Original ArticleLooming large in others' eyes: racial stereotypes illuminate dual adaptations for representing threat versus prestige as physical size
Introduction
All social species exhibit hierarchies in which position is a determinant of fitness. Selection can therefore be expected to have crafted mechanisms that enhance decision-making in hierarchical interactions. Nonhuman social hierarchies are principally based on dominance, the supplanting of rivals through force or the threat of force. In contrast, while violence plays a role in some human interactions, many human hierarchies are built on prestige, deference granted by admirers to those whom they esteem (Barkow, 1975, Barkow, 1989, Henrich and Gil-White, 2001). Although there is debate over the extent to which some non-human primates also display elements of prestige-based status (Chapais, 2015), humans are undoubtedly unique in the extent to which prestige eclipses dominance as the foundation of social rank. Natural selection operates through the modification of existing features. Given that dominance is the ancestral basis of social organization while prestige is the derived basis, it is likely that prestige-representing adaptations were derived from dominance-representing adaptations. Because existing design often constrains the range of subsequent possibilities, derived adaptations frequently share a mix of conserved ancestral components in addition to novel features (Marcus, 2008). This suggests that the mechanisms used in reasoning about prestige-based forms of social rank will share conceptual structure with a preceding dominance psychology that involves assessments of physical threat (Clark, 2010a, Fessler and Gervais, 2010, Fessler and Holbrook, 2013a, Fessler and Holbrook, 2013b, Holbrook et al., 2014).
Psychological adaptations are hypothesized to often take the form of serial homologies characterized by neural reuse (Barrett, 2012, Clark, 2010a, Clark, 2010b, Holbrook, 2016, van Parkinson and Wheatley, 2013), meaning that derived traits are created by amending existing networks such that both the original network and the newer network, though distinct, share much of the same neurocognitive architecture. This is particularly likely when, as in the case of agonistic conflict, the ancestral challenge continues to exist, as serial homology allows the organism to possess both the ancestral trait and the derived trait (Holbrook & Fessler, 2015).
Taken together, the above considerations predict that i) the mind contains mechanisms that assess the threat posed by a potential antagonist; ii) the mind contains mechanisms that assess an individual's position in a prestige-based social hierarchy; iii) the latter mechanisms exhibit features of the former.
In humans, success in combat derives from numerous attributes of oneself and one's potential foes: armaments, access to allies, martial skill, health, etc. Reflectively weighing such factors would be problematically time-consuming given the need for quick decisions in agonistic contexts (Pietraszewski & Shaw, 2015). However, complex computations over many parameters can be streamlined via heuristic summary representations (e.g., Albrecht and Scholl, 2010, Fessler et al., 2014). Our research group has previously proposed that, because physical size and strength are phylogenetically ancient determinants of relative fighting capacity, these form the basis for a representation that summarizes the relative tactical assets and liabilities of both parties: the formidability representation hypothesis holds that mental representations of prospective foes become either larger or smaller, and more or less muscular, contingent on cues of the potential to inflict harm (Fessler, Holbrook, & Snyder, 2012).1
Conceptualizing the danger posed by others in terms of their size and strength should be intuitive, as these physical traits have predicted the outcomes of violent conflict throughout both phylogenetic history and ontogenetic experience (Archer, 1988, Sell et al., 2009, Unnever and Cornell, 2003). Supporting the existence of a system that represents threat using envisioned physical formidability, estimated size and strength are influenced by the possession of weapons (Fessler et al., 2012), the presence of allies (Fessler & Holbrook, 2013a), synchronizing with potential allies (Fessler & Holbrook, 2014), cues of the propensity to take physical risks (Fessler et al., 2014, Fessler, Tiokhin, et al., 2014), individual differences in physical strength (Fessler, Holbrook, & Gervais, 2014), physical incapacitation (Fessler & Holbrook, 2013b), parenthood of vulnerable children (Fessler, Holbrook, Pollack, & Hahn-Holbrook, 2014), risk that sexual assault will result in pregnancy (Fessler, Holbrook, Fleischman, 2015), and the leadership quality of enemy coalitions (Holbrook & Fessler, 2013).
