Tweet
Researchers found that men's opinions on redistribution of wealth could be predicted by their upper body strength, with powerful men more likely to take a conservative stance of protecting their own interests.
In contrast men who were just as wealthy but were of a flimsier build were less opposed to policies like those of Labour leader Ed Miliband, which would involve surrendering some of their wealth to society.
The scientists, from Aarhus University in Denmark, analysed the wealth, bicep size and views on economic redistribution of hundreds of men in America, Denmark and Argentina.
They found that wealthy men with strong arms were less likely to support economic redistribution, or the fairer sharing of wealth among society, and unsurprisingly strong men with less money supported the policy.
But among physically weaker men, the pattern was reversed. Those with plenty of money were less opposed to redistributing it, while those who were poorer were less supportive.
Michael Bang Petersen, who led the study, said that overall stronger men took a more self-interested position but their stance varied depending on their strength.
He explained: "Our results demonstrate that 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."
There was no link between upper body strength and political attitudes among women, which is most likely due to the face women had less motive for physical aggression earlier on in our evolutionary history, he added.
The findings were published in the Psychological Science journal.
Source:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/scie...ight-wing.html
In contrast men who were just as wealthy but were of a flimsier build were less opposed to policies like those of Labour leader Ed Miliband, which would involve surrendering some of their wealth to society.
The scientists, from Aarhus University in Denmark, analysed the wealth, bicep size and views on economic redistribution of hundreds of men in America, Denmark and Argentina.
They found that wealthy men with strong arms were less likely to support economic redistribution, or the fairer sharing of wealth among society, and unsurprisingly strong men with less money supported the policy.
But among physically weaker men, the pattern was reversed. Those with plenty of money were less opposed to redistributing it, while those who were poorer were less supportive.
Michael Bang Petersen, who led the study, said that overall stronger men took a more self-interested position but their stance varied depending on their strength.
He explained: "Our results demonstrate that 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."
There was no link between upper body strength and political attitudes among women, which is most likely due to the face women had less motive for physical aggression earlier on in our evolutionary history, he added.
The findings were published in the Psychological Science journal.
Source:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/scie...ight-wing.html
Comment