Cultural tightness is characterized by strong norms and harsh punishments for deviant behaviors. We hypothesized that followers in tight (vs. loose) cultures would more strongly prefer muscular leaders. This hypothesis was confirmed across seven studies (N = 1,615) employing samples from the United States, the United Kingdom, and China. Using actual political leaders, we demonstrated that the tighter the state’s culture was, the more muscular the elected governor was (Study 1). Temporarily situating participants in a tight (vs. loose) culture made them select a leader higher on muscularity but not on body fat, and the effects obtained occurred for both male and female leaders (Studies 2–3B). In addition, we demonstrated the mediating role of authoritarianism and a preference for a dominant leadership in this process (Studies 4–5B). These results demonstrate the importance of considering the interface between culture and the physical appearance of leaders.
AktasM.GelfandM. J.HangesP. J. (2016). Cultural tightness-looseness and perceptions of effective leadership. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 47(2), 294–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022115606802
2.
AlrajihS.WardJ. (2014). Increased facial width-to-height ratio and perceived dominance in the faces of the UK’s leading business leaders. British Journal of Psychology, 105(2), 153–161. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12035
3.
AltemeyerB. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Harvard University Press.
ArkenauR.VocksS.TaubeC. O.WaldorfM.HartmannA. S. (2020). The body image matrix of thinness and muscularity-male bodies: Development and validation of a new figure rating scale for body image in men. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 76(7), 1283–1292. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.22933
BlakeK. R.BrooksR. C. (2019). Status anxiety mediates the positive relationship between income inequality and sexualization. PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116(50), 25029–25033. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1909806116
BøggildT.LaustsenL. (2016). An intra-group perspective on leader preferences: Different risks of exploitation shape preferences for leader facial dominance. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(6), 820–837. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.09.003
10.
CarneyD. R.HallJ. A.LeBeauL. S. (2005). Beliefs about the nonverbal expression of social power. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 29(2), 105–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-005-2743-z
11.
CarpenterS. (2000). Effects of cultural tightness and collectivism on self-concept and causal attributions. Cross-Cultural Research, 34(1), 38–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/106939710003400103
12.
CarrierD. R.MorganM. H. (2015). Protective buttressing of the hominin face. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 90(1), 330–346. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12112
13.
ChenH.WangX. J.ZangH. L.GuinoteA. (2021). Being a tough person in a tight world: Cultural tightness leads to a desire for muscularity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 96, Article 104183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2021.104183
14.
ChengJ. T.TracyJ. L.HenrichJ. (2010). Pride, personality, and the evolutionary foundations of human social status. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31(5), 334–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.02.004
15.
ConwayL. G.IIIBongardK.PlautV.GornickL. J.DoddsD. P.GiresiT.TweedR. G.RepkeM. A.HouckS. C. (2017). Ecological origins of freedom: Pathogens, heat stress, and frontier topography predict more vertical but less horizontal governmental restriction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(10), 1378–1398. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217713192
16.
ConwayL. G.IIIHouckS. C.GornickL. J.RepkeM. A. (2018). Finding the Loch Ness Monster: Left-wing authoritarianism in the United States. Political Psychology, 39(5), 1049–1067. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12470
17.
ConwayL. G.IIIMcFarlandJ. D.CostelloT. H.LilienfeldS. O. (2021). The curious case of left-wing authoritarianism: When authoritarian persons meet anti-authoritarian norms. Journal of Theoretical Social Psychology, 5(4), 423–442. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts5.108
18.
ConwayL. G.IIISextonS. M.TweedR. G. (2006). Collectivism and governmentally initiated restrictions: A cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis across nations and within a nation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37(1), 20–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022105282293
19.
ConwayL. G.IIIZubrodA.ChanL.McFarlandJ. D.van de VliertE. (2023). Is the myth of left-wing authoritarianism itself a myth?Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 1041391. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1041391
20.
CostelloT. H.BowesS. M.StevensS. T.WaldmanI. D.TasimiA.LilienfeldS. O. (2022). Clarifying the structure and nature of left-wing authoritarianism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 122(1), 135–170. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000341
21.
