Human Nature

, Volume 25, Issue 3, pp 393–409 | Cite as

Men’s Physical Strength Moderates Conceptualizations of Prospective Foes in Two Disparate Societies

  • Daniel M. T. Fessler
  • Colin Holbrook
  • Matthew M. Gervais
Article

Abstract

Across taxa, strength and size are elementary determinants of relative fighting capacity; in species with complex behavioral repertoires, numerous additional factors also contribute. When many factors must be considered simultaneously, decision-making in agonistic contexts can be facilitated through the use of a summary representation. Size and strength may constitute the dimensions used to form such a representation, such that tactical advantages or liabilities influence the conceptualized size and muscularity of an antagonist. If so, and given the continued importance of physical strength in human male-male conflicts, a man’s own strength will influence his conceptualization of the absolute size and strength of an opponent. In the research reported here, male participants’ chest compression strength was compared with their estimates of the size and muscularity of an unfamiliar potential antagonist, presented either as a supporter of a rival sports team (Study 1, conducted in urban California, and Study 2, conducted in rural Fiji) or as a man armed with a handgun (Study 3, conducted in rural Fiji). Consistent with predictions, composite measures of male participants’ estimates of the size/strength of a potential antagonist were inversely correlated with the participant’s own strength. Therefore, consonant with a history wherein violent intrasexual selection has acted on human males, a man’s own physical strength influences his representations of potential antagonists.

