A Little-Discussed Bias: Height
Imagine the reaction your friends might have if you said “I’d never date someone with lighter hair than me.” They’d probably find it a surprisingly absolute statement; you may prefer brunettes, but to not even consider a romantic partner (who might be brilliant, beautiful, witty, and wonderful) due to hair color would be seen as eccentric at best.
Now pretend that a senior leader in your organization told a wheelchair-bound colleague that “in order to advance, you’ll have to learn to stand up for yourself.” You know what she meant, but… it’s probably not the wisest choice of words.
Finally, consider how you might react if, upon learning that your father was a professional trombonist, your therapist said “Him? But he’s so old!”
I am a short man. Not short by college football standards, where a 5’10”, 210-lb. man can be referred to as “undersized,” but at 5’2” and under 130 lbs., unless I’m hanging out with gymnasts I’m often the shortest person (and nearly always the shortest man) in the room.
My wife’s trusted advisor expressed surprise last year that I do fight choreography professionally “because he’s small.”
Someone who was supposed to be a mentor at a globally-admired, highly competitive company told me that I needed to “take up more space.” It was hard not to perceive that as a disadvantage rooted in my size.
And from the time I was 13 I heard girls talk about how they could never date someone shorter than they were (or in some cases, never date someone under 6’, because they “like wearing high heels”). On the rare occasions that I bothered to mention that they might be limiting their options that way I’d usually hear “that’s just my preference- I’m attracted to taller guys.”
Many psychological studies have reported that women consider taller men more attractive, but the categorical refusal to consider a romantic encounter with someone due to height is rare to hear voiced with respect to weight, body type or other physical attributes that relate to attractiveness. When Prince died, my Facebook feed was filled with statements that “even though he was short, he was a sex symbol.” These were not teenagers outlining their dream date, but adult women who think of themselves as open-minded and would not dream of rejecting a romantic partner because of his race, but for a 5’2” man to be considered sexy, he had to be Prince.
Though all these incidents (plus countless jokes when I used to perform at the Renaissance festival) were challenging, what irks me the most is when people say “he has a Napoleon complex.” When Lebron James wants to be the best ever people call him “ambitious” or “driven”; those who don’t like him might call him aggressive, or maybe even a bully if he rubs it in, but in either case it’s viewed as a part of his personality. No one would slap a pseudo-scientific label on it and suggest that his desire for achievement is somehow a quasi-pathological reaction to being born in his body. But when a man my height wants to do great things, it’s often called a Napoleon complex, or even more offensively, “short-man syndrome.” Medical terminology gets trotted out to “explain” why a smaller-than-average man would strive for recognition.
Numerous studies have demonstrated a bias in perceptions of leadership ability that favors tall men. For just one example, researchers demonstrated that the height of presidential candidates correlates positively with the proportion of popular votes received. Nearly 90% of U.S. presidents (at the time of the study) were taller than military men from the same birth cohort (which already may exclude the shortest of a generation- my grandfather joined the Army Air Corps and not the Navy Air Corps because of the difference in height requirement). This trend has increased with time, i.e., “the more recent the election, the more likely it is that the president will be taller than other men of his age.” (Stulp et al., 2012). It makes sense that whatever impact height has on likelihood of election would be most pronounced in the post-television era, since a relatively small share of the voting public would have observed the candidates directly prior to that time. This suggests that the bias is causal and not merely correlative- if, as some have theorized, height is indicative of better childhood nutrition and therefore higher cognitive functioning, the preference for taller candidates ought to be consistent whether voters could see them or not.
Even academics who study height bias are not immune to similar heightism:
In 2014, Paul Gift and Ryan Rodenberg published an article in the Journal of Sports Economics titled “Napoleon Complex: Height Bias among National Basketball Association Referees.” They analyzed the number of fouls called per 48 minutes of basketball by referees based on average referee heights of Under 6’0, 6’0–6’3”, and > 6’3”. Their analysis found that crews whose average heights were under 6’0 called more fouls than their taller counterparts, but that the difference does not change based on player height. Furthermore, the average player in any of the games was 6’6”- substantially taller than the refs in the 6’0–6’3” range as well. They claim, however, to “find evidence that referees exhibit height-related bias in their personal foul calls in a manner resembling the Napoleon Complex.” They have assumed that the shorter referees are calling the “biased” game and the taller ones are calling an objectively preferable game; it is equally possible the taller referees are calling fewer fouls than they should. A further/better analysis might seek to determine which better adhere to the rules of the game. Similarly tellingly, they did not hypothesize why the same analysis showed that a ref with a grad degree is likely to call more fouls than one who doesn’t, at an equal level of statistical significance and with greater impact than an added 7 inches of average referee height on a crew.
Finally, let’s consider an example in which being short appears to confer an advantage. Niels van Quaquebeke and Steffen R. Giessner’s article “How Embodied Cognitions Affect Judgments: Height-Related Attribution Bias in Football Foul Calls” demonstrates that observers are more likely to attribute fouls to the taller player in an ambiguous situation. Though this is a positive outcome for the player who doesn’t receive the foul, it further supports my thesis that short men are attributed less agency than their taller counterparts- in this case, they are the “victim” of the foul.
So the next time that you wonder if that guy under 5’6” who’s working hard is compensating for something, don’t. The drive to accomplish is universal, but in order to gain recognition he will have to compensate for a society that is reluctant to grant agency or sexuality to a short man. There are major perks to being my size, and I wouldn’t change it: I appreciate the extra legroom in airplane seats, kissing my wife doesn’t require either of us to strain our necks, and a Boys’ dress shirt from Brooks Brothers that fits me well costs 30% less than the same style in Men’s. But I’m tired of having my achievements dismissed as a disorder and my leadership skills questioned by people based on my physicality.
About the author: Jacob is a consultant, fight choreographer, career counselor, and voracious learner. See more of his writing at www.jacobklehman.com
