Short Stature in Caucasian Males: Personality Correlates and Social Attribution

Given the advent of genetically engineered hwnan growth hormone, there is a pressing need to better understand the personality correlates and impact of short stature in males. One hundred-twenty collegeage Caucasian males of short, average and tall stature were administered measures of self-concept, body-cathexis, psychological security, and a semantic-differential measure. In addition, a questionnaire regarding the importance of height in daily life was also included. The broadly-based literature ~eview strongly suggests that short stature in males is a distinct developmental and social liability. The results of the present study supported the first prediction that short subjects would feel significantly less positive about their bodies than their taller peers. The average-height and tall subjects did not differ significantly from each other regarding their overall feelings about their bodies. The second prediction that short males would demonstrate a less favorable self-concept was substantially supported. The third prediction that short males would demonstrate greater psychological insecurity was not supported. The fourth prediction that short subjects would report more pronounced feelings regarding the impact of height in their daily lives was substantially supported. The fifth prediction that the sample as a whole would attribute negatively valenced and less socially valued personality traits to men of sh-0rt height was strongly supported. Implications of these findings are discussed.

lates and impact of short stature in males.
One hundred-twenty collegeage Caucasian males of short, average and tall stature were administered measures of self-concept, body-cathexis, psychological security, and a semantic-differential measure.
In addition, a questionnaire regarding the importance of height in daily life was also included.
The broadly-based literature ~eview strongly suggests that short stature in males is a distinct developmental and social liability.
The results of the present study supported the first prediction that short subjects would feel significantly less positive about their bodies than their taller peers. The average-height and tall subjects did not differ significantly from each other regarding their overall feelings about their bodies.
The second prediction that short males would demonstrate a less favorable self-concept was substantially supported.
The third prediction that short males would demonstrate greater psychological insecurity was not supported.
The fourth prediction that short subjects would report more pronounced feelings regarding the impact of height in their daily lives was substantially supported.
The fifth prediction that the sample as a whole would attribute negatively valenced and less socially valued personality traits to men of sh-0rt height was strongly supported. Implications of these findings are discussed. -x-Let me tell you my theory of small men, Captain, then let me hear what you think ... Give me a guy less than five feet eight, Johnson, and I'll give you a real bastard nine times out of ten.
It has . been my experience that short men get a chip on their shoulder as big as an aircraft carrier. They're just pissed off at life and God and everybody else just because they're midgets. They came into the marine corps just so they can be proud and tough once in their lives.
They like to strut around and pretend their dicks are as long as anyone elses.
I'm a blunt man, Johnson, and I'll tell you that I always keep my eye out for a 'little guy' because I know he's down their low with his hands around my nuts waiting for a chance to give me the big squeeze.
What do you have to say about my theory?
Colonel Bull Meecham in Pat Conroy's The Great Santini (1976) Bond had always mistrusted short men. They grew up from childhood with an inferiority complex. All their lives they would strive to be bigger than others who had teased them as a child.
Napoleon had been short, and Hitler. It was the short men that created all the trouble in the world.
Ian Fleming, Goldfinger (1959) -Y.ii-  Kretschmer (1936) found a strong relationship between certain types of physical constitutions and certain psychoses. In this classic work Physique and Character (1936) he began the categorization of body types in an attempt to uncover the relationship between temperament and body type.
This line of research was carried on by the work of  who put forward the question 11 Do those who look most alike behave most alike 11 (p. 1). Both Kretschmer and Sheldon concluded that physical constitution was of primary importance in the shaping of personality.
Basically , his method consisted of making predictions about an individuals temperament and preferences by "measuring his body 11 (p. 1).
Later Barker (1946) restated the question labeling it the 11 somatopsychological problem" (p. 15) . Like Kretschmer and Sheldon , he believed that an individual's physical attributes such as his size, shape, appearance and strength determined to a great extent, the kind of person he became.