Consonant with the thesis that the mechanisms undergirding prestige assessment are derived from those responsible for dominance assessment, a parallel literature documents that physical size is also used in reasoning about social hierarchies (Higham and Carment, 1992, Marsh et al., 2009, Masters et al., 2010). Many languages and practices equate size with social rank (Fiske & Fiske, 2007). In experiments conducted in western university settings, participants made to feel of elevated status underestimate another's size and weight, whereas participants made to feel of reduced status overestimated these attributes (Yap, Mason and Ames, 2013, Yap, Wazlawek, et al., 2013). Likewise, participants induced to feel socially powerful overestimate their own height and underestimate others' (Duguid & Goncalo, 2012). Students estimate a target individual to be taller when he is described as a professor than when he is said to be a student (Wilson, 1968), and perceptions of the height of political candidates track electoral success or failure (Sorokowski, 2010). Words semantically related to high or low status prime related verticality schemas (Zanolie et al., 2012). Lastly, members of low-status ethnic groups not stereotyped as dangerous are perceived to be physically smaller (Koulack & Tuthill, 1972). Thus, convergent evidence indicates that conceptualizations of physical size are deployed in reasoning about relative status, in a status representation system that operates similarly to the formidability representation system.
In serial homologies with neural reuse, simultaneous activation of both the ancestral trait and the derived trait is possible. When the output of each trait is congruent with that of the other, no conflict occurs in simultaneous activation. However, in general, the coercive, threatening tactics central to dominance are antithetical to prestige–-prestigious individuals are admired, not feared, by members of their in-group (Henrich & Gil-White, 2001). The inverse relationship between dominance and prestige therefore poses a functional conflict, as the mechanisms addressing dominance and those addressing prestige share a common representational output. If assessing the target as dangerous leads to a conceptualization of the individual as physically large and muscular, yet, by virtue of the deleterious effects of coercive threat on prestige, the same information leads to an assessment of the individual as of low status—and thus to a conceptualization of the target as physically small and weak—then the functional utility of both summary representations is undermined. While selection may be constrained by the kludgy limitations of serial homologies, it can establish priorities to resolve potential conflicts arising from shared architecture. Because agonistic conflict is a more exigent adaptive challenge than prestige assessment, it is likely that, if the networks that facilitate navigating these two contexts are shared, then that which addresses dominance will have priority over that which addresses prestige. Thus, we predict that, when threat is salient, the formidability representation function will take precedence, and envisioned size and strength will be used primarily to summarize target individuals' potential for violence. Conversely, when physical threat is of less concern, envisioned size and strength will be used to summarize relative social status.
Note that framing status representation as deriving from formidability representation does not imply that the former is a mere by-product of the latter. Were the status representation system no more than a by-product, then the two functions would operate identically (e.g., information indicating that a target is antisocially threatening would increase the target's conceptualized status as well as size). To the contrary, the status representation system, though plausibly derived from and sharing structure with the antecedent formidability representation system, appears to have evolved unique features over time (e.g., conceptualizing non-violent, prosocial status-holders as being of greater physical size). Alternatively, the two systems may have arisen via entirely independent pathways and be instantiated in non-overlapping proximate mechanisms, including resources that analogously represent threat and status in terms of bodily traits. Encapsulated formidability and status representation analogues could generate the anticipated pattern of results (e.g., cues that a target poses socially undesirable danger could decrease the target's envisioned physical size/strength within a status representation system, but increase the target's envisioned physical size/strength within a discrete formidability representation system, yielding a net increase in estimates of the target's conceptualized size/strength). However, given the centrality of size and coercive threat in determining rank within ancestral status hierarchies, coupled with the inherent advantages of efficiently re-using neurocognitive resources rather than redundantly duplicating them, it appears more parsimonious to suppose that the status and threat assessment functions are mental homologues.