Keywords

Relative formidability Fighting capacity Cognitive representation Size Strength 

References

  1. Ache Dias, J., Wentz, M., Külkamp, W., Mattos, D., Goethel, M., & Borges Júnior, N. (2012). Is the handgrip strength performance better in judokas than in non-judokas? Science & Sports, 27(3), e9–e14. doi:10.1016/j.scispo.2011.10.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amtmann, J., & Berry, S. (2003). Strength and conditioning for reality fighting. Strength & Conditioning Journal, 25(2), 67–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Archer, J. (2007). Physical aggression as a function of perceived fighting ability among male and female prisoners. Aggressive Behavior, 33(6), 563–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Archer, J. (2009). Does sexual selection explain human sex differences in aggression? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32(3–4), 249–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Archer, J., & Benson, D. (2008). Physical aggression as a function of perceived fighting ability and provocation: An experimental investigation. Aggressive Behavior, 34(1), 9–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Archer, J., & Thanzami, V. (2007). The relation between physical aggression, size and strength, among a sample of young Indian men. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(3), 627–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Archer, J., & Thanzami, V. (2009). The relation between mate value, entitlement, physical aggression, size and strength among a sample of young Indian men. Evolution and Human Behavior, 30(5), 315–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barrett, H. C. (2005). Adaptations to predators and prey. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), Handbook of evolutionary psychology (pp. 200–223). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  9. Cohen, D., Nisbett, R. E., Bowdle, B. F., & Schwarz, N. (1996). Insult, aggression, and the Southern culture of honor: An “experimental ethnography.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(5), 945–960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Collier, T., Johnson, A. L., & Ruggiero, J. (2012). Aggression in mixed martial arts: An analysis of the likelihood of winning a decision. In R. T. Jewell (Ed.), Violence and aggression in sporting contests (pp. 97–109). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Duguid, M. M., & Goncalo, J. A. (2012). Living large: The powerful overestimate their own height. Psychological Science, 23(1), 36–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ellis, L. (1995). Dominance and reproductive success among nonhuman animals: A cross-species comparison. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16(4), 257–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Felson, R. B. (1996). Big people hit little people: Sex differences in physical power and interpersonal violence. Criminology, 34(3), 433–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fessler, D. M. T. (2011). Twelve lessons (most of which I learned the hard way) for evolutionary psychologists. In X. T. Wang & Y. J. Su (Eds.), Thus spake evolutionary psychologists (pp. 281–293). Beijing: Peking University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Fessler, D. M. T., & Haley, K. J. (2003). The strategy of affect: Emotions in human cooperation. In P. Hammerstein (Ed.), The genetic and cultural evolution of cooperation (pp. 7–36). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. Fessler, D. M. T., & Holbrook, C. (2013). Friends shrink foes: The presence of comrades decreases the envisioned physical formidability of an opponent. Psychological Science, 24(5), 797–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fessler, D. M. T., & Holbrook, C. (2013b). Bound to lose: Physical incapacitation increases the conceptualized dimensions of an antagonist. PLoS ONE, 8(8), e71306, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0071306.Google Scholar
  18. Fessler, D. M. T., & Machery, E. (2012). Culture and cognition. In E. Margolis, R. Samuels, & S. Stich (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of philosophy of cognitive science (pp. 503–527). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Fessler, D. M. T., Holbrook, C., & Snyder, J. K. (2012). Weapons make the man (larger): Formidability is represented as size and strength in humans. PloS One, 7(4), e32751. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0032751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fessler, D. M. T., Tiokhin, L., Holbrook, C., Gervais, M., & Snyder, J. K. (2014). Foundations of the crazy bastard hypothesis: Nonviolent physical risk-taking enhances conceptualized formidability. Evolution and Human Behavior, 35, 26–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fox, E., Griggs, L., & Mouchlianitis, E. (2007). The detection of fear-relevant stimuli: Are guns noticed as quickly as snakes? Emotion, 7(4), 691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Frederick, D. A., & Peplau, L. A. (2007). The UCLA Body Matrices II: Computer-generated images of men and women varying in body fat and muscularity/breast size to assess body satisfaction and preferences. Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Memphis, TN.Google Scholar
  23. Gallup, A. C., White, D. D., & Gallup, G. G., Jr. (2007). Handgrip strength predicts sexual behavior, body morphology, and aggression in male college students. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28(6), 423–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gallup, A. C., O’Brien, D. T., White, D. D., & Wilson, D. S. (2010). Handgrip strength and socially dominant behavior in male adolescents. Evolutionary Psychology, 8(2), 229–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Galperin, A., & Haselton, M. G. (2012). Error management and the evolution of cognitive bias. In J. P. Forgas, K. Fiedler, & C. Sedikedes (Eds.), Social thinking and interpersonal behavior (pp. 45–64). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  26. Gervais, M. M. (2013). Structures of sentiment: Mapping the affective bases of social relationships in Yasawa, Fiji. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  27. Henrich, J., & Henrich, N. (2014). Fairness without punishment: behavioral experiments in the Yasawa Island, Fiji. In (J. Ensminger and J. Henrich, eds.), Experimenting with social norms: Fairness and punishment in cross-cultural perspective. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Available online at https://www.russellsage.org/sites/all/files/ensminger/13521-09_CH09_4thPgs.pdf.
  28. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hess, N., Helfrecht, C., Hagen, E., Sell, A., & Hewlett, B. (2010). Interpersonal aggression among Aka hunter-gatherers of the Central African Republic. Human Nature, 21(3), 330–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Holbrook, C., & Fessler, D. M. T. (2013). Sizing up the threat: The envisioned physical formidability of terrorists tracks their leaders’ failures and successes. Cognition, 127(1), 46–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Holbrook, C., Fessler, D. M. T., & Navarrete, C. D. (n.d.). Stature or danger? Racial stereotypes influence the conceptual links between threat, social status, and physical size. Manuscript under review.Google Scholar
  32. Horswill, C. A. (2009). Making weight in combat sports. In R. Kordi, N. Maffulli, R. R. Wroble, & W. A. Wallace (Eds.), Combat Sports Medicine (pp. 21–39). Springer: New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. La Bounty, P., Campbell, B. I., Galvan, E., Cooke, M., & Antonio, J. (2011). Strength and conditioning considerations for mixed martial arts. Strength & Conditioning Journal, 33(1), 56–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Langner, O., Dotsch, R., Bijlstra, G., Wigboldus, D. H. J., Hawk, S. T., & van Knippenberg, A. (2010). Presentation and validation of the radboud faces database. Cognition & Emotion, 24(8), 1377–1388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Levine, F. M., & De Simone, L. L. (1991). The effects of experimenter gender on pain report in male and female subjects. Pain, 44(1), 69–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Morgan, M. H., & Carrier, D. R. (2013). Protective buttressing of the human fist and the evolution of hominin hands. Journal of Experimental Biology, 216(2), 236–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Muñoz-Reyes, J. A., Gil-Burmann, C., Fink, B., & Turiegano, E. (2012). Physical strength, fighting ability, and aggressiveness in adolescents. American Journal of Human Biology, 24(5), 611–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Petersen, M. B., Sznycer, D., Sell, A., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2013). The ancestral logic of politics: Upper body strength regulates men’s assertion of self-interest over economic redistribution. Psychological Science, 24(7), 1098–1103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Price, M. E., Dunn, J., Hopkins, S., & Kang, J. (2012). Anthropometric correlates of human anger. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33(3), 174–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Puts, D. A. (2010). Beauty and the beast: Mechanisms of sexual selection in humans. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31(3), 157–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sell, A., Cosmides, L., Tooby, J., Sznycer, D., Von Rueden, C., & Gurven, M. (2009a). Human adaptations for the visual assessment of strength and fighting ability from the body and face. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 276(1656), 575–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sell, A., Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2009b). Formidability and the logic of human anger. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 106(35), 15073–15078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sell, A., Bryant, G. A., Cosmides, L., Tooby, J., Sznycer, D., Von Rueden, C., Krauss, A., & Gurven, M. (2010). Adaptations in humans for assessing physical strength from the voice. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 277(1699), 3509–3518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sell, A., Hone, L. S. E., & Pound, N. (2012). The importance of physical strength to human males. Human Nature, 23(1), 30–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Třebický, V., Havlíček, J., Roberts, S. C., Little, A. C., & Kleisner, K. (2013). Perceived aggressiveness predicts fighting performance in mixed-martial-arts fighters. Psychological Science, 24(9), 1664–1672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Watkins, C. D., Fraccaro, P. J., Smith, F. G., Vukovic, J., Feinberg, D. R., DeBruine, L. M., & Jones, B. C. (2010). Taller men are less sensitive to cues of dominance in other men. Behavioral Ecology, 21(5), 943–947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Yap, A. J., Mason, M. F., & Ames, D. R. (2013). The powerful size others down: The link between power and estimates of others’ size. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(3), 591–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Young, R. W. (2003). Evolution of the human hand: the role of throwing and clubbing. Journal of Anatomy, 202(1), 165–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Young, S. G., Brown, C. M., & Ambady, N. (2012). Priming a natural or human-made environment directs attention to context-congruent threatening stimuli. Cognition and Emotion, 26(5), 927–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel M. T. Fessler
    • 1
  • Colin Holbrook
    • 1
  • Matthew M. Gervais
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Anthropology and Center for Behavior, Evolution, and CultureUniversity of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations