What are the patterns of association between height and status attainment in UK males?

 

In all highly organized countries, researchers have been able to find differences among social classes (Olivier, 1979). Although the positive association between height and social status has been a consistent finding in the social sciences (Lundborg, Nystdt and Rooth, 2014), there has been relatively little research on the topic. Research has suggested that taller individuals are more likely to have higher educational attainment, employment, life satisfaction, have higher earnings, find mates and have more offspring  (Magnusson, Rasmussen and Gyllensten, 2006; Case and Paxson, 2006; Stulp et al., 2013; Gawley et al., 2009; Carrieri et al. 2012; Bielicki and Charzewski, 1983), it seems that individuals of taller stature seem to be more socially desirable (Roberts and Herman, 1986). The notion to begin studying the correlation between height and attainments of various kinds most likely emerged from some sort of observed behaviours. The reasoning for the development of height as a status and power marker is unknown.  One author drew parallels between human social status and nonhuman social dominance (Ellis, 1994). Humans, as other animals, tend to use gestures to communicate status to one another. In non-human animals there is a behavior that is referred to as “body-diminishing”, which is crouching, that is exhibited when a subject wants to signal subordination. (FIND MORE CITATIONS HERE).  Number of studies have shown that there is evidence for and against size being related to rank in the animal kingdom. Fischer and Nadler (1977) find that in gorillas size and rank are positively correlated whereas Schaller (1979) shows the opposite. Further, in baboons there is a larger amount of research supporting the hypothesis of rank being linked to size, namely Lee and Oliver (1979) and Hall and DeVore (1965). Evidence spanning all the way into rodents shows that size is positively correlated to status in the animal kingdom (Allen and Aspey, 1986; Barnett, 1978).  A small amount of quite niche research indicates there is a possibility that humans exhibit such behavior as well (Morris, 1977). If this is true this is interesting, especially when considering height related terminology often used to signal status. For instance, Warner and Lundt (1941) use terms such as “little people” to describe those who were powerless and poor in society, while referring to someone well off as being a part of “high society”, alluding to tall stature being superior in some way. This subtly leads to believe that stature can be a metaphor for hierarchy in society.

 

Many of the arguments used in the debate of human height and status attainment or various sorts have been often linked to regular consumption of nutritious food, allowing children to reach their full growth potential, therefore producing a positive relationship between social status and growth (Ellis, 1994). Ellis supported his claim by presenting research showing a correlation between height and nutrition in children of European immigrants in America during a European famine[1]. As presented by Sanders (1934) children born during the famine and prior to the move to the United States were an average 5% shorter than younger siblings born after immigrating. Similar results are shown in children who experienced World War I or World War II (Tobey, 1951). Contrastingly, Stein et al. (1975) found there to be no correlation between famine and height, however there is stronger evidence for the opposite occurring.

 

Multiple studies have referred to a phenomenon named “heightism”, which is prejudice or discrimination based on a person’s height, especially against short people (OED, 2006). The term, first coined by sociologist Saul Feldman (1971), seems to characterize many societies (Goffman, 1963) and has been a concern similar to that of sexism or racism.

 

Status attainment is a sociological concept considered quite important in this case. It is key to understanding social inequality as it occurs through occupations and earnings. It is rooted in the idea that inequality results mainly from differences in characteristics such as education, parent’s occupation and education, academic achievement, motivation, ability and values (Blackwells dictionary of sociology). Here, characteristics such as race, gender, and class inequality are resulting from differences in individual ability to compete successfully for higher status or income. The idea is that individuals can be mobile in terms of status attainment, whether that is upward or downward. Literature suggests that educational achievements and other such indicators of skill and ability may be translatable into socioeconomic status. Although it must be considered whether educational achievement is truly an indicator of skills, as that is a separate discussion in itself. Initially the concept of status attainment was put forth by Blau and Duncan in 1967’s The American Occupational Structure. Their book – now a classic in the filed of sociology – is considered to be one of the most extensive investigations into mobility ever conducted.

 

Theories presented by Blau and Duncan provide an explanation for social mobility by identifying what facilitates it, and focuses on status transmission and the fact that there is some direct effect of paternal influence however ultimately the level of education affects occupational attainment. William Sewell later presented the Wisconsin Model[2], which built on Blau and Duncan by incorporating variables such as family background, or ascribed characteristics of an individuals into the model. Thanks to their work, additional links between schooling and family background and status achievement. These mechanisms seemed to be mainly transmitted though social psychological processes. The Wisconsin Model came to the same conclusion as previous research, however made the distinction that parental status vanishes upon consideration of other factors.

