Men's physical strength moderates conceptualizations of prospective foes in two disparate societies

Human Male Body Size Predicts Increased Knockout Power, Which Is Accurately Tracked by Conspecific Judgments of Male Dominance

Humans have undergone a long evolutionary history of violent agonistic exchanges, which would have placed selective pressures on greater body size and the psychophysical systems that detect them. The present work showed that greater body size in humans predicted increased knockout power during combative contests (Study 1a-1b: total N = 5,866; Study 2: N = 44 openweight fights). In agonistic exchanges reflective of ancestral size asymmetries, heavier combatants were 200% more likely to win against their lighter counterparts because they were 200% more likely to knock them out (Study 2). Human dominance judgments (total N = 500 MTurkers) accurately tracked the frequency with which men (N = 516) knocked out similar-sized adversaries (Study 3). Humans were able to directly perceive a man's knockout power because they were attending to cues of a man's body size. Human dominance judgments-which are important across numerous psychological domains, including attractiveness, leadership, and legal decision-making-accurately predict the likelihood with which a potential mate, ally, or rival can incapacitate their adversaries.

When strength is a weakness

In general, individuals with low levels of coercive power are at greater risk of victimization than those who are more powerful. However, in some circumstances, superior coercive power increases an individual's vulnerability. In this paper, I show how coercive power can increase vulnerability (offsetting its protective effect) by its effects on targeting and tactics. Individuals with greater coercive power can increase their risk of getting targeted because they tend to be less vigilant and more likely to behave in ways that provoke others. They generate more grievances and have more enemies because they are less compliant and more verbally aggressive and confrontational. Powerful parties are also at greater risk of being targeted by adversaries seeking to gain status. An attack on a strong adversary is more likely to enhance status than an attack on a weaker adversary since it is a greater achievement. Individuals with coercive power are also at greater risk because of the tactics used by their weaker adversaries. Weaker parties are more likely to engage in pre-emptive attack and use weapons. They are better able to attract and rely on allies because of the norm of social responsibility, that is, the tendency to protect those in need. Finally, they are more likely to attempt to kill more power adversaries in order to incapacitate them and, thereby, avoid retaliation.

Spiritual over physical formidability determines willingness to fight and sacrifice through loyalty in cross-cultural populations

Across 11 studies involving six countries from four continents (n = 3,285), we extend insights from field investigations in conflict zones to offline and online surveys to show that personal spiritual formidability—the conviction and immaterial resources (values, strengths of beliefs, character) of a person to fight—is positively associated with the will to fight and sacrifice for others. The physical formidability of groups in conflict has long been promoted as the primary factor in human decisions to fight or flee in times of conflict. Here, studies in Spain, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, and Morocco reveal that personal spiritual formidability, a construct distinct from religiosity, is more strongly associated with the willingness to fight and make costly self-sacrifices for the group than physical formidability. A follow-on study among cadets of the US Air Force Academy further indicates that this effect is mediated by a stronger loyalty to the group, a finding replicated in a separate study with a European sample. The results demonstrate that personal spiritual formidability is a primary determinant of the will to fight across cultures, and this individual-level factor, propelled by loyal bonds made with others, disposes citizens and combatants to fight at great personal risk.

An Experimental Examination of Demand-Side Preferences for Female and Male National Leaders

Females constitute a far smaller proportion of political leaders than their proportion in the general population. Leading demand- and supply side explanations for this phenomenon account for some of the variance but leave a great deal unexplained. In an effort to account for additional variance, this research evaluates the issue informed by the biological theory of evolution by natural selection, a foundational explanation for the diversity and function of living organisms. It experimentally assesses how varying types of inter- and intragroup threat-a recurring ancestral problem-affect demand for female and male national leaders. This work analyzes data collected from individuals (N = 826) in the U.S. during the 2012 Cooperative Congressional Election Study. The results suggest the predominant preference for male over female leaders in some contexts may be the non-adaptive and non-functional but lingering outcome of an adaptive preference for physically formidable allies that was shaped by natural selection in ancestral environments.

