Authors: Richard Wiseman
Quirkology (20 page)
The results may sound far-fetched, and they have been challenged by several other researchers.
28
However, the basic premise is supported by a wealth of other work suggesting that the mass media plays an important role in determining whether people decide to end their lives, of which the work exploring the “Werther Effect” is an excellent example.
28
However, the basic premise is supported by a wealth of other work suggesting that the mass media plays an important role in determining whether people decide to end their lives, of which the work exploring the “Werther Effect” is an excellent example.
In Goethe’s novel
The Sorrows of Young Werther,
a young man named Werther falls in love with a woman who is already promised to another. Rather than face a life without her, Werther decides to end his life by shooting himself. The book was a remarkable success. In fact, in many ways it was a little too successful, inspiring a series of copycat suicides that eventually resulted in its being banned in several European countries.
The Sorrows of Young Werther,
a young man named Werther falls in love with a woman who is already promised to another. Rather than face a life without her, Werther decides to end his life by shooting himself. The book was a remarkable success. In fact, in many ways it was a little too successful, inspiring a series of copycat suicides that eventually resulted in its being banned in several European countries.
In 1974, David Phillips, a sociologist from the University of California, San Diego, decided to examine whether media reports of suicides may create a modern-day Werther Effect.
29
In an initial study examining the suicide statistics in the United States between 1947 and 1968, he discovered that a front-page suicide story was associated, on average, with an excess of almost sixty suicides. Moreover, the types of suicides reflected the methods of death described in the media, and the level of publicity received by the suicides was directly related to the number of subsequent deaths. On average, the number of suicides increased by roughly 30 percent within two weeks of media reports, and the effect was especially pronounced after a celebrity death. Phillips calculated, for example, that the death of Marilyn Monroe in August 1962 increased the national suicide rate by about 12 percent. Since Phillips’s groundbreaking work, more than forty scientific papers have been written on the topic, prompting several countries to produce media guidelines for reporting suicides, urging journalists not to sensationalize them or to describe the methods used.
30
29
In an initial study examining the suicide statistics in the United States between 1947 and 1968, he discovered that a front-page suicide story was associated, on average, with an excess of almost sixty suicides. Moreover, the types of suicides reflected the methods of death described in the media, and the level of publicity received by the suicides was directly related to the number of subsequent deaths. On average, the number of suicides increased by roughly 30 percent within two weeks of media reports, and the effect was especially pronounced after a celebrity death. Phillips calculated, for example, that the death of Marilyn Monroe in August 1962 increased the national suicide rate by about 12 percent. Since Phillips’s groundbreaking work, more than forty scientific papers have been written on the topic, prompting several countries to produce media guidelines for reporting suicides, urging journalists not to sensationalize them or to describe the methods used.
30
Another part of Phillips’s work has investigated the relationship between televised boxing matches and murder rates. He carefully analyzed daily murder rates in the United States, and showed that they tended to increase in the week following the television broadcast of a high-profile heavyweight boxing match. There was a direct relationship not only between the amounts of publicity the fight received and the number of murders, but also between the racial backgrounds of the boxers and the murder victims. If a white boxer lost the fight, Phillips found an increase in the number of white, but not black, people murdered. Likewise, if a black boxer lost, there was an increase in the number of black, but not white, people killed.
All this adds up to one simple fact: The ways in which we think and feel are frequently influenced by factors outside our awareness. Our names influence our self-esteem and choice of career. Just reading a sentence influences how old we feel and our recall of general knowledge. A simple smile or a subtle touch influences how much we tip in restaurants and bars. The music played in shops creeps into our unconscious and influences the amount of money we spend. But do the same sorts of strange persuaders also influence the way in which we see others? Could they even dictate the politicians that we vote for, and the way in which we decide on the guilt or innocence of our fellow citizens?
Thousands of years ago there were evolutionary advantages to hanging around with taller people because their physical size afforded all sorts of benefits when it came to gathering food and defeating foes. Although height no longer offers a physical advantage, our primate brains hold on to their evolutionary past: We still associate tall people with success, a faulty but persuasive perception that plays out in interesting ways.
The psychologists Leslie Martel and Henry Biller asked university students to rate men of varying heights on many different psychological and physical attributes.
31
Reporting the results in their book
Stature and Stigma,
they describe how men and women rated men shorter than five feet five as less positive, secure, masculine, successful, and capable. Even our language reflects the value of height. Those held in high esteem are “big men” that we “look up” to. Run out of money, and you are “short” of cash.
31
Reporting the results in their book
Stature and Stigma,
they describe how men and women rated men shorter than five feet five as less positive, secure, masculine, successful, and capable. Even our language reflects the value of height. Those held in high esteem are “big men” that we “look up” to. Run out of money, and you are “short” of cash.
Even in the world of romance and mating, size matters. Robin Dunbar, an evolutionary psychologist from Liverpool University, and his colleagues analyzed data from more than 4,000 healthy Polish men who had undergone compulsory medical examinations between 1983 and 1989.
32
They found that childless men were about three centimeters shorter than men who had fathered at least one child. The only exceptions to the pattern were men born in the 1930s. Dunbar believes that this was because they emerged into the marriage market just after World War II, a time when single men were relatively scarce and so women had few choices.
32
They found that childless men were about three centimeters shorter than men who had fathered at least one child. The only exceptions to the pattern were men born in the 1930s. Dunbar believes that this was because they emerged into the marriage market just after World War II, a time when single men were relatively scarce and so women had few choices.
This association between mating success and height appears to be universal. In the 1960s, Thomas Gregor, an anthropologist from Vanderbilt University, lived among a tropical-forest people of central Brazil known as the Mehinaku.
33
Even here, height matters. Among the Mehinaku, tall men are seen as attractive and are respectfully referred to as “wekepei.” Those short in stature are referred to by the derisive term “peritsi,” which rhymes with “itsi,” the word for penis. Wekepei were far more likely than peritsi to be associated with wealth, power, participation in rituals, and reproductive opportunities. Gregor discovered that the taller the man, the more female mates he had access to, with the three tallest men having had as many affairs as the seven shortest men.
33
Even here, height matters. Among the Mehinaku, tall men are seen as attractive and are respectfully referred to as “wekepei.” Those short in stature are referred to by the derisive term “peritsi,” which rhymes with “itsi,” the word for penis. Wekepei were far more likely than peritsi to be associated with wealth, power, participation in rituals, and reproductive opportunities. Gregor discovered that the taller the man, the more female mates he had access to, with the three tallest men having had as many affairs as the seven shortest men.
Does height also matter when it comes to careers? It seems so. In the 1940s, psychologists found that tall salesmen were more successful than their shorter colleagues, and a 1980 survey found that more than half the CEOs of America’s Fortune 500 companies are at least six feet tall. More recent research from the
Journal of Applied Psychology
shows that when it comes to height in the workplace, every inch counts.
34
Timothy Judge, a business professor from the University of Florida in Gainesville, and his colleague Daniel Cable analyzed the data from four large studies that had followed people through their lives, carefully monitoring personality, height, intelligence, and income. Focusing on the relationship between height and earnings, Judge discovered that each inch above average corresponds to an additional $789 in pay each year. Someone who is six feet tall therefore earns an extra $4,734 more each year than an equally able five-feet-five colleague. Compounded over a thirty-year career, a tall person enjoys an earning advantage of hundreds of thousands of dollars over shorter colleagues.
Journal of Applied Psychology
shows that when it comes to height in the workplace, every inch counts.
34
Timothy Judge, a business professor from the University of Florida in Gainesville, and his colleague Daniel Cable analyzed the data from four large studies that had followed people through their lives, carefully monitoring personality, height, intelligence, and income. Focusing on the relationship between height and earnings, Judge discovered that each inch above average corresponds to an additional $789 in pay each year. Someone who is six feet tall therefore earns an extra $4,734 more each year than an equally able five-feet-five colleague. Compounded over a thirty-year career, a tall person enjoys an earning advantage of hundreds of thousands of dollars over shorter colleagues.
Politics has also been scrutinized. Of the forty-three American presidents, only five have been below average height, and it has been more than a hundred years since voters elected someone who was shorter than average (President William McKinley, who was five feet seven, took office in 1896 and was referred to by the press as a “little boy”). Most presidents have been several inches above the norm. Ronald Reagan was six feet one, and George Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton both stand tall at six feet two. There is also some evidence to suggest that some candidates realize the influence of height on voters and take steps to make the most of an advantage. In the 1988 presidential debate, George Bush Senior greeted Michael Dukakis with an exaggeratedly long handshake—a move apparently orchestrated by Bush’s campaign manager to have them stand together as long as possible and thus make the most of the fact that Bush was taller.
The psychological relationship between status and height works in both directions. Not only do we think that tall people are more competent, but we also believe that competent people are tall. This explains why we are so often surprised to discover that some Hollywood stars are below average height. Dustin Hoffman, for example, is just five feet five, and Madonna is five feet four. The Web site
www.celebheights.com
(by-line: “In the Land of Hollywood Pygmies, the Elevator-Shoed Dwarf Is King”) is dedicated to discovering the true heights of celebrities, often sending people of a known height to have their photographs taken next to celebrities so that their heights can be accurately determined. The author Ralph Keyes speculated about the fact that so many actors are short in his book
The Height of Your Life.
Keyes thought that some smaller people have a need to show that they are strong and overcome their height disadvantage by developing assertive personalities.
www.celebheights.com
(by-line: “In the Land of Hollywood Pygmies, the Elevator-Shoed Dwarf Is King”) is dedicated to discovering the true heights of celebrities, often sending people of a known height to have their photographs taken next to celebrities so that their heights can be accurately determined. The author Ralph Keyes speculated about the fact that so many actors are short in his book
The Height of Your Life.
Keyes thought that some smaller people have a need to show that they are strong and overcome their height disadvantage by developing assertive personalities.
This relationship leads to an interesting phenomenon—that the perceived height of a person can change with that person’s apparent status. The first scientifically controlled experiment into this curious phenomenon was conducted by Paul Wilson, a psychologist from the University of Queensland.
35
Wilson introduced a fellow academic to different groups of students and asked them to assess his height. Unbeknownst to the students, Wilson changed the way in which he introduced the academic each time. On one occasion, he told the class that the man was a fellow student; the next time he said that he was a lecturer; then the man was introduced as a senior lecturer; and finally as a full professor. The students’ perception of the man’s height varied with his perceived status. When he was just a fellow student he was seen as being about seventy inches tall. However, simply saying that he was a lecturer added about one inch to his height. Promoting him to senior lecturer meant that he gained another inch in the eyes of the students, and his rapid promotion to professor added an extra inch, bringing him up to about seventy-three inches.
35
Wilson introduced a fellow academic to different groups of students and asked them to assess his height. Unbeknownst to the students, Wilson changed the way in which he introduced the academic each time. On one occasion, he told the class that the man was a fellow student; the next time he said that he was a lecturer; then the man was introduced as a senior lecturer; and finally as a full professor. The students’ perception of the man’s height varied with his perceived status. When he was just a fellow student he was seen as being about seventy inches tall. However, simply saying that he was a lecturer added about one inch to his height. Promoting him to senior lecturer meant that he gained another inch in the eyes of the students, and his rapid promotion to professor added an extra inch, bringing him up to about seventy-three inches.
In 1960, Harold Kassarjian from the University of California asked 3,000 voters whether they would be supporting Kennedy or Nixon in the forthcoming election, and which they believed to be the taller of the two candidates.
36
In reality, Kennedy was an inch taller than Nixon. However, this was not how his voters saw it. Forty-two percent of Nixon supporters said that Nixon was the taller candidate, compared to just 23 percent of Kennedy supporters. Other research, conducted in the early 1990s by Philip Higham and William Carment from McMaster University in Canada, took matters a stage further.
37
Higham and Carment asked voters to estimate the heights of the leaders of the three main political parties (Brian Mulroney, John Turner, and Ed Broadbent) in Canada before, and after, a general election. Mulroney won the election, resulting in a half-inch gain in the height polls. After losing the election, Tuner and Broadbent were seen to have shrunk by about a half an inch and one and a half inches, respectively.
36
In reality, Kennedy was an inch taller than Nixon. However, this was not how his voters saw it. Forty-two percent of Nixon supporters said that Nixon was the taller candidate, compared to just 23 percent of Kennedy supporters. Other research, conducted in the early 1990s by Philip Higham and William Carment from McMaster University in Canada, took matters a stage further.
37
Higham and Carment asked voters to estimate the heights of the leaders of the three main political parties (Brian Mulroney, John Turner, and Ed Broadbent) in Canada before, and after, a general election. Mulroney won the election, resulting in a half-inch gain in the height polls. After losing the election, Tuner and Broadbent were seen to have shrunk by about a half an inch and one and a half inches, respectively.
I wondered whether it might be possible to use this effect to measure the perceived status of politicians before an election. In 2001, I worked with Roger Highfield, the science editor at the
Daily Telegraph,
to carry out an unusual political opinion poll.
38
We asked a representative sample of 1,000 respondents to estimate the height of the leaders of the UK’s two main political parties. According to their party headquarters, the Labour and Conservative leaders at that time, Tony Blair and William Hague, were both six feet tall. But this is not how the electorate saw things.
Daily Telegraph,
to carry out an unusual political opinion poll.
38
We asked a representative sample of 1,000 respondents to estimate the height of the leaders of the UK’s two main political parties. According to their party headquarters, the Labour and Conservative leaders at that time, Tony Blair and William Hague, were both six feet tall. But this is not how the electorate saw things.
In line with Harold Kassarjian’s findings from the 1960s, we found differences when people estimated the heights of the leader they supported and the leader they opposed. Significantly more Labour than Conservative voters thought that Blair was five feet nine or taller. Likewise, more Conservatives than Labour supporters thought that Hague was five feet nine or taller. In short, voters saw their own candidates as taller than the opposition. However, what did our stature poll predict about the results of the forthcoming election? Whereas only 35 percent of voters thought that Blair was less than the average male height of five feet nine inches, 64 percent of voters thought this of William Hague. So voters perceived Blair as relatively tall and Hague as a real shorty.
And the results of the 2001 election?
A massive landslide victory for Tony Blair’s Labour Party.
We all used to be a lot hairier than we are now. As apes, we were covered in facial and body hair but, over the course of tens of thousands of years, we have shed our fur. There is considerable debate about why this happened. Some researchers believe that it was a result of our needing less hair to keep warm as we ventured away from the shady forests and out into the hot savannas. Others have suggested that a lack of body and facial hair was associated with a lower incidence of disease-carrying ticks and parasites. Either way, some men choose to turn back the hands of evolutionary time and sport various types of facial hair. In doing so, they are unconsciously altering the way in which they are perceived by the people around them.
In 1973, the psychologist Robert Pellegrini studied the effects of facial hair on perceived personality.
39
He managed to find eight full-bearded young men who were happy to have their facial hair removed in the name of science. Pellegrini took a photograph of each of the men before the experimental barber got at them. Next, each man was photographed when he had a goatee and a moustache, then just a moustache, and finally when he was clean-shaven. Groups of randomly selected people were asked to rate the personality of the people in the photographs. There was a positive relationship between the amount of beard and traits such as masculinity, maturity, dominance, self-confidence, and courage. “It may well be that inside every clean-shaven man there is a beard screaming to be let out,” Pellegrini noted. “If so, the results of the present study provide a strong rationale for indulging that demand.”
39
He managed to find eight full-bearded young men who were happy to have their facial hair removed in the name of science. Pellegrini took a photograph of each of the men before the experimental barber got at them. Next, each man was photographed when he had a goatee and a moustache, then just a moustache, and finally when he was clean-shaven. Groups of randomly selected people were asked to rate the personality of the people in the photographs. There was a positive relationship between the amount of beard and traits such as masculinity, maturity, dominance, self-confidence, and courage. “It may well be that inside every clean-shaven man there is a beard screaming to be let out,” Pellegrini noted. “If so, the results of the present study provide a strong rationale for indulging that demand.”
Other books
Reining in Murder by Leigh Hearon
No Place Like Home: The Coming Home Series, Book 1 by Jennifer Kacey
The Committee by Terry E. Hill
The Spectacular Now by Tharp, Tim
Soldier On by Logan, Sydney
Washington Square by Henry James
Mystic Danger 2: From the Ashes by Cash Cole
The Last Anniversary by Liane Moriarty
Rockaway by Tara Ison
Girls' Night Out Murder (Ryli Sinclair 2) by Jenna St. James