The notion that there exists a pattern of association between height and other variables (whether that be occupation, income, or social status) was examined even earlier in history. Going back even to 1915 there was some research showing the superiority of height in certain professions. Gowin (1915) examined the association between distribution of height of executives and average men. Distributing individuals by profession allowed to discover that those in higher ranking professions are often taller. To give a few examples, bishops were found to be taller than preachers, and sales managers taller than salesmen (Gowin, 1915). This is small piece of evidence is one of the first more concrete pieces of research on the topic, and is not only interesting but also important as it indicates the direction that future research will take. There forms a suspicion that height may be correlated with labor market success. Later research goes on to provide evidence time and time again that higher-level occupations attract workers of higher average height  (CITATION).

 

Building on this suspicion, a plethora of research came to be. Studies attempted to find evidence of correlations and the mechanisms behind such links. A small number of studies conducted on Canadian samples shows positive relationships between physical height and holding some sort of a position of power (Gawley, Perks and Curtis, 2009). In the United States, jobs that were considered to be “white-collar”[3] had employees that were on average one inch taller than those who worked in “blue-collar[4] professions (CITATION). Similarly, in the United Kingdom those work in professional and managerial occupations are on average 0.6 inches taller than those at lower level occupations, i.e. manual jobs. This evidence reinforces the research that there is a positive correlation between higher and earnings (Case and Paxson, 2006). In the British sample, a one-inch increase in height is associated with a 1.4 to 2.9% increase in weekly earnings in both men and women this makes the association between height and earnings economically significant. The explanations for the phenomenon span many different areas. Case and Paxson (2006) attribute this phenomenon to a higher intelligence of individuals with greater stature, while some others claim that it is due to increased cognitive ability or social mechanisms (CITATIONS).

 

It is clear that the height wage relationship is not mediated by differences in resources or endowmwnts (Persico, Postlewaite and Silverman, 2004).

 

Numerous hypotheses have attempted to explain the association between height and earnings. Some split the reasons as those related to developed countries and those related to developing countries. It is thought that in developing countries the height premium exists as taller men are considered to be stronger as well as healthier, and therefore better suited for manual work (Hadad and Bouis, 1991). This is realistic as developing countries have more construction and similar work that requires able bodied individuals, therefore physical size becomes an indicator of productivity. However in developed countries there is a much larger emphasis on impacts of self-esteem, social dominance and discrimination that accompany height (Case and Paxson, 2006; Judge and Cable, 2004; Schick and Steckel 2010). The association that has been observed between height and status attainment is not driven by a discrimination and extremely small earnings by shorter individuals, but rather is a due to an overall preference for the characteristics associated with taller individuals (CITATION).

 

The implications of findings for arguments related to equality of opportunity and meritocracy prove to be important however also remain a matter of controversy.

 

In general, speed of growth is similar across countries and can be accurately predicted. After the age of 3, growth becomes stable and plateaus at about 6cm per year. During puberty this speeds up to 10 centimeters per year and finally fizzles out after adolescence (Case and Paxson, 2008), the final adult height of an individual is dependent on a variety of variables. The most cited are genes, environmental conditions, and gene-environment interactions. In the western world[5] 80% of all variation in height is due to generic factors, merely 20% is attributed to environmental differences. This is typical in regions with little nutritional and or environmental stresses that would hinder growth (Rogol et al., 2000).

 

Height has evolutionary origins, as animals are known to use it as a power for index and strength when using their fight or flight instincts (Judge and Cable, 2004). Sociologist Freedman (1979) once said  that in nature the bigger the more dangerous (Freedman, 1979). Continuing this notion, in terms of sociobiological perspective, and in a gross oversimplification, height is power, and thus demands respect (Judge and Cable, 2004). There much more to this idea of “height is power”, and research has been attempting for years to solve the puzzle. Instances of “heightism” are evident in areas spanning from employment to business to marriage. Taller individuals are considered to be more persuasive (Young nad French, 1996), more attractive mates (Stulp et al., 2013), and more likely to emerge as leaders (Stulp et al., 2013). In terms of wages, a 2004 paper found that there is an increase in income that corresponds to height in men (Judge and Cable, 2004). Further, Persico, Postlewaite and Silverman (2004) found that in the United Kingdom and United States there is a significant increase of 1.8% in wages, with every additional inch of height in men this is a result roughly equal to an additional $850 in earnings[6]. Their work went on to show that there is a strong existing correlation between men’s height at 16 years old and future wages. The relationship between height and career success in Judge and Cable (2004) was studied while controlling for sex, age and weight in order to get most accurate results possible and ensure causality. Findings suggest that there is a positive correlation of height and income, as well as a significant relationship of height and social esteem, leader emergence and performance (Judge and Cable, 2004). The results were stronger for men then they were for women, however the difference was not significant. Overall, the data suggests that tall individuals have advantages in several important aspects of their careers as well as organizational lives (Judge and Cable, 2004). Most importantly there is a non-zero association of height with success and a significant and positive relationship to earnings (Judge and Cable, 2004) and height is a objectively related to work outcomes.