DijkerA. J. M.DeLusterR.PeetersN.VriesN. K. (2017). Seeing overweight adults as babies: Physical cues and implications for stigmatization. British Journal of Psychology, 108(4), 757–782. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12240
22.
DuckittJ. (1989). Authoritarianism and group identification: A new view of an old construct. Political Psychology, 10(1), 63–84. https://doi.org/10.2307/3791588
23.
DuckittJ.BizumicB.KraussS. W.HeledE. (2010). A tripartite approach to Right-Wing Authoritarianism: The Authoritarianism-Conservatism-Traditionalism model. Political Psychology, 31(5), 685–715. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00781.x
24.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA. G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03193146
25.
FincherC. L.ThornhillR. (2012). Parasite-stress promotes in-group assortative sociality: The cases of strong family ties and heightened religiosity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35(2), 61–79. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X11000021
26.
FrederickD. A.BuchananG. M.Sadehgi-AzarL.PeplauL. A.HaseltonM. G.BerezovskayaA.LipinskiR. E. (2007). Desiring the muscular ideal: Men’s body satisfaction in the United States, Ukraine, and Ghana. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 8(2), 103–117. https://doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.8.2.103
27.
FrederickD. A.HaseltonM. G. (2007). Why is muscularity sexy? Tests of the fitness indicator hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(8), 1167–1183. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167207303022
28.
GarfieldZ. H.HubbardR. L.HagenE. H. (2019). Evolutionary models of leadership: Tests and synthesis. Human Nature, 30(1), 23–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-019-09338-4
29.
GelfandM. J.NishiiL. H.RaverJ. L. (2006). On the nature and importance of cultural tightness-looseness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1225–1244. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1225
30.
GelfandM. J.RaverJ. L.NishiiL.LeslieL. A.LunJ.LimB. C.DuanL.AlmaliachA.AngS.ArnadottirJ.AycanZ.BoehnkeK.BoskiP.CabecinhasR.ChanD.ChhokarJ.D’AmatoA.FerrerM.FischlmayrI. C.. . . YamaguchiS. (2011). Differences between tight and loose cultures: A 33-nation study. Science, 332(6033), 1100–1104. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1197754
31.
HallJ. A.CoatsE. J.LeBeauL. S. (2005). Nonverbal behavior and the vertical dimension of social relations: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 131(6), 898–924. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.6.898
32.
HarringtonJ. R.GelfandM. J. (2014). Tightness-looseness across the 50 United States. PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(22), 7990–7995. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1317937111
HershcovisM. S.NevilleL.ReichT. C.ChristieA. M.CortinaL. M.ShanJ. V. (2017). Witnessing wrongdoing: The effects of observer power on incivility intervention in the workplace. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 142, 45–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2017.07.006
35.
JacksonJ. C.CaluoriN.AbramsS.BeckmanE.GelfandM.GrayK. (2021). Tight cultures and vengeful gods: How culture shapes religious belief. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 150(10), 2057–2077. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001033
36.
KakkarH.SivanathanN. (2017). When the appeal of a dominant leader is greater than a prestige leader. PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114(26), 6734–6739. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1617711114
37.
KrumhuberE. G.WangX.GuinoteA. (2022). The powerful self: How social power and gender influence face perception. Current Psychology, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-02798-5
LaustsenL. (2017). Choosing the right candidate: Observational and experimental evidence that conservatives and liberals prefer powerful and warm candidate personalities, respectively. Political Behavior, 39(4), 883–908. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-016-9384-2
40.
LaustsenL.PetersenM. B.KlofstadC. A. (2015). Vote choice, ideology, and social dominance orientation influence preferences for lower pitched voices in political candidates. Evolutionary Psychology, 13(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474704915600576
41.
LiR.GordonS.GelfandM. J. (2017). Tightness-looseness: A new framework to understand consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 27(3), 377–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2017.04.001
42.