. 2 THE CURRENT STATUS OF THE RESEARCH
------------Even though strong . beliefs and opinions exist regarding the relationship between physical stature, behavior, and personality, there is little systematic research on the topic. Over thirty years ago, Barker (1953) noted that: despite the importance that laymen and social scientists attach to the psychological significance of physique, relatively little has been done to determine systematically the extent to which normal variations in physique actually do influence behavior, and the means by which their effects are accomplished (p. 14) In refering to the systematic study of short stature in particular, Barker (1953) reported that he was unable to find any investigations on this topic whatsoever. He found this situation curious in light of the fact that short stature was so frequently mentioned in the literature as a liability.
In the thirty years that have elapsed since his work, the situation has not changed appreciably. The authors who have written on this topic consistantly note that this important topic has been all but ignored (Keyes, 1980;Adams, 1980;Graziano, 1978;Prie-to, 1978;Feldman, 1975;Gunderson, 1965). 3 Adams (1980) questioned why so little research has been conducted and Keyes (1980) offers what appears to be a plausible explanation. He says: I think the whole problem makes everybody nervous all around-with short people themselves wishing the issue would just go away, normal sized people often wishing short people would just go away (p. 92).
Remarkable progress has been made in recent years in the area of human height control making the 11 choice 11 of a particular stature a viable option. Human Growth Hormone, the chemical substance produced by the pituitary gland can stimulate growth, but its exceedingly limited supply has severely limited its use. However, recent breakthroughs in genetic engineering promise to make growth hormone available in large quantities at relatively low cost. Given this remarkable advance, it is essential that the psychosocial impact of short stature be better understood.
The question will soon arise as to whether or not an individual should be given pharmacological treatment for purely psychological reasons. It is certain that these advances will significantly increase the pressures upon parents, children, and physicians to use the pharmacological approach. Without a better understanding of the impact of short stature in males, the data base used to assess the costs and benefits of such a powerful intervention remains markedly incomplete.
The results of this study should significantly increase the pool of knowledge in what has been a sparsely researched topic area. The comprehensive approach of the study will substantially upgrade what has been a largely anecdotal and analogue research base. 1.3

IMPORTANCE OF PHYSICAL APPEARANCES
George Bernard Shaw once noted that "Beauty is all very well, but who ever looks at it when it has been in the house three days?" The answer is, almost everybody.
The Happy American Body A Survival Report -- Berscheid, 1973 A. The Janus-Faced American Mythology Aronson has suggested that social scientists have avoided investigation of the topic because of fear they might learn just how powerful it is (Berscheid, 1972, p. 43). that: More recently Sokolov (1978) noted You would expect then, that little people who have fallen short of the John Wayne image their whole lives would have acquired a poor self image.
Well, it turns out that almost no one in the psychology field has paid any attention to the problem.
• Bercheid (1972) who reviewed the literature on appearance and self-esteem concluded that: Personality and self-esteem do isfaction with one's body, but evant shell in which the soul beautiful people differently ones, and denying this truth less important (p. 146).
not rest exclusively on satneither is the body an irrelhappens to live.
We treat from the way we treat homely will not make a person's looks In Berschied and Walster's article (1972) they reported that the subjects seemed to prefer physically attractive individuals and that positive personality traits were associated with an attractive appearance.
The subjects described the good-looking persons as being more sensitive, kind, interesting, strong, poised, modest, sociable, outgoing and exciting than less attractive persons (Bersceid, 1972 p. 46).
It is almost axiomatic that short males are not attractive, or at least not as attractive as their taller counterparts. This point is concisely made by the title of a recent article, Short, Dark and Almost Handsome (1975). Emphasis in this article was placed on the 11 almost. 11 B. Male -Female Differences in Body Cathexis Males and females differ on various dimensions including physical size, socialization practices, and emotional development to name but a few. The research described in this review indicates that male and females also differ in the ways in which they think about and experience their own bodies.
The desired shape and size of one's body closely corresponds to the cultural stereotypes; the male desires to be large and muscular while the female desires to be small except for bust area (Caldy, Lundy, and Schlafer, 1959). More importantly, the symbolic meaning of the body and manner of body cathexis differs for males and females. Jourard and Remy (1957) explored the relationship between the degree of differentiation of self and the body image and found that women showed greater variability in what they called 11 cathexis-responsiveness 11 to the body than did men. What this meant was that men tended to accept or reject their bodies in a global all-or-none fashion whereas women made finer-grained distinctions between different aspects of their body. They concluded that the women: have a more highly differentiated body image than men and that among women, the self-concept and the body image are differentiated to an equivalent degree ... (p. 63) These findings were reconfirmed by Kurtz (1969) and Goldberg (1974).
Goldberg's findings were highly consistant with the previous findings in that the females in the study showed significantly greater variances than did the males on the body image items. In Western societies, women pay more attention to particular details of their appearance whereas men are more concerned with the aspects associated with size, strength and the overall perceptual impact their body makes.