Humans are reliant on socially transmitted information in navigating their physical and social environments. Both threat assessments and status assessments should therefore take as input cultural information regarding the expected attributes of particular others as a function of their group membership. Indeed, humans should be highly attuned to information regarding group membership, as hunter–gatherer bands frequently conflicted with neighboring groups in the ancestral past (Bowles, 2009, Keeley, 1996, Manson and Wrangham, 1991, McDonald et al., 2012), and as subcoalitions within larger groups likely vied for material and social resources (e.g., Chagnon, 1992, Wrangham and Glowacki, 2012). Therefore, for redundant reasons, selection favored equipping our ancestors with coalition-detection mechanisms that should be sensitive to observable features (e.g., attire, accent, behavior patterns) that reliably predict affiliation, potentially including race in settings wherein race tracks affiliation (Kurzban et al., 2001, Pietraszewski et al., 2014). In the contemporary U.S., despite progress in reducing race-based inequality, stereotypes depicting Black men as violent remain pervasive. Stimuli depicting Black men have consistently been shown to evoke implicit fear reactions (e.g., Cunningham et al., 2004, Donders et al., 2008, Navarrete, Fessler, et al., 2009, Navarrete, Olsson, et al., 2009, Olsson et al., 2005, Phelps et al., 2000) and automatic associations with violence (e.g., Amodio et al., 2004, Biernat et al., 2009, Payne, 2001, Sagar and Schofield, 1980). Hispanic men are similarly stereotyped as prone to violence (Jackson, 1995, Marin, 1984, Weaver, 2005).
Here, we investigate the relations of the hypothesized formidability and status representation systems to conceptualizations of Black men relative to White men (studies 1 and 2) and to conceptualizations of Hispanic men relative to Asian men (study 3) in the United States. This allows us to both explore the theoretical framework linking threat and status assessment, and shed light on an important and pernicious feature of American life.
We have hypothesized that both formidability and status are conceptualized in terms of bodily size/strength, and that formidability representation will take precedence over status representation when threat is salient. This hypothesis generates four predictions:
- -
Individuals belonging to groups stereotyped as threateningly violent will be envisioned as more physically formidable—despite being regarded as lower in status.
- -
Differences in envisioned physical formidability will mediate differences in attributions of physical aggressiveness (i.e., propensity for violence).
- -
Envisioned physical formidability and status will positively correlate in judgments of target individuals whose group is stereotyped as non-threatening, but not in judgments of target individuals whose group is stereotyped as threatening.
- -
Controlling for group differences in perceived aggressiveness will reduce or eliminate differences in the correlation between physical formidability and status
To streamline our presentation, here we describe the analytic approach used across all studies.
We confirmed that there were no significant effects of the particular name employed to cue race on any of the primary dependent variables (physical formidability, aggressiveness, or status; ps > .10 in all studies). To rule out the possibility that observed relationships between cues of race, perceived physical formidability, and aggressiveness were driven by stereotypes of masculinity (Johnson, Freeman, & Pauker, 2012), we included a measure of masculinity associated with the target name (see Supplementary Online Material [SOM], Table 9, available at the journal's website, www.ehbonline.org), and controlled for differences in name masculinity when testing the effect of race conditions on perceived physical formidability, aggressiveness, or status.2
We also assessed potential sex differences. In study 1, we observed a significant effect of sex on estimated aggressiveness, F(1, 244) = 7.97, p < .01, η2p = .03, 95% CI = [− .34, − .02]. Male participants attributed greater aggressiveness to the target (M = .14, SD = .90) than did female participants (M = − .17, SD = .14). However, no other significant effects of sex, or interactions between sex and condition, were observed for estimates of physical formidability, aggressiveness, or social status in studies 1–3, ps .09–.99.3
To assess whether the heightened aggressiveness attributed to a target group was mediated by attributions of physical formidability, we conducted mediation tests utilizing the bias-corrected bootstrapping procedure (5,000 samples) in the INDIRECT macro for SPSS (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). The experimental condition was the independent variable, aggressiveness was the dependent variable, and physical formidability scores were the mediating variable, with name masculinity included as a covariate.4 Following Cheung and Lau's (2008) recommendation for assessing potential suppressor variables in large samples, we used a similar bootstrapping procedure to test whether perceived aggressiveness suppresses a latent positive association between status and physical formidability within a given condition: envisioned physical formidability was entered as the independent variable, status was entered as the dependent variable, and aggressiveness was entered as the mediating variable.