LitmanL.RobinsonJ.AbberbockT. (2017). TurkPrime.com: A versatile crowdsourcing data acquisition platform for the behavioral sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 49(2), 433–442. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0727-z
43.
LukaszewskiA. W.SimmonsZ. L.AndersonC.RoneyJ. R. (2016). The role of physical formidability in human social status allocation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110(3), 385–406. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000042
44.
MansonJ. H. (2020). Right-wing authoritarianism, left-wing authoritarianism, and pandemic-mitigation authoritarianism. Personality and Individual Differences, 167, Article 110251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110251
MuY.KitayamaS.HanS.GelfandM. J. (2015). How culture gets embrained: Cultural differences in event-related potentials of social norm violations. PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(50), 15348–15353. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1509839112
47.
Munoz-ReyesJ. A.PoloP.Rodríguez-SickertC.PavezP.ValenzuelaN.Ramírez-HerreraO. (2019). Muscularity and strength affect individual variation in self- perception of fighting ability in men. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 18. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00018
48.
ObschonkaM.StuetzerM.RentfrowP. J.Shaw-TaylorL.SatchellM.SilbereisenR. K.PotterJ.GoslingS. D. (2018). In the shadow of coal: How large-scale industries contributed to present-day regional differences in personality and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115(5), 903–927. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000175
ReD. E.DeBruineL. M.JonesB. C.PerrettD. I. (2013). Facial cues to perceived height influence leadership choices in simulated war and peace contexts. Evolutionary Psychology, 11(1), 89–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/147470491301100109
52.
RonayR.GreenawayK.AnicichE. M.GalinskyA. D. (2012). The path to glory is paved with hierarchy: When hierarchical differentiation increases group effectiveness. Psychological Science, 23(6), 669–677. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611433876
53.
ShahP. P.PetersonR. S.JonesS. L.FergusonA. J. (2021). Things are not always what they seem: The origins and evolution of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 66(2), 426–474. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839220965186
54.
StamkouE.van KleefG. A.HomanA. C.GelfandM. J.van de VijverF. J. R.van EgmondM. C.BoerD.PhiriN.AyubN.KiniasZ.CantareroK.TreisterD. E.FigueiredoA.HashimotoH.HofmannE. B.LimaR. P.LeeI.-C. (2019). Cultural collectivism and tightness moderate responses to norm violators: Effects on power perception, moral emotions, and leader support. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(6), 947–964. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218802832
TalhelmT.ZhangX.OishiS.ShiminC.DuanD.LanX.KitayamaS. (2014). Large-scale psychological differences within China explained by rice versus wheat agriculture. Science, 344(6184), 603–608. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1246850
57.
VandelloJ. A.CohenD. (1999). Patterns of individualism and collectivism across the United States. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(2), 279–292. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.2.279
58.
van VugtM.HoganR.KaiserR. B. (2008). Leadership, followership, and evolution: Some lessons from the past. American Psychologist, 63(3), 182–196. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.3.182
59.
van VugtM.SpisakB. R. (2008). Sex differences in the emergence of leadership during competitions within and between groups. Psychological Science, 19(9), 854–858. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02168.x
WangX.ChenH.ChenZ.LuoS. (2022). An exchange orientation results in an instrumental approach in intimate relationships. British Journal of Social Psychology, 61(4), 1144–1159. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12530
62.
WangX.ChenH.ChenZ.YangY. (2021). Women’s intrasexual competition results in beautification. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 12(5), 648–657. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550620933403
63.
WangX.ChenH.ShiJ.ChenZ. (2023). Threatened humanity in a tight world: Cultural tightness results in self-objectification. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 25(8), 2003–2020. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302221097842
64.
WangX.ChenZ.KrumhuberE. G.ChenH. (2021). Money and flexible generosity. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 60(4), 1262–1278. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12450
65.
WangX.GuinoteA.KrumhuberE. G. (2018). Dominance biases in the perception and memory for the faces of powerholders, with consequences for social inferences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 78, 23–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.05.003
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.