C. The "Ideal" Male Body
Short people got no reason to live/ They got little ijands and little eyes/ They walk around telling great big lies/ They got little noses and tiny little teeth/ They wear platform shoes on their nasty little feet/ Well, I don't want no short people round here/

Randy Newman Copyright, 1977 High Tree Music Company
It is essential to emphasize that large body size has a symbolic meaning to males that is unique to their gender. Fisher (1973) pointed out that the shape and size of the body is imbued with special and important meaning.
To be a tall and non-obese male is a highly valued physical characteristic. The inculcation of this "ideal" occurs early in development.
In one study, Cobb (1954) reported that children em-.
phatically believed that a tall, muscular physique was important for boys. This cultural "ideal" is imbued with symbolic meaning that indicates to those who are less than ideal that they have fallen short of an important mark. As Fisher (1973) succinctly summed it up: All other things being equal, the larger man is viewed as more manly. We know that tall men tend to get better paying jobs than short ones, presumably because they make a more forceful impression. It has been said that the short man feels inferior and is sometimes driven to do big, masculine things in order to prove his true size (p. 119).
Given such a set of environmental circumstances, stereotyping and cultural expectations, it is clear that myriad difficulties confront the short male in terms of negotiating and solidifying a positive male identity.
The consensus regarding the physical appearance that a male 11 should 11 have appears 'to be unequivacable. The ideal seems to favor a large mesomorphic body build and it is this body build that is strongly associated with masculine characteristics. This may have profound developmental and personality implications for the male of short stature.
It is interesting that one researcher concluded that "it seems that ' childhood teasing has a lasting effect.
People who were teased as children ... are less satisfied with their bodies as adults ... and the relationship between having been made fun of as a child and later body image was stronger for males than for females" (Berscheid, 1972 p. 122).

D. Body Satisfaction in Males
The relationship between percieved masculinity and size was tested by Jourard and Secord (1954). In their study, 62 College males completed the body cathexis scale (Secord and Jourard, 1953). After the subjects completed the scale, pertinent body measurements were taken (i.e., height, weight, width of shoulders, circumference of the biceps) and correlations between these measurements and the five pertinent body cathexis ratings were computed. The results indicated · that large size of relevant body parts was associated with positive cathex-is, while the reverse was true for small size. Hence, their work established the relationship between positive attitudes towards one's own body and large size.
In a replication of Secord andJourard 1 s (1953) work, Magnussen (1958) had 62 male undergraduate subjects complete a form of the Body Cathexis Scale.
Upon completion of the Body-Cathexis Scale, and without previous information regarding procurement of bodily measures, anthropometric measurements were taken on each subject for height, weight, shoulder width, and chest circumference. It was felt that these variables represented "masculinity".
They found that large size was a desirable attribute among college males, and "the presence or absence leads to contrasting feelings toward related features of the male soma 11 (p. 34).
In their later study, Jourard amd Secord (1955) found that 11 cathexis for selected body aspects will vary with the extent of deviation perceived and measured of size of body parts for self-ratings of ideal measurements" (p. 243). Calden, Lundy, and Schlafer (1959) In another study, Arkoff and Weaver (1966)