Gruesomeness conveys formidability: Perpetrators of gratuitously grisly acts are conceptualized as larger, stronger, and more likely to win

While associated with extreme terrorist organizations in modern times, extensive accounts of grisly acts of violence exist in the archeological, historical, and ethnographic records. Though reasons for this dramatic form of violence are multifaceted and diverse, one possibility is that violence beyond what is required to win a conflict is a method by which violent actors communicate to others that they are formidable opponents. The formidability representation hypothesis predicts that formidability is cognitively represented using the dimensions of envisioned bodily size and strength. We tested the informational ramifications of gruesome acts using two vignette studies depicting individuals who either did or did not grievously damage the corpse of a deceased foe. Participants rated the individual's height, bodily size, and strength, as well as his aggressiveness, motivation, and the capacity to vanquish opponents in future conflicts. Results indicate that, as predicted, committing gruesome acts of violence enhances perceptions of formidability as measured both by envisioned bodily size and strength and expectations regarding the outcomes of agonistic conflicts. Moreover, the gruesome actor was perceived as more aggressive and more motivated to overcome his enemies, and this mediated the increase in conceptualized size and strength. These results both provide further evidence for the formidability representation hypothesis and support the thesis that overtly grisly violence is tactically employed, in part, because it conveys information about the perpetrator's formidability.

Force versus fury: Sex differences in the relationships among physical and psychological threat potential, the facial width-to-height ratio, and judgements of aggressiveness

Individuals with larger facial width-to-height ratios (FWHRs) are judged as more threatening, and engage in more threat-related behavior, than do individuals with smaller FWHRs. Here we identified components of threat potential that are related to the FWHR. In Study 1, the FWHR was correlated positively with physical threat potential (bicep size) in women and with both physical and psychological (anger proneness) threat potential in men. Behavioral aggression was measured in a subset of these participants using the Point Subtraction Aggression Paradigm (costly aggression) and a Money Allocation Task (non-costly aggression). Psychological (but not physical) threat potential predicted non-costly aggression and physical (but not psychological) threat potential predicted costly aggression. In Study 2, a separate set of participants judged the anger proneness, strength, or aggressiveness of male participants photographed in Study 1. Participants' judgements of all three characteristics were associated with the FWHR, and there were sex differences in how aggressiveness was conceptualized (for women, aggressiveness was associated with anger proneness, for men, aggressiveness was associated with strength). These results are consistent with the hypothesis that the FWHR may be an adaptation to cue the threat potential of men.

Cross-cultural regularities in the cognitive architecture of pride

Pride occurs in every known culture, appears early in development, is reliably triggered by achievements and formidability, and causes a characteristic display that is recognized everywhere. Here, we evaluate the theory that pride evolved to guide decisions relevant to pursuing actions that enhance valuation and respect for a person in the minds of others. By hypothesis, pride is a neurocomputational program tailored by selection to orchestrate cognition and behavior in the service of: (i) motivating the cost-effective pursuit of courses of action that would increase others' valuations and respect of the individual, (ii) motivating the advertisement of acts or characteristics whose recognition by others would lead them to enhance their evaluations of the individual, and (iii) mobilizing the individual to take advantage of the resulting enhanced social landscape. To modulate how much to invest in actions that might lead to enhanced evaluations by others, the pride system must forecast the magnitude of the evaluations the action would evoke in the audience and calibrate its activation proportionally. We tested this prediction in 16 countries across 4 continents (n = 2,085), for 25 acts and traits. As predicted, the pride intensity for a given act or trait closely tracks the valuations of audiences, local (mean r = +0.82) and foreign (mean r = +0.75). This relationship is specific to pride and does not generalize to other positive emotions that coactivate with pride but lack its audience-recalibrating function.

Gulliver’s Politics

Political conservatives have been widely documented to regard out-group members as hostile, perceive individuals of ambiguous intent as malevolent, and favor aggressive solutions to intergroup conflict. A growing literature indicates that potential violent adversaries are represented using the dimensions of envisioned physical size/strength to summarize opponents’ fighting capacities relative to the self or in-group. Integrating these programs, we hypothesized that, compared to liberals, conservatives would envision an ambiguous out-group target as more likely to pose a threat, yet as vanquishable through force, and thus as less formidable. Participants from the United States (Study 1) and Spain (Study 2) assessed Syrian refugees, a group that the public widely suspects includes terrorists. As predicted, in both societies, conservatives envisioned refugees as more likely to be terrorists and as less physically formidable. As hypothesized, this “Gulliver effect” was mediated by confidence in each society’s capacity to thwart terrorism via aggressive military or police measures.

Evolutionary preferences for physical formidability in leaders

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.

