Physical cues influence social judgments of others. For example, shorter individuals are evaluated less positively than taller individuals. Here, we demonstrate that height also impacts one of the most consequential intergroup judgments—attributions of humanity—and explore whether this effect is modulated by the tendency to value hierarchy maintenance. In Study 1, the shorter participants perceived a range of out-groups to be, the more they dehumanized them, and this tended to be particularly pronounced among those scoring high on social dominance orientation (SDO). In Study 2, participants dehumanized an out-group more when they were led to believe that it was relatively short. Finally, Study 3 applied a reverse correlation approach, demonstrating that participants in general, and especially those scoring high on SDO, represented shorter groups in ways less consistent with full humanity than they represented taller groups. Together, this research demonstrates that basic physical height cues shape the perceived humanity of out-groups.
AdelsonB. M. (2005). The lives of dwarfs: Their journey from public curiosity toward social liberation. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
2.
BastianB.HaslamN. (2010). Excluded from humanity: The dehumanizing effects of social ostracism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 107–113. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.06.022
3.
BlakerN. M.RompaI.DessingI. H.VriendA. F.HerschbergC.van VugtM. (2013). The height leadership advantage in men and women: Testing evolutionary psychology predictions about the perceptions of tall leaders. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 16, 17–27. doi:10.1177/1368430212437211
4.
Brown-IannuzziJ. L.DotschR.CooleyE.PayneB. K. (2016). The relationship between mental representations of welfare recipients and attitudes toward welfare. Psychological Science, 28, 92–103. doi:10.1177/0956797616674999
5.
ChiaoJ. Y. (2010). Neural basis of social status hierarchy across species. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 20, 803–809. doi:10.1016/j.conb.2010.08.006
6.
ChuS.GearyK. (2005). Physical stature influences character perception in women. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 1927–1934. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2004.10.004
7.
CostelloK.HodsonG. (2010). Exploring the roots of dehumanization: The role of animal–human similarity in promoting immigrant humanization. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13, 3–22. doi:10.1177/1368430209347725
8.
CrandallC. S. (1994). Prejudice against fat people: Ideology and self-interest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 882–894. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.66.5.882
DotschR.TodorovA. (2012). Reverse correlating social face perception. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3, 562–571. doi:10.1177/1948550611430272
11.
DotschR.WigboldusD. H. J.Van KnippenbergA. D. (2013). Behavioral information biases the expected facial appearance of members of novel groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 116–125. doi:10.1002/ejsp.1928
12.
DuckittJ. (2006). Differential effects of right wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation on outgroup attitudes and their mediation by threat from and competitiveness to outgroups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 684–696. doi:10.1177/0146167205284282
13.
EllisL. (1995). Dominance and reproductive success among nonhuman animals: A cross-species comparison. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16, 257–333. doi:10.1016/0162-3095(95)00050-U
14.
EpleyN.WaytzA. (2010). Mind perception. In FiskeS. T.GilbertD. T.LindzeyG. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 498–541). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
15.
EssesV. M.VeenvlietS.HodsonG.MihicL. (2008). Justice, morality, and the dehumanization of refugees. Social Justice Research, 21, 4–25. doi:10.1007/s11211-007-0058-4
16.
FiskeA. P. (1992). The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a unified theory of social relations. Psychological Review, 99, 689–723. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.99.4.689
17.
GawleyT.PerksT.CurtisJ. (2009). Height, gender, and authority status at work: Analyses for a national sample of Canadian workers. Sex Roles, 60, 208–222. doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9520-5
18.
GrayH. M.GrayK.WegnerD. M. (2007). Dimensions of mind perception. Science, 315, 619–619. doi:10.1126/science.1134475
19.
HaslamN. (2006). Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 252–264. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_4
20.
HaslamN.LoughnanS. (2014). Dehumanization and infrahumanization. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 399–423. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115045
21.
HoA. K.SidaniusJ.CuddyA. J. C.BanajiM. R. (2013). Status boundary enforcement and the categorization of black–white biracials. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 940–943. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2013.04.010
22.
HoA. K.SidaniusJ.KteilyN.Sheehy-SkeffingtonJ.PrattoF.HenkelK. E.…StewartA. L. (2015). The nature of social dominance orientation: Theorizing and measuring preferences for intergroup inequality using the new SDO scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 1003–1028. doi:10.1037/pspi0000033
23.
HodsonG.CostelloK. (2007). Interpersonal disgust, ideological orientations, and dehumanization as predictors of intergroup attitudes. Psychological Science, 18, 691–698. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01962.x
24.
HugenbergK.YoungS.RydellR. J.AlmarazS.StankoK. A.SeeP. E.WilsonJ. P. (2016). The face of humanity: Configural face processing influences ascriptions of humanness. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7, 167–175. doi:10.1177/1948550615609734
25.
JacksonL. A.ErvinK. S. (1992). Height stereotypes of women and men: The liabilities of shortness for both sexes. The Journal of Social Psychology, 132, 433–445. doi:10.1080/00224545.1992.9924723
26.
JudgeT. A.CableD. M. (2004). The effect of physical height on workplace success and income: Preliminary test of a theoretical model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 428–441. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.3.428
27.
KövecsesZ. (2006). Language, mind, and culture: A practical introduction. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
28.
KteilyN.BruneauE.WaytzA.CotterillS. (2015). The ascent of man: Theoretical and empirical evidence for blatant dehumanization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 901–931. doi:10.1037/pspp0000048
29.