Questionnaire (Jourard and Secord
They found that both the Caucasian and Japanese American males wanted to be large in all of the dimensions under study except for their hips and waist. As was hypothesized, the Japanese-Americans, who were shorter, were farther from their ideal in terms of height and bicep size. The authors concluded that the dimensions of height and upper body shape (i.e.,the classic tall mesomorphic build) symbolizes masculinity in the American culture. This 11 ideal 11 is one that is generally accepted and aspired towards. Hinckley and Rethlingshafer (1951) found that the men who were most satisfied with their own height were the 6 foot 2 inch subjects and the least satisfied individuals were those who were unusually short.
These findings are rather consistant and have profound implications for understanding the psychology of the short male. A man's body image and subsequent cathexis is based on a few dimensions that directly reflect the stereotypic cultural standard regarding the male build.
The manner in which the body is cathected appears to be substantially different between the sexes.
In an early study of masculine inadequacy and compensatory development of physique, Harlow (1951) noted that: Since the male, in almost all societies, is the sex expected to be strong and dominant, the given physical sex difference can easily become a symbol for male superiority.
It follows that the more highly developed are the secondary masculine characteristics, the more manly the individual is often considered.
(p. 313) In a recent interview (Playboy, Feb. 1984 It is as if man feared that he was too small and walked on his toes to make himself seem taller.
Sometimes we can see this very behaviour if two children are comparing their height.
The one ~ho is afraid that he is smaller will stretch up and hold himself very tensely.
He will try to seem bigger than he is.
If we asked such a child, 11 D0 you think you are too small? 11 we should hardly expect him to acknowledge the fact.
14 Alfred Adler (1956)  Willhelm Reich (1945) proposed that the development of such a defensive posture takes the form of what he called 11 body armor. 11 That is, our defensive posture will be reflected in the way we feel about and use our body as a protective sheath.
More recently, Fisher (1973) reaffirmed the supposition that individuals who do not feel good about their bodies will develop self-protective maneuvers.
He goes on to say that these maneuvers, often eventuate in their doing strange things to their own · bodies. They are defensively driven to camouflage and reshape their frames in an effort to hide from themselves and others body feeling that are threatening.
The short male is frequently reminded that his body is inferior.
For example, . he may experience much difficulty in finding clothing or he may be unable to to sit comfortably in a bar (Feldman, 1975). All in all, the point that these theories make is that dissatisfaction with one 1 s body will lead to adoption of compensatory mechanisms.

