Rich, Male, Vote Left? You Have Small Biceps – The Politics of Upper Body Strength
Christopher Philip
Article Summary
– Over evolutionary history, upper-body strength has been a large component of fighting ability.
– Evolution has favoured those with increased strength to acquire and defend resources over less strength.
– Humans, it seems, have ancient wiring and differentially support wealth distribution by politics as a function of strength and SES.
– Individuals in Argentina, Denmark, and the United States showed that men (but not women) with greater upper-body strength more strongly subscribe to the self-beneficial position.
– Among men of lower socioeconomic status (SES), strength predicted increased support for redistribution of wealth.
– Among men of higher SES, strength predicted increased opposition to redistribution.
– Therefore men with greater upper body strength and high SES tend to disfavour wealth distribution and men with low strength tend to favour wealth distribution even if they are higher in SES.
Research led by Michael Petersen Aarhus University suggests that humans relate political tactics back to ancestral displays of strength – particularly upper body strength.
In their research, they found that men who posses large upper body strength, a key to ancestral fighting ability more strongly favour the ‘self-beneficial position’ whereby they aim to keep resources for themselves rather than redistributed it evenly amongst all in a population.
This is consistent with evolutionary models in which actors with greater fighting ability are more likely to actively attempt to both acquire and defend resources from less formidable contestants.
To test their theory, researchers collected data on various populations including upper body strength, socioeconomic status (SES) and support for economic redistribution of wealth. Men and women from Argentina, Unites States, and Denmark were measured for flexed bicep which is the single best morphological predictor of upper body strength and therefore a reflection of fight ability. Questionnaires also assessed the political desires related to wealth redistribution.
Results supported the hypothesis. In men with high SES, there was a negative correlation between strength and support for redistribution of wealth whereas for men of low SES, the correlation was positive. In other words, strong men with high SES opposed redistribution of wealth, whereas strong men of low SES favoured redistribution. Women did not show the same association but favoured redistribution of wealth more than men overall.
While men of lower SES and high physical strength supported redistribution of wealth, those of higher than average SES and increasing upper-body strength were negative correlated with wealth distribution. In other words, among men with higher SES it is those with higher physical strength whom shift away from wealth distribution.
As the authors explain, since redistribution policies shift resources from higher-to-lower SES individuals, the results show that physically stronger males (rich and poor) are prone to bargain in their own self-interest. Therefore, men support proposals of redistribution if they are poor but, in contrast, resist redistribution if they are rich. In contrast, weaker men (rich and poor) are less likely to contest policies that run against their own self-interest and show less support for redistribution if they are poor and less resistance if they are rich. The same pattern was found in all three countries.
Previous theories regarding political affiliations has tried to explain the dissociation between a person’s real interests and their actual attitudes by saying that they stem from abstract concepts. However, as demonstrated in this study, there is a real physical quality to how men in particular decide which policies they are likely to subscribe.
As the authors describe, physical strength is largely irrelevant to personal payoff in modern politics, however, our ancient programming suggests that physical strength is wired into our attitudes about policy. Specifically, as said by the authors in their paper “physically weak males are more reluctant than physically strong males to assert their self-interest –just as if disputes over national policies were a matter of direct physical confrontation among small numbers of individuals, rather than abstract electoral dynamics among millions.”
“Because personal upper-body strength is irrelevant to payoffs from economic policies in modern mass democracies, the continuing role of strength suggests that modern political decision making is shaped by an evolved psychology designed for small-scale groups.”
Image Credit: Mc Nasser
Resources
Petersen, Michael Bang; Daniel Sznycer; Aaron Sell; Leda Cosmides, and John Tooby. The Ancestral Logic of Politics: Upper-Body Strength Regulates Men’s Assertion of Self-Interest Over Economic Redistribution. Psychological Science. 2019. 24(7): 1098-1103. DOI: 10.1177/0956797612466415