Human Nature

, Volume 13, Issue 4, pp 473–491 | Cite as

Height and reproductive success in a cohort of british men

Article

Abstract

Two recent studies have shown a relationship between male height and number of offspring in contemporary developed-world populations. One of them argues as a result that directional selection for male tallness is both positive and unconstrained. This paper uses data from a large and socially representative national cohort of men who were born in Britain in March 1958. Taller men were less likely to be childless than shorter ones. They did not have a greater mean number of children. If anything, the pattern was the reverse, since men from higher socioeconomic groups tended to be taller and also to have smaller families. However, clear evidence was found that men who were taller than average were more likely to find a long-term partner, and also more likely to have several different long-term partners. This confirms the finding that tall men are considered more attractive and suggests that, in a noncontracepting environment, they would have more children. There is also evidence of stabilizing selection, since extremely tall men had an excess of health problems and an increased likelihood of childlessness. The conclusion is that male tallness has been selected for in recent human evolution but has been constrained by developmental factors and stabilizing selection on the extremely tall.

Key words

Height Human evolution Mate choice Reproductive success 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barker, D., C. Osmond, and J. Golding 1990 Height and Mortality in the Counties of England and Wales. Annals of Human Biology 17:1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Borgerhoff Mulder, M. 1987 On Cultural and Reproductive Success: Kipsigis Evidence. American Anthropologist 89:617–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 2000 Optimizing Offspring: The Quantity-Quality Tradeoff in Agropastoral Kipsigis. Evolution and Human Behaviour 21:391–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buss, D. 1989 Sex Differences in Human Mate Preferences. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 12:1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Butler, N., and D. Bonham 1963 Perinatal Mortality. Edinburgh: E&S Livingstone.Google Scholar
  6. Bynner, J., N. Butler, E. Ferri, P. Shepherd, and K. Smith 2001 The Design and Conduct of the 1999–2000 Surveys of the National Child Development Study and the 1970 British Cohort Study. London: Institute of Education, Centre for Longitudinal Studies.Google Scholar
  7. Cernerud, L. 1995 Height and Social Mobility. Scandinavian Journal of Social Medicine 23:28–31.Google Scholar
  8. Chamberlain, G. 2001 Maternal Mortality. In Turnbull’s Obstetrics, G. Chamberlain and P. Steer, eds. Pp. 741–752. London: Churchill Livingstone.Google Scholar
  9. Chatterjee, S., N. Das, and P. Chatterjee 1999 The Estimation of the Heritability of Anthropometric Measures. Applied Human Sciences 18:1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Damon, A., and R. B. Thomas 1967 Fertility and Physique: Height, Weight and Ponderal Index. Human Biology 39:5–13.Google Scholar
  11. Feingold, A. 1982 Do Taller Men Have Prettier Girlfriends? Psychological Reports 50:810.Google Scholar
  12. Ferri, E. 1993 Life at 33: The Fifth Follow-up of the National Child Development Study. London: National Children’s Bureau, City University, Economic and Social Research Council.Google Scholar
  13. Fisher, R. 1930 The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  14. Fogelman, K. 1983 Growing Up in Great Britain: Collected Papers from the National Child Development Study. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  15. Gillis, J. S., and W. E. Avis 1980 The Male-Taller Norm in Mate Selection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 6:396–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heliovaara, M., M. Makela, and P. Knekt 1991 Determinants of Sciatica and Low-back Pain. Spine 16:608–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hensley, W. E. 1994 Height as a Basis for Interpersonal Attraction. Adolescence 29:469–474.Google Scholar
  18. Hensley, W. E., and R. Cooper 1987 Height and Occupational Success: A Review and Critique. Psychological Reports 60:843–849.Google Scholar
  19. Jackson, L. A., and K. S. Ervin 1992 Height Stereotypes of Women and Men—The Liabilities of Shortness for Both Sexes. Journal of Social Psychology 132:433–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Johnson, A., C. Mercer, B. Erens, A. Copas, S. McManus, K. Wellings, K. Fenton, C. Korovessis, W. Macdowall, K. Nanchahal, S. Purdon, and H. Field 2001 Sexual Behaviour in Britain: Partnerships, Practices, and HIV Risk Behaviours. Lancet 358:1835–1842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kenrick, D. T., and R. C. Keefe 1992 Age Preferences in Mates Reflect Sex Differences in Human Reproductive Strategies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 15:75–133.Google Scholar
  22. Michaud, D. S., E. Giovannuci, W. C. Willett, G. A. Colditz, M. J. Stampfer, and C. S. Fuchs 2001 Physical Activity, Obesity, Height and the Risk of Pancreatic Cancer. Journal of the American Medical Association 286:921–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mueller, U., and A. Mazur 2001 Evidence of Unconstrained Directional Selection for Male Tallness. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 50:302–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pawlowski, B., R. I. M. Dunbar, and A. Lipowicz 2000 Tall Men Have More Reproductive Success. Nature 403:156.Google Scholar
  25. Peck, M. N. 1992 Childhood Environment, Intergenerational Mobility and Adult Health: Evidence from Swedish Data. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 46:71–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Peck, M. N., and O. Lundberg 1995 Short Stature as an Effect of Economic and Social Conditions in Childhood. Social Science & Medicine 41:733–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pérusse, D. 1994 Mate Choice in Modern Societies: Testing Evolutionary Hypotheses with Behavioral Data. Human Nature 5:255–278.Google Scholar
  28. Shepperd, J. A., and A. J. Strathman 1989 Attractiveness and Height: The Role of Stature in Dating Preference, Frequency of Dating, and Perceptions of Attractiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 15:617–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shors, A. R., C. Solomon, A. McTiernan, and E. White 2001 Melanoma Risk in Relation to Height, Weight and Exercise (United States). Cancer Causes and Control 12:599–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Silventoinen, K., J. Kaprio, and E. Lahelma 2000 Genetic and Environmental Contributions to the Association between Body Height and Educational Attainment. Behavior Genetics 30:477–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Silventoinen, K., E. Lahelma, and O. Rahkonen 1999 Social Background, Adult Body-height and Health. International Journal of Epidemiology 28:911–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vetta, A. 1975 Fertility, Physique and Intensity of Selection. Human Biology 47:283–293.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Walter de Gruyter, Inc 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departments of Biological Sciences and PsychologyThe Open University, Walton HallMilton KeynesUK

Personalised recommendations