33(4): 334–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Murray, Gregg R. and David Schmitz, J., “Caveman politics: Evolutionary leadership preferences and physical stature,” Social Science Quarterly, 2011, 92(5): 1215–1235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Sorokowski, Piotr, “Politicians' estimated height as an indicator of their popularity,” European Journal of Social Psychology, 2010, 40(7): 1302–1309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Stulp, Gert, Buunk, Abraham P., Verhulst, Simon, and Pollet, Thomas V., “Tall claims? Sense and nonsense about the importance of height of U.S. presidents,” Leadership Quarterly, 2013, 24(1): 159–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. Fox, Richard L. and Smith, Eric R. A. N., “Candidate gender and voter choice: Analysis from a multimember preferential voting system,” Political Psychology, 1998, 19(2): 405–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23. King, Amy and Leigh, Andrew, “Bias at the ballot box? Testing whether candidates' gender affects their vote,” Social Science Quarterly, 2010, 91(2): 324–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24. Leigh, Andrew and Susilo, Tirta, “Is voting skin-deep? Estimating the effect of candidate ballot photographs on election outcomes,” Journal of Economic Psychology, 2009, 30(1): 61–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25. Lord, Robert G. and Emrich, Cynthia G., “Thinking outside the box by looking inside the box: Extending the cognitive revolution in leadership research,” Leadership Quarterly, 2000, 11(4): 551–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26. King, Andrew J., Johnson, Dominic D.P., and Van Vugt, Mark, “The origins and evolution of leadership,” Current Biology, 2009, 19(19): R911–R916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27. Riggio, Heidi R. and Riggio, Ronald E., “Appearance-based trait inferences and voting: Evolutionary roots and implications for leadership,” Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 2010, 34(2): 119–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28. Lawson, Chappell, Lenz, Gabriel S., Baker, Andy, and Myers, Michael, “Looking like a winner: Candidate appearance and electoral success in new democracies,” World Politics, 2010, 62(4): 561–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29. Rosar, Ulrich, Klein, Markus, and Beckers, Tilo, “The frog pond beauty contest: Physical attractiveness and electoral success of the constituency candidates at the North Rhine-Westphalia state election of 2005,” European Journal of Political Research, 2008, 47(1): 64–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30. Rule, Nicholas O., Ambady, Nalini, Adams, Reginald B. Jr., Ozono, Hiroki, Nakashima, Satoshi, Yoshikawa, Sakiko, and Watabe, Motoki, “Polling the face: Prediction and consensus across cultures,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2010, 98(1): 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31. Rule, Nicholas O., Freeman, Jonathan B., Moran, Joseph M., Gabrieli, John D. E., Adams, Reginald B. Jr., and Ambady, Nalini, “Voting behavior is reflected in amygdala response across cultures,” Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 2010, 5(2–3): 349–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32. Antonakis, John and Dalgas, Olaf, “Predicting elections: Child's play!” Science, 2009, 323(5918): 1183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33. Spezio, Michael L., Rangel, Antonio, Michael Alvarez, R., O'Doherty, John P., Mattes, Kyle, Todorov, Alexander, Kim, Hackjin, and Adolphs, Ralph, “A neural basis for the effect of candidate appearance on election outcomes,” Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 2008, 3(4): 344–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34. Tooby, John and Cosmides, Leda, “Psychological foundations of culture,” in The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture, eds. Barkow, Jerome H., Cosmides, Leda, and Tooby, John (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995).Google Scholar
35. Buss, David M., “Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1989, 12(1): 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
36. Darwin, Charles, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (London: John Murray, 1859).Google Scholar
37. Murray, Gregg R. and David Schmitz, J., “Caveman politics: Evolutionary effects on political preferences,” paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the MPSA Annual National Conference (Chicago, IL, 2008).Google Scholar
38. Chagnon, Napoleon A., The Yanomamo (London: Wadsworth, 1997).Google Scholar
39. Gat, Azur, “The pattern of fighting in simple, small-scale, prestate societies,” Journal of Anthropological Research, 1999, 55(4): 563–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
40. Knauft, Bruce M., “Reconsidering violence in simple human societies: Homicide among the Gebusi and New Guinea,” Current Anthropology, 1987, 28(4): 457–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
41. Van Vugt, Mark, Hogan, Robert, and Kaiser, Robert B., “Leadership, followership, and evolution,” American Psychologist, 2008, 63(3): 182–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
42. Van Vugt, Mark, Johnson, Dominic D. P., Kaiser, Robert B., and O'Gorman, Rick, “Evolution and the social psychology of leadership: The mismatch hypothesis,” in Leadership at the Crossroads, eds. Forsyth, Donelson, Goethals, George R., Hoyt, Crystal L., Genovese, Michael A., Han, Lori C., and Ciulla Joanne, B. (New York: Praeger, 2008).Google Scholar
43. Wrangham, Richard W. and Peterson, Dale, Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence (London: Bloomsbury, 1996).Google Scholar
44. De Waal, Frans, Chimpanzee Politics: Power and Sex among Apes (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
45. Enquist, Magnus and Leimar, Olof, “Evolution of fighting behavior, decision rules and assessment of relative strength,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, 1983, 102(3): 387–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
46. Parker, G.A., “Assessment strategy and the evolution of fighting behavior,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, 1974, 47(1): 223–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
47. Gintis, Herbert, Smith, Eric Alden, and Bowles, Samuel, “Costly signaling and cooperation,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, 2001, 213(1): 103–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
48. Price, Michael E. and Van Vugt, Mark, “The evolution of leader-follower reciprocity: The theory of service-for-prestige,” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 2014, 8(363) 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
49. Mayr, Ernst, What Evolution Is (New York: Basic Books, 2001).Google Scholar
50. Nesse, Randolph M., “Maladaptation and natural selection,” Quarterly Review of Biology, 2005, 80(1): 62–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
51. Crawford, Charles, “Adaptations, environments, and behavior: Then and now,” in Foundations of Evolutionary Psychology, eds. Crawford, Charles and Krebs, Dennis (New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2008).Google Scholar
52. Foley, Robert, “The adaptive legacy of human evolution: A search for the environment of evolutionary adaptedness,” Evolutionary Anthropology, 1995, 4(6): 194–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
53. Tooby, John and Cosmides, Leda, “The past explains the present: Emotional adaptations and the structure of ancestral environments,” Ethology and Sociobiology, 1990, 11(4–5): 375–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
54. Boyd Eaton, S. and Konner, Melvin, “Paleolithic nutrition: A consideration of its nature and current implications,” New England Journal of Medicine, 1985, 312(5): 283–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
55. Boyd Eaton, S., Strassman, Beverly I., Nesse, Randolph M., Neel, James V., Ewald, Paul W., Williams, George C., Weder, Alan B., Eaton, Stanley B. III, Lindeberg, Staffan, Konner, Melvin J., Mysterud, Iver, and Cordain, Loren, “Evolutionary health promotion,” Preventive Medicine, 2002, 34(2): 109–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
56. Spinella, Marcello, “Evolutionary mismatch, neural reward circuits, and pathological gambling,” International Journal of Neuroscience, 2003, 113(4): 503–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
57. Henrich, Joseph and Gil-White, Francisco, “The evolution of prestige: Freely conferred deference as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission,” Evolution and Human Behavior, 2001, 22(3): 165–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
58. Dunbar, Robin Ian MacDonald, “Neocortex size as a constraint on group size in primates,” Journal of Human Evolution, 1992, 22(6): 469–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
59. Boehm, Christopher, Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
60. Sell, Aaron, Hone, Liana S. E., and Pound, Nicholas, “The importance of physical strength to human males,” Human Nature, 2012, 23(1): 30–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
61. Kalma, Akko, “Hierarchisation and dominance assessment at first glance,” European Journal of Social Psychology, 1991, 21(2): 165–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
62. Sell, Aaron, Cosmides, Leda, Tooby, John, Sznycer, Daniel, Christopher, von Rueden, and Gurven, Michael, “Human adaptations for the visual assessment of strength and fighting ability from the body and face,” Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 2009, 276: 575–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
63. Zahavi, Amotz and Zahavi, Avishag, The Handicap Principle: A Missing Piece of Darwin's Puzzle (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999).Google Scholar
64. McCann, Stewart J., “Height, societal threat, and the victory of margin in presidential elections (1824–1992),” Psychological Reports, 2001, 88(3): 741–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
65. Re, Daniel E., DeBruine, Lisa M., Jones, Benedict C., and Perrett, David I., “Facial cues to perceived height influence leadership choices in simulated war and peace contexts,” Evolutionary Psychology, 2013, 11(1): 89–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
66. Hensley, Wayne E., “Height as a measure of success in academe,” Psychology, 1993, 30(1): 40–46.Google Scholar
67. Fessler, Daniel M. T., Holbrook, Colin, and Gervais, Matthew M., “Men's physical strength moderates conceptualizations of prospective foes in two disparate societies,” Human Nature, 2014, 25(3): 393–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
68. Gregor, Thomas, “Short People,” Natural History, 1979, 88(2): 14–19.Google Scholar
69. Ellis, Bruce J., “The evolution of sexual attraction: Evaluative mechanisms in women,” in The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture, eds. Barkow, Jerome H., Cosmides, Leda, and Tooby, John (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995).Google Scholar
70. Blaker, Nancy M., Rompa, Irene, Dessing, Inge H., Vriend, Anne F., Herschberg, Channah, and Van Vugt, Mark, “The height leadership advantage in men and women: Testing evolutionary psychology predictions about the perceptions of tall leaders,” Group Processes Intergroup Relations, 2013, 16(1): 17–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
71. Re, Daniel E., Dzhelyova, Milena, Holzleitner, Iris J., Tigue, Cara C., Feinberg, David R., and Perrett, David I., “Apparent height and body mass index influence perceived leadership ability in three-dimensional faces,” Perception, 2012, 41(12): 1477–1485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
72. Szamado, Szabolcs, “How threat displays work: Species-specific fighting techniques, weaponry and proximity risk,” Animal Behavior, 2008, 76(5): 1455–1463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
73. Huntingford, Fellicity A. and Turner, Angela K., Animal Conflict (London: Chapman & Hall, 1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
74. Archer, John and Benson, David, “Physical aggression as a function of perceived fighting ability and provocation: An experimental investigation,” Aggressive Behavior, 2008, 34(1): 9–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
75. Jennions, Michael D. and Backwell, Patricia R. Y., “Residency and size affect fight duration and outcome in the fiddler crab, Uca annulipes,” Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 1996, 57(4): 293–306.Google Scholar
76. Archie, Elizabeth A., Morrison, Thomas A., Foley, Charles A. H., Moss, Cynthia J., and Alberts, Susan C., “Dominance rank relationships among wild female African elephants, Loxodonta africana,” Animal Behaviour, 2006, 71: 117–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
77. Clutton-Brock, T. H., Guinness, F. E., and Albon, S. D., Red Deer: Behaviour and Ecology of Two Sexes (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1982).Google Scholar
78. De Waal, Frans, Our Inner Ape (New York: Riverhead Books, 2005).Google Scholar
79. Heinze, J. and Oberstadt, B., “Worker age, size, and social status in queenless colonies of the ant Leptothorax gredleri,” Animal Behaviour, 1999, 58(4): 751–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
80. Searcy, William A., “Morphological correlates of dominance in captive male red-winged blackbirds,” Condor, 1979, 81(4): 417–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
81. Whiteman, Elizabeth A. and Cote, Isabelle M., “Dominance hierarchies in group living cleaning gobies: Causes and foraging consequences,” Animal Behaviour, 2004, 67(2): 230–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