Dressed to kill? Visible markers of coalitional affiliation enhance conceptualized formidability

Displaying markers of coalitional affiliation is a common feature of contemporary life. In situations in which interaction with members of rival coalitions is likely, signaling coalitional affiliation may simultaneously constitute an implicit challenge to opponents and an objective commitment device, binding signalers to their coalitions. Individuals who invite conflict, and who cannot readily back out of conflict, constitute a greater threat than those who avoid conflict and preserve the option of feigning neutrality. As a consequence, the former should be viewed as more formidable than the latter. Recent research indicates that relative formidability is summarized using the envisioned physical size and strength of a potential antagonist. Thus, individuals who display markers of coalitional affiliation should be conceptualized as more physically imposing than those who do not. We tested this prediction in two experiments. In Study 1, conducted with U.S. university students, participants inspected images of sports fans' faces. In Study 2, conducted with U.S. Mechanical Turk workers, participants read vignettes depicting political partisans. In both studies, participants estimated the physical formidability of the target individuals and reported their own ability to defend themselves; in Study 2, participants estimated the target's aggressiveness. Consonant with predictions, targets depicted as signaling coalitional affiliation in situations of potential conflict were envisioned to be more physically formidable and more aggressive than were those not depicted as signaling thusly. Underscoring that the calculations at issue concern the possibility of violent conflict, participants' estimates of the protagonist's features were inversely correlated with their ability to defend themselves.

Shame closely tracks the threat of devaluation by others, even across cultures

We test the theory that shame evolved as a defense against being devalued by others. By hypothesis, shame is a neurocomputational program tailored by selection to orchestrate cognition, motivation, physiology, and behavior in the service of: (i) deterring the individual from making choices where the prospective costs of devaluation exceed the benefits, (ii) preventing negative information about the self from reaching others, and (iii) minimizing the adverse effects of devaluation when it occurs. Because the unnecessary activation of a defense is costly, the shame system should estimate the magnitude of the devaluative threat and use those estimates to cost-effectively calibrate its activation: Traits or actions that elicit more negative evaluations from others should elicit more shame. As predicted, shame closely tracks the threat of devaluation in the United States (r = .69), India (r = .79), and Israel (r = .67). Moreover, shame in each country strongly tracks devaluation in the others, suggesting that shame and devaluation are informed by a common species-wide logic of social valuation. The shame-devaluation link is also specific: Sadness and anxiety-emotions that coactivate with shame-fail to track devaluation. To our knowledge, this constitutes the first empirical demonstration of a close, specific match between shame and devaluation within and across cultures.

With God on our side: Religious primes reduce the envisioned physical formidability of a menacing adversary

The imagined support of benevolent supernatural agents attenuates anxiety and risk perception. Here, we extend these findings to judgments of the threat posed by a potentially violent adversary. Conceptual representations of bodily size and strength summarize factors that determine the relative threat posed by foes. The proximity of allies moderates the envisioned physical formidability of adversaries, suggesting that cues of access to supernatural allies will reduce the envisioned physical formidability of a threatening target. Across two studies, subtle cues of both supernatural and earthly social support reduced the envisioned physical formidability of a violent criminal. These manipulations had no effect on the perceived likelihood of encountering non-conflictual physical danger, raising the possibility that imagined supernatural support leads participants to view themselves not as shielded from encountering perilous situations, but as protected should perils arise.

Marching into battle: synchronized walking diminishes the conceptualized formidability of an antagonist in men

Paralleling behaviours in other species, synchronized movement is central to institutionalized collective human activities thought to enhance cooperation, and experiments demonstrate that synchrony has this effect. The influence of synchrony on cooperation may derive from an evolutionary history wherein such actions served to signal coalitional strength to both participants and observers-including adversaries. If so, then synchronous movement should diminish individuals' estimations of a foe's formidability. Envisioned physical size and strength constitute the dimensions of a representation that summarizes relative fighting capacity. Experiencing synchrony should therefore lead individuals to conceptualize an antagonist as smaller and weaker. We found that men who walked synchronously with a male confederate indeed envisioned a purported criminal as less physically formidable than did men who engaged in this task without synchronizing.

Bound to lose: physical incapacitation increases the conceptualized size of an antagonist in men

Because decision-making in situations of potential conflict hinges on assessing many features of the self and the foe, this process can be facilitated by summarizing diverse attributes in a single heuristic representation. Physical size and strength are evolutionarily ancient determinants of victory in conflict, and their relevance is reinforced during development. Accordingly, size and muscularity constitute ready dimensions for a summary representation of relative formidability, a perspective paralleled by the notion that social power is represented using envisioned relative size. Physical incapacitation constitutes a significant tactical disadvantage, hence temporary incapacitation should increase the envisioned size and strength of an antagonist. In Study 1, being bound to a chair increased men’s estimates of the size of an angry man and decreased estimates of their own height. Study 2 conceptually replicated these effects: among men for whom standing on a balance board was challenging, the attendant experience of postural instability increased estimates of an angry man’s size and muscularity, with similar patterns occurring at a reduced level among all but those whose equilibrium was apparently unaffected by this task.