.jpg)
“When two security guards in Dalian in northeast China got their first month’s pay packet earlier this year, they asked why each received different amounts for identical work. The company responded that one man was 5cm (two inches) taller than his peer. Workers over 180cm earn more, they said, because bigger guards make people feel safer.”
The same feature article published recently by Foreign Affairs also cited Malcolm Gladwell. In his book Blink, the author noted that in the United States, Fortune 500 companies’ CEOs are “roughly three inches taller than the average American man.”
Across culture, being taller, especially among men, is linked to increased income, attractiveness, and ergo, social status. It is universally accepted that height is an advantage. Perceived to be dominant, the taller one is expected to win in a confrontation between two individuals.
In animals, dominance is defined as “an attribute of the pattern of repeated, agonistic interactions between two individuals, characterized by a consistent outcome in favour of the one member and a default yielding response of its opponent… ”
However, how does this play in real-life social interactions? For example, when two people are passing through a narrow passageway, and the passageway can only accommodate one person at a time, who is more likely to give way—the taller one or the one who is shorter?
Or imagine a flow of people walking towards a uniform direction. What would be the reactions when one individual walks against the flow? Would they differ depending on the height of the individual? Would they be more likely to give way to a taller individual, thus less likely to bump into them, as compared to a shorter one?
These two scenarios were tested in “Human Height is Positively Related to Interpersonal Dominance in Dyadic Interactions” published in 2015. In the first, results show that men who gave way averaged 5.8 feet (69.6 inches), whereas the men who didn’t budge averaged 6 feet (72 inches). The men who “stood ground” were taller by 2.5 inches. In the second, the flow of people walking in a uniform direction was more likely to give way to taller individuals. They are more likely to bump and collide with shorter individuals.
Aside from an imposing stature, physical dominance in men is also manifested through “athleticism, and upper body musculature.”
Abercrombie & Fitch, an American clothing store, has been known for hiring “physically fit, athletic-looking male employees to pose at store entrances shirtless, displaying their ‘sexy six-packs’.” To shoppers, this is a ploy aimed to entice female customers.
One study begs to disagree.
In “The Abercrombie & Fitch Effect: The Impact of Physical Dominance on Male Customers’ Status-Signaling Consumption,” participants of the study were exposed to males displaying dominant physical characteristics.
The study postulates that “because not all men can compete with a strong physique,” an alternative way to compensate for this inadequacy is through the “acquisition and display of costly products associated with wealth or status consumed in an attempt to impress others.”
In one scenario conducted in an Abercrombie & Fitch store, male customers, when greeted by a physically dominant male employee, spent approximately 131 percent more money than female customers. Moreover, average price per item spent was approximately 94 percent more expensive than the purchase of the female customers. Without the presence of the male employee, the average amount of money and price spent by the male customers do not differ from those of female customers.
In follow-up scenarios, selected participants were exposed to photos of dominant male models. A professional graphic designer was also tasked to manipulate the “model’s physical dominance by broadening his upper body musculature and thighs as well as increasing his stature.” Results show that male participants who were exposed to the photos “preferred significantly larger logos” than those who were not exposed. They are motivated to consume status-signaling products, such as a new cell phone, new car, jewelry, watch, dress shoes, etc., but not functional items like gasoline, snacks, household goods, etc.
According to the study, “less physically dominant men… will feel an enhanced drive to compete with a physically dominant male…, and they will do so by purchasing products that demonstrate their financial superiority.”
The two studies cited in this article confirm my perennial suspicion… it is an animal planet.
Real Carpio So lectures at the Ramon V. del Rosario College of Business of De La Salle University. He is an entrepreneur and a management consultant. Comments are welcomed at [email protected]. Archives can be accessed at realwalksonwater.wordpress.com. The views expressed above are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the official position of DLSU, its faculty, and its administrators.