82. Freedman, Daniel G., Human Sociobiology: A Holistic Approach (New York: Free Press, 1979).Google Scholar
83. Brown, Donald E. and Chia-Yun, Y., “‘Big man’ in universalistic perspective” (Unpublished manuscript, Santa Barbara, CA: University of California, Santa Barbara, 1993).Google Scholar
84. Boix, Carles and Rosenbluth, Frances, “Bones of contention: The political economy of height inequality,” American Political Science Review, 2014, 108(1): 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
85. Lawrence Angel, J., The People (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1971).Google Scholar
86. Haviland, William A., “Stature at Tikal, Guatemala: Implications for ancient Maya demography and social organization,” American Antiquity, 1967, 32(3): 316–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
87. Giessner, Steffen R. and Schubert, Thomas W., “High in the hierarchy: How vertical location and judgments of leaders' power are interrelated,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2007, 104(1): 30–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
88. Bruner, Jerome S. and Postman, Leo, “Symbolic value as an organizing factor in perception,” Journal of Social Psychology, 1948, 27(2): 203–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
89. Dukes, William F. and Bevan, William, “Size estimation and monetary value: A correlation,” Journal of Psychology, 1952, 34(1): 43–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
90. Thomsen, Lotte, Frankenhuis, Willem E., Ingold-Smith, McCaila, and Carey, Susan, “Big and mighty: Preverbal infants mentally represent social dominance,” Science, 2011, 331(6016): 477–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
91. Holbrook, Colin and Fessler, Daniel M. T., “Sizing up the threat: The envisioned physical formidability of terrorists tracks their leaders' failures and successes,” Cognition, 2013, 127(1): 46–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
92. Marsh, Abigail A., Yu, Henry H., Schechter, Julia C., and Blair, R.J.R., “Larger than life: Humans' nonverbal status cues alter perceived size,” PLoS ONE, 2009, 4(5): e5707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
93. Dannenmaier, W. D. and Thumin, F. J., “Authority status as a factor in perceptual distortion of size,” Journal of Social Psychology, 1964, 63(2): 361–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
94. Masters, Rich, Poolton, Jamie, and Van Der Kamp, John, “Regard and perceptions of size in soccer: Better is bigger,” Perception, 2010, 39: 1290–1295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
95. Wilson, Paul R., “Perceptual distortion of height as a function of ascribed academic status,” Journal of Social Psychology, 1968, 74(1): 97–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
96. Jackson, Linda A. and Ervin, Kelly S., “Height stereotypes of women and men: The liabilities of shortness for both sexes,” Journal of Social Psychology, 1992, 132(4): 433–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
97. Stulp, Gert, Buunk, Abraham P., Verhulst, Simon, and Pollet, Thomas V., “High and mighty: Height increases authority in professional refereeing,” Evolutionary Psychology, 2012, 10(3): 588–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
98. Bockerman, Petri, Johansson, Edvard, Kiiskinen, Urpo, and Heliovaara, Markku, “The relationship between physical work and the height premium: Finnish evidence,” Economics and Human Biology, 2010, 8(3): 414–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
99. Cernerud, Lars, “Height and social mobility,” Scandinavian Journal of Social Medicine, 1995, 23(1): 28–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
100. Gillis, John S., Too Tall, Too Small (Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, 1982).Google Scholar
101. Magnusson, Patrik K. E., Rasmussen, Finn, and Gyllensten, Ulf B., “Height at age 18 years is a strong predictor of attained education later in life: Cohort study of over 950,000 Swedish men,” International Journal of Epidemiology, 2006, 35(3): 658–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
102. Persico, Nicola, Postelwaite, Andrew, and Silverman, Dan, “The effect of adolescent experience on labor market outcomes: The case of height,” Journal of Political Economy, 2004, 112(5): 1019–1053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
103. Epitropaki, Olga and Martin, Robin, “Implicit leadership theories in applied settings: Factor structure, generaliz-ability, and stability over time,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 2004, 89(2): 293–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