KteilyN.CotterillS.SidaniusJ.Sheehy-SkeffingtonJ.BerghR. (2014). “Not one of us” predictors and consequences of denying ingroup characteristics to ambiguous targets. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 1231–1247. doi:10.1177/0146167214539708
30.
KteilyN.HoA. K.SidaniusJ. (2012). Hierarchy in the mind: The predictive power of social dominance orientation across social contexts and domains. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 543–549. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.11.007
31.
KteilyN.HodsonG.BruneauE. (2016). They see us as less than human: Metadehumanization predicts intergroup conflict via reciprocal dehumanization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110, 343–370. doi:10.1037/pspa0000044
32.
KteilyN.Sheehy-SkeffingtonJ.HoA. K. (2017). Hierarchy in the eye of the beholder: (Anti-)egalitarianism shapes perceived levels of social inequality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112, 136–159. doi:10.1037/pspp0000097
33.
KunstJ. R.FischerR.SidaniusJ.ThomsenL. (2017). Preferences for group dominance track and mediate the effects of macro-level social inequality and violence across societies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. doi:10.1073/pnas.1616572114
34.
LakoffG.JohnsonM. (1980). The metaphorical structure of the human conceptual system. Cognitive Science, 4, 195–208. doi:10.1016/S0364-0213(80)80017-6
35.
LesterD.SheehanD. (1980). Attitudes of supervisors toward short police officers. Psychological Reports, 47, 462. doi:10.2466/pr0.1980.47.2.462
36.
LindemanM.SundvikL. (1994). Impact of height on assessments of Finnish female job applicants’ managerial abilities. The Journal of Social Psychology, 134, 169–174. doi:10.1080/00224545.1994.9711379
37.
MazurA. (2005). Biosociology of dominance and deference. Oxford, England: Rowman & Littlefield.
38.
NettleD. (2002a). Height and reproductive success in a cohort of British men. Human Nature, 13, 473–491. doi:10.1007/s12110-002-1004-7
39.
NettleD. (2002b). Women’s height, reproductive success and the evolution of sexual dimorphism in modern humans. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 269, 1919–1923. doi:10.1098/rspb.2002.2111
40.
PierceC. A. (1996). Body height and romantic attraction: A meta-analytic test of the male-taller norm. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 24, 143–149. doi:10.2224/sbp.1996.24.2.143
41.
PrattoF.SidaniusJ.LevinS. (2006). Social dominance theory and the dynamics of intergroup relations: Taking stock and looking forward. European Review of Social Psychology, 17, 271–320. doi:10.1080/10463280601055772
42.
PrattoF.SidaniusJ.StallworthL. M.MalleB. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741–763. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741
43.
PuhlR. M.BrownellK. D. (2006). Confronting and coping with weight stigma: An investigation of overweight and obese adults. Obesity, 14, 1802–1815. doi:10.1038/oby.2006.208
44.
RothK.EisenbergN. (1983). The effects of children’s height on teachers’ attributions of competence. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 143, 45–50. doi:10.1080/00221325.1983.10533532
45.
SalzmanT. (1997). Catholics & colonialism: The church’s failure in Rwanda. Commonweal, 124, 17–19.
46.
SapolskyR. M. (2004). Social status and health in humans and other animals. Annual Review of Anthropology, 33, 393–418. doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.33.070203.144000
47.
SidaniusJ.PrattoF. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
48.
SorokowskiP. (2010). Politicians’ estimated height as an indicator of their popularity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 1302–1309. doi:10.1002/ejsp.710
49.
SteckelR. H. (1995). Stature and the standard of living. Journal of Economic Literature, 33, 1903–1940.
50.
ThomsenL.FrankenhuisW. E.Ingold-SmithM.CareyS. (2011). Big and mighty: Preverbal infants mentally represent social dominance. Science, 331, 477–480. doi:10.1126/science.1199198
51.
ThomsenL.GreenE. G. T.SidaniusJ. (2008). We will hunt them down: How social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism fuel ethnic persecution of immigrants in fundamentally different ways. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1455–1464. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.06.011
52.
TiggemannM.AnesburyT. (2000). Negative stereotyping of obesity in children: The role of controllability beliefs. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 1977–1993. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02477.x
53.
VaesJ.LeyensJ.-P.PaladinoM. P.PiresM. M. (2012). We are human, they are not: Driving forces behind outgroup dehumanisation and the humanisation of the ingroup. European Review of Social Psychology, 23, 64–106. doi:10.1080/10463283.2012.665250
54.
van VugtM.TyburJ. M. (2016). The evolutionary foundations of status hierarchy. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
55.
WaytzA.HoffmanK. M.TrawalterS. (2015). A superhumanization bias in Whites’ perceptions of Blacks. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6, 352–359. doi:10.1177/1948550614553642
56.
WilsonJ. P.HugenbergK.RuleN. O. (2017). Racial bias in judgments of physical size and formidability: From size to threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113, 59–80. doi:10.1037/pspi0000092
57.
YoungT. J.FrenchL. A. (1996). Height and perceived competence of U.S. presidents. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 82, 1002. doi:10.1177/003151259608200301
58.
YoungT. J.FrenchL. A. (1998). Heights of U.S. presidents: A trend analysis for 1948–1996. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 87, 321–322. doi:10.2466/pms.1998.87.1.321
59.
ZinkC. F.TongY.ChenQ.BassettD. S.SteinJ. L.Meyer-LindenbergA. (2008). Know your place: Neural processing of social hierarchy in humans. Neuron, 58, 273–283. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2008.01.025
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.