 

There is a possibility that the relationship is [not] causal, however this cannot be stated with certainty *(there was a comment here I didn’t quite understand: would put it the other way round. Statistical evidence based on large scale surveys is not causal.)

 

Similar discrimination to that mentioned above is seen in the business world. A piece of anecdotal evidence suggests the extent to which this is true, as some jobs that prefer taller employees are manual labour, law enforcement, professional sport and the army. Such preferences have also been seen in CEOs and even United States presidents. This leads to believe that height leads professional success (Persico, Postlewaite and Silverman, 2004). A study by Stulp et al. (2012) indicates that in 10 out of 13 of cases studied, the taller candidate went on to take office in United States presidential elections. This is attributed to the tall having better leadership skill and communication skills (Stulp et al. 2012).

 

Among CEOs of Fortune 500 companies an astonishing 58% are six feet or over, while onlt 14.5% of the population of the United States reaches that height (Gladwell, 2005). Overall, the average fortune 500 CEOs stood three inches taller than the typical American man (Gladwell, 2005). After compiling and analyzing data from four large research studies, researchers found that a person who is sic feet tall but but is identical to someone standing at five-foot-five, will make an average of $5,500 more per year. This compiles as hundreds of thousands of dollars more in a lifetime (Gladwell, 2005). It seems that height adds to income and income to height, creating a hamster wheel that keeps the disadvantaged just that, disadvantaged. It seems that the relationship between height and income is always straightforward, however an exception can be seen in the case of Uganda, which has both taller and poorer citizens than India. According to some work by Kurtz (1969), 78% of recruiter prefers to hire a taller salesperson, as they believe they are more impressive to customers. Furthermore, short police officers were found to have more disciplinary problems and poorer morale than taller police officers (Lester and Sheehan, 1980).

 

The magnitude of the height premium is comparable to that of those associated with race and gender (Persico, Postlewaite and Silverman, 2004). Persoco, Postelwaite and Silverman (2004) suggest that in the US and UK the height-earnings association is mostly described by the teen-height premium (Heineck, 2008).  Being relatively short in teen years seem to have an effect on the determination of returns to height. Teen height is predictably greater for sons of tall parents, and there is thus a “wage-penalty” that is experienced by children of short parents (Persico, Postlewaite and Silverman, 2004). It seems to be that regarding body size, workers are at a disadvantage when they are not lean (Cawley, 2004; Cawley et al, 2005) and tall. A study by harper (2000) indicated a wage penalty for the shorter than average and a wage premium of about 5% for those taller than average (Heineck, 2008). Heineck (2008) presents research that reinforces the linear relationship of the height-wage premium for tall workers.

 

Physical characteristics such as height seem to play a large rold in human mate selection. According to Stulp et al. (2013), men tend to prefer a larger difference in height between themselves and their partner whereas women are satistied when there is a 21cm difference between them and their partner. These findings are consistent with human health; the argument stands that a taller mate is more biologically preferred (Stulp et al., 2013).

 

This is not only a phenomenon of western culture. Among the Mehinaku of Brazil there is a common conception that tall men are more attractive, and the shortest of the tribe are even referred to as the village fool (Gregor, 1977). Similarly, the Trobriand Islanders praise male height (Malinowski, 1922). Leading to believe that there is a deeper mechanism for humans preferring taller males. This is natural as, following anthropological thought, the homo genus evolved in an environment where height was preferred as, similar to what is now seen in developing countries, it is associated with health and strength (CITATION)

 

Physical appearance plays a role in how others view us and how we view ourselves. Physical traits play a role in workplace interactions and outcomes, and there is active literature that focuses on how attractiveness, weight, and body image affect workplace outcomes (e.g., DeGroot & Motowidlo, 1999; Gilmore, 1986; McElroy, 1999; Pingitore, Dugoni, & Tin- dale, 1994; Roehling, 1999; Trethewey, 1999). A few theories have been presented for why society often has a different approach to shorter people. The leading theory is one form social psychology that focuses on interpersonal dominance that is derived from height. The theory claims that people who are shorter are percieved less positively and are therefore at a disadvantage when they are in interpersonal dealings (See Martel and Biller 1987 and Freize et al 1990).

 

Some predictions indicate that height may have an influence on social esteem (Judge and Cable, 2004). A perceptual bias leads to judgments on people’s height (Judge and Cable, 2004). Height has long been a metaphor for power (Roberts and Herman, 1986), thus individuals seem to hold tall people in higher esteem (Baker and Redding, 1962). Height is also related to self-esteem, as studies have shown that physical appearance has an influence on individuals psychological adjustment (DelRosario, Brine and Coleman, 1984 (from judge and cable 2004)). It is quit possible that taller people are more satisfied with their physical stature (Adler, 1956), and across time insecurities about height may lead individuals to be dissatisfied with their physical stature. Accordingly, tall individuals may develop greater feelings of self-worth and self- confidence, because they are consistently viewed and treated with respect by others; this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy (Roberts & Herman, 1986). Theoretically the esteem individuals are held to by others can have an effect on objective performance, and thus eventually affects career success.

 

The next theory focuses on evolutionary selection may also explain the disadvantages that the shorter experience. It is normal to consider that as homo sapiens evolved, it so developed that those who were sizable were at a much larger advantage for getting resources and therefore there is a chance that being taller, stronger, healthier was positively selected for (Persico, Postlewaite and Silverman, 2004). It is possible that height and strength simple indicated a better genetic make up, one better suited against illness and depravation. This provides as view for why shorter people may be considered less appealing.

 

A third theory emphasizes the association of height with self-esteem. The idea is that the height premium exists from a superior conception of the self, that is achieved through a comparison with socially determined notions of ideal height. So in layman’s terms, having a greater self-image leads to higher achievement through a variety of channels, including that of perseverance and skills (Persico, Postlewaite and Silverman, 2004).

 

There are also some that believe that the height premium is caused by discrimination. In other words, children who have a predisposition of being shorter do not acquire as much cultural capital, as returns to cultural capital are smaller for short adults, therefore they will invest less in assets that prove to only provide low personal returns (Persico, Postlewaite and Silverman, 2004).

 

Finally, taller people may simply be endowed with some favorable characterizes. They can either be family resources that improve productivity, intellectual stamina or just more work energy – these are independent productive characteristics of a person (Persico, Postlewaite and Silverman, 2004).

 

As previously mentioned, it is largely thought that height may be such a desirable characteristic as it is associated with some other benefits. Some research has lead to believe that height is positively linked to attributes such as higher self-esteem (Case and Paxson, 2008). Taller children in the United States and the United Kingdom are shown to have higher cognitive test scores, and it seems that these test scores are what is a large proportion of the height premium observed in earnings. So children who have higher test scores, and the experience an earlier growth spurt, therefore height in adolescence is an indicator of cognitive ability (Case and Paxson, 2008). They go further to claim that taller boys have better self-esteem as they are more likely to participate in social activities such as sports and clubs when growing up, that build human (cultural) capital (Case and Paxson, 2008). They conclude that individuals are more likely to earn more not because of their height but because of the cognitive skills that they acquire thanks to their height. A slightly different approach is offered by Persico Postlewaite and Silverman (2004), whose research explores how height affects wages and try to examine the root of the mechanisms behind it all.  The find that the average wage of a man in the shortest quartile of the population is 11% less than that of a man in the top quartile. They also notice that men who are shorter are more often from large families with less educated parents that often come from hard manual occupations. This finding indicates that there is a factor other than just height that if a determinant of what background men come

[1] The irish potato famine

[2] A model of socioeconomic attainment that explains social mobility of an individual and the economic, social nad psychological determinants of that mobility.

[3] White-collar refers to those working as academics, managers, or professional occupations.

[4] Blue-collar is considered to be manual or un-skilled workers

[5] United Kingdom, United States, Europe, Australia, etc.

[6] Based on data form 1996

CLICK BUTTON TO ORDER NOW