104. Kinder, Donald R., “Presidential character revisited,” in Political Cognition, eds. Lau, Richard R. and Sears David, O. (Hillside, New Jersey: Earlbaum, 1986).Google Scholar
105. Miller, Arthur H., Wattenberg, Martin P., and Malanchuk, Oksana, “Schematic assessments of presidential candidates,” American Political Science Review, 1986, 80(2): 521–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
106. Simonton, Dean Keith, Greatness: Who Makes History and Why (New York: Guilford, 1994).Google Scholar
107. Higham, Philip A. and William Carment, D., “Rise and fall of politicians: The judged height of Broadbent, Mulroney, and Turner before and after the 1988 Canadian federal election,” Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 1992, 24(3): 404–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
108. Mutz, Diana C., Population-Based Survey Experiments (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2011).Google Scholar
109. U.S. Census Bureau: State and County QuickFacts: USA, “USA.” http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html, accessed July 28, 2014.Google Scholar
110. Geary, David C., Male, Female: The Evolution of Human Sex Differences (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
111. Eveleth, Phyllis B. and Tanner, James M., Worldwide Variations in Human Growth (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990).Google Scholar
112. Bratsberg, Bernt, Red, Knut, Raaum, Oddbjrn, Naylor, Robin, Jäntti, Markus, Eriksson, Tor, and Österbacka, Eva, “Nonlinearities in intergenerational earnings mobility: Consequences for cross-country comparisons,” The Economic Journal, 2007, 117(519): C72–C92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
113. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Healthy Weight: It's Not a Diet, It's a Lifestyle, About BMI for Adults,” http://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/assessing/bmi/adult_bmi/index.html, accessed May 16, 2014.Google Scholar
114. Harvard School of Public Health, “Why Use BMI?” http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/obesity-definition/obesity-definition-full-story/#references, accessed July 5, 2014.Google Scholar
115. Puhl, Rebecca M. and Heuer, Chelsea A., “The stigma of obesity: A review and update,” Obesity, 2009, 17(5): 941–964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
116. Ding, Aiping, Mille, Matthew M., Liu, Tianyu, Caracappa, Peter F., and Xu, X George, “Extension of RPI-adult male and female computational phantoms to obese patients and a Monte Carlo study of the effect on CT imaging dose,” Physics in Medicine and Biology, 2012, 57(9): 2441–2459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
117. Re, Daniel E. and Perrett, David I., “The effects of facial adiposity on attractiveness and perceived leadership ability,” Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 2014, 67(4): 676–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
118. Spisak, Brian R., Homan, Astrid C., Grabo, Allen, and Van Vugt, Mark, “Facing the situation: Testing a biosocial contingency model of leadership in intergroup relations using masculine and feminine faces,” Leadership Quarterly, 2012, 23(2): 273–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
119. Van Vugt, Mark and Spisak, Brian R., “Sex differences in the emergence of leadership during competitions within and between groups,” Psychological Science, 2008, 19(9): 854–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
120. Murray, Gregg R. and Murray, Susan M., “Caveman executive leadership: Evolved leadership preferences and biological sex,” in Evolutionary Psychology in the Business Sciences, ed. Saad, Gad (New York: Springer, 2011).Google Scholar
121. Murray, Gregg R., “Evolutionary theory and preferences for female and male leaders” (Unpublished manuscript, Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University, 2014).Google Scholar
122. Chapman, Emma, Baron-Cohen, Simon, Auyeung, Bonnie, Knickmeyer, Rebecca, Taylor, Kevin, and Hackett, Gerald, “Fetal testosterone and empathy: Evidence from the Empathy Quotient (EQ) and the ‘Reading the Mind in the Eyes’ test,” Social Neuroscience, 2006, 1(2): 135–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
123. Archer, John, “The influence of testosterone on human aggression,” British Journal of Psychology, 1991, 82(1): 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
124. Mazur, Allan and Booth, Alan, “Testosterone and dominance in men,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1998, 21(3): 353–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar