Physically strong men are more militant: A test across four countries

Abstract

There is substantial evidence from archaeology, anthropology, primatology, and psychology indicating that humans have a long evolutionary history of war. Natural selection, therefore, should have designed mental adaptations for making decisions about war. These adaptations evolved in past environments, and so they may respond to variables that were ancestrally relevant but not relevant in modern war. For example, ancestrally in small-scale combat, a skilled fighter would be more likely to survive a war and bring his side to victory. This ancestral regularity would have left its mark on modern men's intergroup psychology: more formidable men should still be more supportive of war. We test this hypothesis in four countries: Argentina, Denmark, Israel, and Romania. In three, physically strong men (but not strong women) were significantly more supportive of military action. These findings support the hypothesis that modern warfare is influenced by a psychology designed for ancestral war.2

Upper‐Body Strength and Political Egalitarianism: Twelve Conceptual Replications

“…Previous research has also specifically examined potential associations between formidability and political attitudes. One set of studies has focused on attitudes that can be construed as reflecting support for aggression in the political domain, such as support for harsh punishment and militarism (Sell et al, ; Sell, Tooby, & Cosmides, ). These studies have generally produced consistent evidence that more formidable males—but not females—are more likely to support aggressive policies.…”

The Male Warrior Hypothesis: Testosterone-related Cooperation and Aggression in the Context of Intergroup Conflict

“…In the specific context of intergroup competition, masculine faces are associated with wartime leadership 42 . Moreover, there is cross-cultural evidence supporting a positive association between body strength and the tendency to be more supportive of military action 43 , a proxy of the propensity to engage in serious intergroup conflict.…”

Moral Tribes

“…The fact that individuals have a need to belong to a group (Baumeister and Leary 1995) and affiliations are often tied to location (Balish et al 2013) provides a plausible path for moral tribes to be constituted in sports. Team sports may provide individuals a representation of an adapted form of conflict (Sell et al 2017). Teams seem to have a form of morality that is enhanced by different regional divides (Balish et al 2013).…”