ArticleHuman nature (Hawthorne, N.Y.)2025
Relationship between Height Preferences and Endorsement of Gender Norms.
Article in Human nature (Hawthorne, N.Y.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Height preferences when choosing a partner might reflect adaptive mating strategies, whereby tall men are deemed attractive to potential partners due to links with health and resource acquisition. However, height preferences are highly variable across populations and could reflect socially constructed gender norms. We examined the relationship between ideal partner height, the importance placed on partner height and endorsement of traditional gender norms. Participants (n = 242; 18-39yrs; UK-based, heterosexual) completed (i) five height-related questions (including own height, ideal partner height, maximum/minimum acceptable height), (ii) three gender norm questionnaires (sexist attitudes, feminist attitudes and alignment with masculine/feminine gender roles), and (iii) two open-ended questions about why height is important. Although ideal height ratio did not correlate with any gender role endorsement measures in either women or men, women who placed greater importance on height scored higher on sexism, lower on feminism and were less likely to find a short partner acceptable than women who placed less importance on partner height. Men who placed greater importance on height, and men who described themselves as more traditionally masculine, were less willing to accept a tall partner than men who scored lower on these measures. Women who rated height as important wanted to feel 'feminine/protected', whereas men wanted to feel 'masculine/dominant'. In this study, the 'male-taller' preference was exhibited, with women's preferences for tall partners being stronger than men's preferences for short partners. Height preferences were related to gender norm endorsement, suggesting that gene-culture co-evolutionary processes could potentially influence human height dimorphism.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.