Height among Women is Curvilinearly Related to Life History Strategy

Evolutionary Psychology
www.epjournal.net – 2009. 7(4): 545-559
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Original Article
Height among Women is Curvilinearly Related to Life History Strategy
Abraham P. Buunk, Evolutionary Social Psychology, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands,
Email: a.p.buunk@rug.nl (Corresponding author).
Thomas V. Pollet, Evolutionary Social Psychology, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Liga Klavina, Evolutionary Social Psychology, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Aurelio José Figueredo, Psychology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA.
Pieternel Dijkstra, Social Psychology, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Abstract: It was hypothesized that women of medium height would show a more secure,
long-term mating pattern characterized by less jealousy, less intrasexual competition and a
“slower” life history strategy. In three samples of female undergraduate students clear
support was found for these hypotheses. In Study 1, among 120 participants, height was
curvilinearly related to well-established measures of possessive and reactive jealousy, with
women of medium height being less jealous than tall as well as short women. In Study 2,
among 40 participants, height was curvilinearly related to intrasexual competition, with
women of medium height being less competitive towards other women than tall as well as
short women. In Study 3, among 299 participants, height was curvilinearly related to the
Mini-K, a well-validated measure of “slower” life history strategy, with women of medium
height having a slower life history strategy than tall as well as short women. The results
suggest that women of medium height tend to follow a different mating strategy than either
tall or short women. Various explanations and implications of these results are discussed.
Keywords: height, jealousy, intrasexual competition, life history
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Introduction
Tallness among human males is not only related to a variety of indices of status,
including academic rank (Hensley, 1993) and income level (e.g., Judge and Cable, 2004), but
also to reproductive success (Mueller and Mazur, 2001; Pawlowski et al., 2000). In
addition, male height is an indicator of various fitness related qualities such as physical health
and morphological symmetry (Manning, 1995; Silventoinen, Lahelma, Rahkonen, 1999),

---

Height and Life History
and cognitive abilities (Case and Paxon, 2006). Not surprisingly therefore, females have a
preference for taller males (Kurzban and Weeden, 2005; Pawlowski, 2003; Shepperd and
Strathman, 1989). Indeed, taller men receive more replies to dating announcements
(Pawlowski and Koziel, 2002), and have more physically attractive girlfriends (Feingold
1982). Buunk, Park, Zurriaga, Klavin and Massar (2008) argued that as taller males have
apparently higher mate value, and may more successfully deter rivals, they will have less need
for mate-guarding and jealousy. Indeed, in two studies they found clear evidence for this.
However, according to Buunk et al. (2008), for women, the relationship between
height and jealousy is quite different, because there is some evidence that in Western societies
women of medium height are the healthiest and the most attractive to men. Very short and
very tall women are more prone to illnesses than women of average height (Silventoinen et
al., 1999). In addition, there is evidence that women of approximately average height have
relatively more reproductive success (Nettle, 2002) in Western societies (Deady and Smith,
2006), as well as in underdeveloped countries such as Guatemala (Pollet and Nettle, 2008;
see also Sear, 2006). Very tall women are also more likely to develop depressive symptoms
(Bruinsma et al., 2006). Men consistently tend to prefer women who are shorter than they are,
although not too short (Pawlowski, 2003; Pawlowski and Koziel, 2002), and tend to perceive
tall women as having less considerate and nurturing characters (Chu and Geary, 2005). In
addition, shorter women tend to be more symmetrical (Manning, 1995). The apparent
curvilinear relationship between female height and attractiveness to males would suggest
that women of medium height would have the highest mate value, and would therefore be
the least jealous. Indeed, Buunk et al. (2008) found that women of around average height
were the least jealous and that women were more jealous as they were increasingly taller or
shorter than average. In addition, approximately average-height women tended to be less
jealous of physically attractive, i.e., more “feminine”, rivals, but more jealous of rivals with
“masculine” characteristics of physical dominance and social status.
In the present research, that was conducted in three independent samples of women,
we assumed that the lower jealousy of women of medium height reflects a more secure,
long-term mating pattern not only characterized by less jealousy, but also by less
intrasexual competition and a “slower” life history strategy. First, in Study 1, we examined
again the relationship between height and jealousy among women using well-established
scales for reactive, anxious and possessive jealousy (Buunk, 1997; Barelds and Dijkstra,
2007). In addition to establishing more unequivocally the relationship between height and
jealousy in Study 1, in Study 2 we examined the relationship between height and individual
differences in intrasexual competition, a broader and more encompassing concept than
jealousy. Finally, and most importantly, in Study 3 we examined the relationship between
height and a “slower” life history strategy.

Intrasexual competition
Intrasexual competition refers to rivalry with same-sex others over access to mates.
In most species, males invest little in their offspring and engage in often fierce competition
with other males over the access to females, whereas females show few signs of intrasexual
competition. However, because in humans both sexes invest resources and parental care in
their offspring, both sexes will be discriminating in the choice of mates. Thus, both sexes
will engage in competition with same sex conspecifics (e.g., Trivers, 1972). Indeed, in the
past decades it has been become increasingly clear that women may be intrasexually quite
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 7(4). 2009. -546-

---

Height and Life History
competitive and even aggressive (e.g., Bettencourt and Miller, 1996; Frodi, Macaulay, and
Thome, 1977). For example, in a cross-cultural examination, Burbank (1987) found that in
polygynous societies, co-wives may compete with other women for food and money,
paternal care for their offspring, and for their offspring’s inheritance. In 61% of the 137
cultures she analysed, women engaged in physical aggression, typically fighting other
women over men. While throughout human history, men have competed primarily in the
domains of status, resources, and dominance, women tend to compete primarily in the
domains of physical attractiveness (e.g., Cashdan, 1998; Dijkstra and Buunk, 2002). For
example, when confronted with highly attractive rivals, women tend to “dislike” such a
rival, particular when she makes intrasexual competition salient, such as when she
conversing with a male (Baenninger, Baenninger, and Houle, 1993). It seems probable that
being strongly intrasexually competitive may be adaptive under certain conditions, yet
maladaptive under other conditions. Such other conditions might include a low life
expectancy, a low perceived chance of attaining a high status in the long run, and a low
mate value – for example as a consequence of being relatively small or tall. Thus, relatively
short and relatively tall women can be predicted to be more intrasexually competitive. This
implies that they will view the confrontation with other women, especially in the context of
contact with the opposite-sex, in competitive terms (Buunk and Fisher, 2009). This
competitiveness may be expressed, among others, in the desire to beat other women rather
than to perform well (cf. Van Yperen, 2003); the desire to view oneself as better than other
women (cf. self-enhancement, Zuckerman and O’Loughlin, 2006); envy and frustration
when other women are better off (cf. Smith and Kim, 2007); malicious pleasure when high
achieving women (“tall poppies”) lose face (cf., Feather, 1994), and rejecting attractive and
competent women as candidates for a position in their department (Luxen and Van de
Vijver, 2005).

Life history strategy: The “slow” vs. “fast” continuum
We assumed that the lower jealousy and intrasexual competition of women of
medium height reflect differences in life-history strategy. There is evidence that taller
women have their first menstruation later, marry later, and get their first child later (e.g.,
Sear, 2006). In general, because of limited resources, individuals, in order to successfully
reproduce, are forced to make trade-offs between mating effort, i.e. locating a mate and
courting him or her, and parenting efforts, i.e. gestation, childbirth, and postnatal care of
children (e.g., Chisholm, 1993; Figueredo, Vasquez, Brumbach, Schneider, Sefeek, et al.,
2006). These trade-offs can be arranged on a continuum that was originally often described
in terms of the r-K model of reproductive strategies (e.g., Charles and Egan, 2005, Ellis,
1988), but is now more commonly referred to as the fast-slow continuum of life history
strategy. Individuals at the faster end of the continuum seek to produce many offspring
without great investment in their welfare (i.e. low parental and high mating effort), whereas
individuals at the slower end of the continuum produce fewer offspring and provide greater
nurturing (i.e. high parental and low mating effort). Although both strategies are equally
favored by natural selection, they differ in the type of reproductive success they maximize.
Whereas the fast strategy particularly maximizes short-term reproductive success, the slow
life history strategy maximizes long-term reproductive success (e.g., Figueredo et al., 2006;
Kaplan and Gangestad, 2005). That is, having fewer, high quality, offspring may result,
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 7(4). 2009. -547-

---

Height and Life History
ultimately, in more descendants in distant future generations than having numerous lesser
quality offspring, whose reproductive success depends more on luck.
In general, as a species, humans tend to follow a “slow” life history strategy
(Bjorklund and Shackelford, 1999; Chisholm, 1993). However – as in many other species –
in order to adapt to changing environmental conditions, individuals in each new generation
also show flexibility regarding their individual position on the “slow” vs. “fast” life history
continuum (Figueredo, Vásquez, Brumbach and Schneider, 2007). Therefore, some
individuals are “slower” in their life history strategy than others (Chisholm, 1993). Overall,
faster life history strategy is the optimal reproductive strategy when the environment is
adverse or unstable (e.g., Chisholm, 1993), and when populations are still growing (e.g.,
Rushton, 2004). In contrast, when population size stabilizes, and mortality rates are low,
slower life history strategy individuals come to predominate because under steady state
conditions, they are more competitively successful at raising young and organizing the
more complex societies that sustain them (e.g., Figueredo et al., 2005). There is
considerable evidence that stressful experiences in and around their families of origin –
such as marital discord, father absence, or traumatic separation from one’s parents - leads
individuals to invest disproportionately in mating and in early reproduction. In contrast,
children who grow up in harmonious homes and homes were the father is present, mature
later, postpone sexual activity and display greater investment in the fewer children they
produce (e.g., Belsky, Steinberg and Draper, 1991; Bjorklund and Shackelford, 1999; Ellis,
2004; Pesonen, Räikkönen, Heinonen, Kajantie, Forsén, and Eriksson, 2008; Tither and
Ellis, 2008). Nevertheless, there seems to be a strong genetic influence (h2= .65) on life
history strategy (Figueredo, Vásquez, Brumbach, and Schneider, 2004).
On the basis of the preceding discussion, we expected that women who have – due
to their height – fewer chances of attracting an investing long-term mate, will be more
likely to engage in a faster life history strategy, whereas women who are desired by men
and have higher fitness – i.e., women of medium height – will more likely adopt a slower
life history strategy. In a series of psychometric studies, Figueredo and his colleagues (e.g.,
Figueredo et al., 2005; 2006), have shown that a slow life history strategy can be
conceptualized as a higher order construct characterized by a number of reproductive,
parental and sexual behaviors, including good executive functions, positive relationships
with one’s parents, positive attachment to an adult partner, low mating effort, low
Machiavellianism, low levels of risk taking, more foresight and planning, and persistence
and self-directedness.

To summarize, in three samples of female undergraduate students, the present
research expands previous research from a life history perspective. It was hypothesized that
women of medium height would show a more secure, long-term mating pattern
characterized by less jealousy, less intrasexual competition and a slower life history
strategy than women who either at the tall or the short end of the spectrum.
Materials and Methods
Study 1: Height and Jealousy


A total of 120 female first year psychology students (age M = 19.9 years, SD = 2.9)
participated in the study as partial fulfillment of course requirements. The mean height was
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 7(4). 2009. -548-

---

Height and Life History
M = 172 (SD = 5.74). Three participants were identified as outliers and were excluded
from the analysis due to the low variability of their responses, which suggests that they did
not complete the task seriously.

Measures

Participants were asked to indicate their height, and completed questionnaires on
computers in separate cubicles. The different types – reactive, preventive and anxious
jealousy were assessed with scales measuring jealousy as a chronic trait (Buunk, 1997;
Barelds and Dijkstra, 2007). The original version of the scale included 15 items. For the
reactive jealousy scale participants had to rate on the scale from 1 (not at all irritating) to 5
(very irritating) how upsetting they would find their partners behavior, e.g. “Discussing
personal things with someone else“, and “Flirting with someone else“. One item assessing
reactive jealousy i.e., reactions to sexual contact with someone else of opposite sex, was
removed as it produced a ceiling effect – 90% of participants provided the highest answer
(5). The 4-item scale of reactive jealousy had a medium reliability (? = .58). Anxious
jealousy was assessed with items on which participants indicated how often they
experienced certain thoughts or feelings, e.g. “I am concerned about my partner finding
someone else more attractive than me”, and “I worry about the idea that my partner could
have a sexual relationship with someone else” on a scale from 1 (never) to 5 (always). The
5-item scale had a reliability of ? = .87. Possessive jealousy was assessed with items
asking participants to indicate on the scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much) to what
extent the statements applied to them, e.g. “I don’t want my partner to meet too many
people of the opposite sex” and “I it is not acceptable to me if my partner sees people of the
opposite sex on a friendly basis”. The 5-item scale was highly reliable (? = .80).

Study 2: Height and Intrasexual Competition


A total of 40 female first year psychology students (age M = 20.4 years, SD = 4.3)
from the University of Groningen in the Netherlands participated in the study. The mean
height was, M = 170 (SD = 6.91). The participants completed questionnaires on computers
in separate cubicles as part of a larger study, and their participation was part of the
fulfillment of course requirements.