We assessed whether our experimental manipulations moderated the relationships between envisioned formidability, status, and aggressiveness by entering condition, the other predictor (e.g., estimated aggressiveness), and the interaction between condition and that variable into a simultaneous regression. When assessing potential three-way interactions, we entered the three predictors, the interactions between these variables, and the three-way interaction term into a simultaneous regression.
Detailed descriptives and comparisons of the individual items used to measure envisioned physical formidability, aggressiveness, and social status are provided in the SOM.
Section snippets
Study 1
In study 1, we measured the envisioned physical formidability, aggressiveness, and social status of men depicted as having either stereotypically Black or White names. We predicted that, consonant with the status representation hypothesis, envisioned size and strength would positively correlate with status for White targets, but, due to the conflict with formidability representation, not for Black targets, who we expected to be perceived as lower in status despite being imagined as physically
Study 2
Racial stereotypes can be thought of as a first-pass assessment device; observers can be expected to heavily weight direct evidence regarding a target individual, even to the point of disregarding stereotypes (Neel, Neufeld, & Neuberg, 2013). Therefore, in study 2, we manipulated information indicating that the target was relatively high in either status or threat. The formidability representation and status representation hypotheses respectively predict that both the threatening and
Study 3
We have argued that representations of Black men as dangerous contribute to perceptions of them as physically larger than White men despite the fact that the two groups are of equivalent average height in the U.S. Nevertheless, the inflated estimates of bodily traits observed in studies 1 and 2 may derive from media-driven stereotypes. Tall, muscular Black men are disproportionately represented in professional sports in which size and strength are advantageous (Hoberman, 1997). It is therefore
General discussion
The formidability representation hypothesis posits that the relative threat that someone poses is represented according to a conceptual metaphor of physical size and strength. The status representation hypothesis posits that the relative status that someone possesses is also represented in terms of physical size and strength. Here, we have framed the status representation system as an adaptation derived via serial homology from a system designed to assess relative threat, and attempted to test
Supplementary materials
The following are the Supplementary data to this article.
Acknowledgments
We thank Melissa McDonald and Jeanine Stefanucci for insightful feedback on this project. This material is based upon work primarily supported by the U.S. Air Force Office of Scientific Research under Award #FA9550-10-1-0511. This work was also supported, in part, by a National Science Foundation grant (# BCS-0847237) awarded to the third author.
References (87)
- et al.
Danger stereotypes predict racially biased attentional allocation
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
(2008) - et al.
Stranger danger: Parenthood increases the envisioned bodily formidability of menacing men
Evolution and Human Behavior
(2014) - et al.
Foundations of the crazy bastard hypothesis: Nonviolent physical risk-taking enhances conceptualized formidability
Evolution and Human Behavior
(2014) - et al.
The evolution of prestige: Freely conferred status as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission
Evolution and Human Behavior
(2001) Branches of a twisting tree: Domain-specific threat psychologies derive from shared mechanisms
Current Opinion in Psychology
(2016)- et al.
Sizing up the threat: The envisioned physical formidability of terrorists tracks their leaders' failures and successes
Cognition
(2013) Stereotyping Hispanics: The differential effect of research method, label, and degree of contact
International Journal of Inter cultural Relations
(1984)- et al.
The multiple dimensions of male social status in an Amazonian society
Evolution and Human Behavior: Official Journal of the Human Behavior and Evolution Society
(2008) - et al.
Study on weight and height of the Chinese people and the differences between 1992 and 2002
Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi
(2005) - et al.
The powerful size others down: The link between power and estimates of others’ size
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
(2013)