Height discrimination

A research paper published in the Journal of Applied Psychology showed that height is strongly related to success for men. It showed that increase in height for men corresponds to increase in income after controlling for other social psychological variables like age and weight.[1] Economists Nicola Persico, Andrew Postlewaite and Dan Silverman conjectured a "height premium" and found that "a 1.8-percent increase in wages accompanies every additional inch of height". They also found that men's wages as adults could be linked to their height at age 16. The researchers found that on an average an increase in height by one inch at age 16 increased male adult wages by 2.6 percent. This is equal to increase of approximately $850 in 1996 annual earnings. In other words, the height and corresponding social experiences of taller male adolescent at age 16 would likely translate to higher wage in later adulthood as compared to shorter male adolescent.[2]

Recent findings suggest that height discrimination occurs most often against racial minorities. A 2007 study found that African-Americans reported higher weight and height related discrimination. This discrimination was even higher in female employees.[13]

In 2017, attorney and author lawyer Tanya Osensky published Shortchanged: Height Discrimination and Strategies for Social Change.[14] The book exposes the cultural, medical, and occupational issues that short people face, which are often deemed unimportant and disregarded. Osensky challenges heightism by disclosing some beneficial aspects of shortness and suggesting avenues of activism and change.

Some jobs require a minimum height. For example, US Military pilots have to be 160 to 200 centimetres (63 to 79 in) tall with a sitting height of 86 to 102 centimetres (34 to 40 in).[15] These exceptions noted, in the great majority of cases a person's height would not seem to have an effect on how well they are able to perform their job. Nevertheless, studies have shown that short people are paid less than taller people, with disparities similar in magnitude to the race and gender gaps.[16]

Surveys have uncovered that less than 3% of CEOs were below 1.70 m (5 ft 7 in) in height. 90% of CEOs are of above average height.[17]

In 2018, market researcher Seth Ulinski published Amazing Heights: How Short Guys Stand Tall.[18] The book highlights that through technology and an entrepreneurial mindset, members of the "short guy fraternity" are able to blaze their own paths, bypassing potential glass ceilings and pay gaps. For example, short guy fraternity members include: Amazon founder and CEO Jeff Bezos 1.70 m (5 ft 7 in), Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg 1.70 m (5 ft 7 in) and Google co-founder and Alphabet President Sergey Brin 1.73 m (5 ft 8 in). With an estimated net worth of over $150 billion,[19] Bezos is ranked as the richest person in the world, while Zuckerberg and Brin consistently rank in the top 20.[20]

While it is popularly believed that height is a revealed preference of physical attraction, contemporary literature is mixed in its results.

Initial studies indicated that taller men are more likely to be married and to have more children, except in societies with severe sex imbalances caused by war.[21] However, more recent research has drawn this theory into question, finding no correlation between height and offspring count.[22] Moreover, research on leg length and leg-to-body ratio conflicts with the notion that there is a distinct preference for taller mates. A 2008 study found that both extremes, tall and short, reduced attractiveness, and a 2006 study found that a higher leg-to-body ratio in both genders increased aesthetic appeal.[23][24] At the roughest approximation the limb ratio findings are consistent with data relating height to human health. Conversely, research by Dan Ariely found that American women exhibit a marked preference for dating taller men, and that for shorter men to be judged attractive by women, they must earn substantially more money than taller men.[25]

A 2012 study found that both men and women are willing to excuse height differences by using a trade-off approach. Men may compensate 1.3 BMI units with a 1 percent higher wage than their wife. Women may compensate 2 BMI units with an additional year of higher education.[26] Furthermore, a 2015 study found that both men and women receive benefits for having a tall spouse.[26]

Nonetheless, on a cultural level in Post-industrial society, a sociological relationship between height and perceived attractiveness exists. For instance, in a 2019 survey performed by Ipsos in Hungary with over 500 respondents, the perfect height for men for 53% of participants was between 1.78 m (5 ft 10 in) to 1.85 m (6 ft 1 in), while regarding female ideal height, 60% of respondents stated that it should be between 1.65 m (5 ft 5 in) and 1.75 m (5 ft 9 in), indicating a predominant preference for average to moderately tall height in both sexes.[27] This cultural characteristic of conferring relevance to height as an indicator of attractiveness, while applicable to the modernized world, is not a transcendental human quality.[28] A study produced by the Universities of Groningen and Valencia, has found that men who felt most anxious about attractive, physically dominant, and socially powerful rivals, were less jealous, the taller they were themselves.[29]

Charlotte Gill argues in The Independent that fat-shaming women is much less accepted than short-shaming men, although the latter is even worse.[30]

In the media, heightism can take the form of making fun of people whose height is out of the normal range in ways that would be unseemly if directed at skin color or weight. An example is Kevin Connolly's portrayal of Eric "E" Murphy in HBO's television series Entourage (Connolly is 5 ft 5 in or 1.65 m)[31]

Similarly, shorter men are often denied leading roles. Although some famous cinema actors such as Alan Ladd 5 ft 5 in (1.65 m) have been short in real life, in their fictional depictions they have been presented as taller.

In 1987 the BBC comedy series A Small Problem imagined a totalitarian society in which people under the height of 5 feet (1.5 m) were systematically discriminated against. The program attracted considerable criticism and complaints which accused the writers of reinforcing prejudice and of using offensive terms; the writers responded that their intention had been to show all prejudice was stupid and that height was chosen randomly.[32]

S&M Short and Male, a documentary aired in 2008, demonstrated the obstacles and bigotry that short statured men face every day in life, love and work.[33][34][35]