Measures

Participants indicated their height and completed several questionnaires. Intrasexual
competition was measured with a 12-item scale (Buunk and Fisher, 2009). The items assess
the negative responses of individuals to intrasexual competition, i.e., rivalry with same sex
others over access to mates, e.g., “I can’t stand it when I meet another man/woman who is
more attractive than I am”, “I tend to look for negative characteristics in attractive women”,
“I just don’t like very ambitious women”. The reliability of the scale was high with ?s of
.85 and. 87 in a Dutch and a Canadian sample, respectively (Buunk and Fisher, 2009). Also
in this study the scale reached high reliability (? = .82).

Study 3: Height and Life History Strategy
A total of 299 female first year psychology students (age M = 19.8 years, SD = 3.1)
from the University of Groningen in the Netherlands participated in the study. The mean
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 7(4). 2009. -549-

---

Height and Life History
height was M = 172.45 (SD = 6.27). The participants completed a questionnaire online as
part of the fulfillment of their course requirements.

Measures

Participants indicated their height and completed several questionnaires. Slow life
history strategy was measured with the Mini-K Life History Strategy Short Form
(Figueredo et al., 2006), a 20-item short form of the Arizona Life History Battery (ALHB;
Figueredo, 2007), which is a battery of cognitive and behavioral indicators of life history
strategy compiled and adapted from various original sources. These self-report
psychometric indicators measure graded individual differences along various
complementary facets of a coherent and coordinated life history strategy, as specified by
life history theory, and converge upon a single multivariate latent construct, the “slow”
factor. The component scales are scored directionally to indicate a “slow” life history
strategy on the “fast-slow” continuum. The Mini-K correlates 0.85 with the full ALHB
(Gladden, Sisco, and Figueredo, 2008), and uses a 7-point Likert scale, which ranges from -
3 (Disagree Strongly) to +3 (Agree Strongly). Reliability in the present sample was
.73.
Results
Study 1: Height and Jealousy

To investigate the relationship between height and intrasexual competition, we
performed a regression analysis to detect both linear and curvilinear relationships. The
results showed that height had a significant curvilinear effect on reactive jealousy, F
(2,114) = 2.97, p =.05, and a non-significant linear effect, F (1,114) = .21, p = .65. Height
also had a significant curvilinear effect on possessive jealousy, F (2,114) = 3.62, p = .03 as
well as a significant linear effect, F (1,115) = 4.53, p = .04. However, neither the linear, F
(1,115) = 2.01, p = .28, nor the curvilinear relationship, F (2,114) = 1.31, p = .28), between
height and anxious jealousy were significant. Next, for reasons of presentational clarity, we
combined the reactive and possessive jealousy scales into a single overall jealousy scale (?
= .80). Height had a significant curvilinear effect, F (2,114) = 3.10, p = .05, r = .22, and a
non-significant linear effect, F (1,115) = 2.28, p = .13, on the combined jealousy scale (see
Figure 1). As predicted, jealousy was the lowest among women of medium height and
higher among relatively small and relatively tall women.





Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 7(4). 2009. -550-

---

Height and Life History
Figure 1. The curvilinear relationship between height and the combined scales of reactive
and possessive jealousy.

Study 2: Height and Intrasexual Competition

To investigate the relationship between height and intrasexual competition, we
performed a regression analysis to detect both linear and curvilinear relationships. The
results showed that height had a curvilinear effect on intrasexual competition, F (2, 37) =
3.82, p < .05, r = .41. As predicted, and as shown in Figure 2, height and intrasexual
competition had a U-shape relationship, which means relatively shorter and taller women
were higher in intrasexual competition than women of medium height. The linear
relationship between intrasexual competition and height did not reach significance, F (1,
38) = 2.25, p = .14.










Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 7(4). 2009. -551-

---

Height and Life History
Figure 2. The curvilinear relationship between height and intrasexual competition.



Study 3: Height and Life History Strategy


To investigate the relationship between height and life history strategy, we
performed a regression analysis to detect both linear and curvilinear relationships. The
results showed that height had a curvilinear effect on life history strategy, F (2, 290) =
3.05, p < .05, r = .14). As predicted, and as shown in Figure 3, height and life history
strategy had a U-shape relationship, which means that women of medium height were more
oriented towards a slower life history strategy than relatively shorter and taller women is
higher. The linear relationship between life history strategy and height was in the predicted
direction but not significant, F (1, 291) = 2.76, p = .10.








Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 7(4). 2009. -552-

---

Height and Life History
Figure 3. The curvilinear relationship between height and a “slow” life history strategy.

Discussion
The present research intended to expand previous research from a life history
perspective. It was hypothesized that, compared to both tall and short women, women of
medium height would show a more secure, long-term mating pattern that would be
characterized by less jealousy, less intrasexual competition and a slower life history
strategy. Clear support was found for these predictions: all three studies showed curvilinear
relationships between height and the dependent variables. Women of medium height
showed overall relatively lower levels of reactive and possessive jealousy, and were less
intrasexually competitive, i.e., responded less negatively to other women who were more
successful and who received more attention from the opposite sex. These less competitive
responses among women of medium height seemed to reflect a more long-term mating
pattern as apparent from their higher levels of characteristics typical of a slower life history
strategy, such as good executive functions, positive relationships with one’s parents, low
mating effort, low levels of risk taking, more foresight and planning, and persistence and
self-directedness. Vice versa, relatively tall and relatively short women seemed to be
characterized more by a faster life history strategy accompanied by more jealousy towards
rivals interfering in one’s relationship, and, overall, by more competitive responses to other
women and higher levels of characteristics typical of a faster life history strategy, such as
an emphasis on mating effort, more risk taking, and less positive relationships with one’s
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 7(4). 2009. -553-

---

Height and Life History
parents. The present research suggests that the findings of Buunk et al. (2008) that women
of medium height were the least jealous, is not a coincidental result, but seems to reflect a
rather robust phenomenon. Overall, the present results are consistent with previous research
suggesting that height may have a curvilinear relationship with attractiveness, health and
reproductive success among women (e.g., Nettle, 2002; Silventoinen et al., 1999). These
findings are also consistent with previous research linking higher self-reported jealousy to
faster life history strategies through the construct of high mating effort in response to both
emotional and sexual infidelity (Jones, Figueredo, Dickey, and Jacobs, 2007). It must be noted
that the effect sizes were not very high, and varied from small to moderate; however, this is
generally to be expected for correlations between physical and psychological characteristics.
Nevertheless, it is obvious that life history strategy is not only dependent upon height, but may
be independently thereof be affected by various other variables, including physical
attractiveness, ecological conditions and life expectancy (e.g., Ellis, 2004; Kaplan and
Gangestad, 2005).
Although the present findings are in line with previous research, it is as yet not
completely clear what processes underlie the effects. First, there may be a direct genetic
link: women of medium height may be genetically more healthy and fertile (cf. Hartge,
2009), which may be accompanied by a better mental health, as expressed in lower levels
of jealousy and competitiveness, and in traits such as persistence, good relationships with
one’s parents, and a long-term orientation. It seems likely that such traits are also
associated with differences in mate value, which might in part explain the effects. Second,
one can argue that the effects are caused by uncertain environmental conditions that make
individuals move to either the fast or slow end of the life history continuum. As noted by
Belsky et al. (1991), stressful experiences related to one’s family background– such as
marital discord or father absence – may lead individuals to invest disproportionately in
mating as opposed to parenting. As environmental stress tends to affect growth negatively,
it might be that shortness as well as an emphasis on mating as opposed to parenting effort
are both the result of the same stressful family background. However, this cannot explain
why relatively tall women seem to show the same type of mating strategy as relatively
short women. A third explanation lies in the positive feedback women of medium height
receive from men, due to which they feel more secure about their reproductive
opportunities, and may feel less competitive and jealous. Vice versa, relatively tall and
relatively short women may feel not especially valued by males, and, consequently feel
more inclined to engage directly in mating effort and risk taking.
Such phenomena may therefore represent conditional adaptive strategies involving
elements of reactive heritability (Figueredo and Jacobs, 2000). Although behavioral
ecologists have specified the functional requirements of conditional strategies, the
proximate mediation of such an adaptation is not well specified. One common metaphor is
the "developmental switch", an ethological mechanism analogous to imprinting, in which a
specific environmental contingency directly triggers an innate releasing mechanism for the
conditional strategy. Cognitive learning theories (e.g., Brunswik, 1952, 1955; Tolman,
1925), on the other hand, suggest that an organism learns the relative efficacy of various
responses, representing alternative means to a desired end. Through interactions with the
environment, an organism establishes a hierarchy of alternative ("vicarious and
intersubstitutable") responses based on experience with the relative ecological validities of
alternative means for producing a given distal achievement (Petrinovich, 1979), which
Evolutionary Psychology – ISSN 1474-7049 – Volume 7(4). 2009. -554-

---