Adler
(1956) goes on to say, No human being can bear a feeling of inferiority for long; he will be thrown into a tension which necessitates some kind of action.
But suppose an individual is discouraged; suppose he cannot conceive that if he makes realistic efforts he will improve the situation.
He will still be unable to bear his feelings of inferiority; he will still struggle to get rid of them; but he will try methods which bring him no farther ahead.
His goal is still 1 to be superior to difficulties,• but instead of overcoming obstacles he will try to hypnotize himself, or autointoxicate himself, into feeling superior.
Meanwhile, his feelings of inferiority will accumulate, because the situation which produces them remains unaltered.
The provocation is still there. Every step he takes will lead him farther into self-deception, and all of his problems will press in upon him with greater and greater urgency (p. 258-259).
In regards to development, each individual must come to terms with the body that he inhabits. Fisher (197~) points out that each person in the world has to learn how to feel secure in that most fundamental home base of all, his body. He has to develop confidence that the walls of his body can adequately shield him from all potentially bad things 1 out there.• If one does not successfully negotiate this most fundamental task, Fisher believes, there is a possibility that he will seek compensatory ways of reaffirming his own body boundaries (Fisher, 1973 Martel (1984) in an interview study has noted that there may be a significant socioeconomic and subcultural difference in the way short males manage their 11 shortness 11 ; with lower socioeconomic status groups becoming more aggressive and upper middle class groups becoming more cerebral in their approach to life. The short male exists in a social milieu where 11 aggressive acting out is considered to be a mark of the masculine mode (Fisher, 1973,p. 58) and yet to act in such a manner would most likely be physically dangerous for the small male. Keyes (1980) (Keyes, 1980, p. 288 And you don 1 t feel good about yourself because you 1 ve copped out, so to speak, when actually what you•ve done is to be practical• (Keyes, 1980, p. 102 C. Body Cathexis and Self Concept The perception of one 1 s own body occupies a unique place in the world of object perception. This is so because one 1 s own body is both used to perceive and is part of the perception (Fisher, 1965 When an individual reacts to his own body, he is stirred and aroused in a manner that rarely occurs when he reacts to the nonself world (p. 49).
This finding has been repeatedly confirmed (Johnson, 1956;Weinberg, 1960;Wylie, 1961;Fisher, 1965;Zion, 1965;Rosen and Ross, 1968;Fisher, 1970;Darden, 1972;Lerner, 1973) and such results have important implications for the study of the psychosocial impact of short stature. The body may be seen as a kind of anchor point for the inclusive concept of the self (Secord and Jourard, 1953) and the short male 1 s body may not provide a solid anchor from which to build. This leads us to the plausible conclusion that whether a person feels that: his body is big or small, attractive or unattractive, strong or weak tells us a good deal about his self-concept or his typical manner of relating to others (Fisher, 1964, p. 520) It was Freud (1924) Goldberg (1974) found that body image was negatively correlated with anxiety, depression, and hostility. That is, those with a poorer body image were more prone to anxiety, depression, and hostility.
Such a relationship was first articulated by Secord and Jourard (1953) and Jourard and Secord (1954Secord ( , 1955 Using 82 undergraduate subjects they found that the self-concept scores were much more positively correlated with the body cathexis • scores derived from the ratings of body parts as seen as having high importance than with cathexis scores on body parts seen as having low importance. Nineteen years after Secord and Jourard's first study, Darden (1972) reached the similar conclusion that, it appears that the confidence an individual has in his body is related to the confidence with which he faces the self and the world (p.7) Other researchers (Biller, 1967;Biller and Liebman, 1971) have reported that male adolescents who have unrnasculine physiques are more likely to have a poor self-concept. Biller (1974) writes: A boy can have a masculine orientation and preferences but be limited in the development of a masculine adoption by an inadequate or inappropl:"iate physical status.
For example, a boy who is very short or very thin would seem to be at a disadvantage.
Height and muscle mass seem positively related to masculinity of sex role adoption. Though a particular type of physique is not sufficient to provide masculine behaviour, a boy who is tall and broad or broad though short is better suited for success in most masculine activities than a boy who is tall and thin or short and thin. (p. 18) Additional studies have arrived at similar results. Lerner (1973) studied the relationship between physical attractiveness, body attitudes, and self-concept, finding that there were consistent attitudes about the importance of certain body characteristics and that body satisfaction was related to self-concept.

D. Self Esteem
There is evidence that the way in which one feels about oneself is refleeted by one's level of self-esteem. The research indicates that self-esteem, like self-concept, is related to one's level of satisfaction with one's own body. Self-esteem may be defined within a context of self-other orientation. According to Ziller (1969) the individu-al's self-esteem is based on paired comparisons of the self and significant others.
One's own self-evaluation develops and is maintained within a social frame of reference. The short male is consistently confronted with this social frame of reference.
In a study that highlights this point,    (Siegal, 1982;Tanner, 1970;Dyer, 1968;Weatherly, 1964 The subjects were thirty-three seventeen year old males who were selected on the basis of their physical maturity status. Sixteen of the boys were among the group that was most consistently accelerated throughout the adolescent period while the other seventeen had been among the most consistently retarded.
The results of this study supported their hypothesis that the boy whose physical development is retarded is exposed to a sociopsychological environment that is quite different than that of the early maturer.
It was their conclusion that the enviroment of the late maturer may have adverse effects on his personality development.
They felt that the late maturer was in a disadvantageous competitive position in athletic activities and that he was treated as immature by others.
The result of this might lead to: negative self-conceptions, heightened feelings of rejection by others, prolonged dependent needs, and rebellious attitudes toward parents.
Hence, the physically retarded boy is more likely than his early maturing peer to be personally and socially maladjusted during his late adolescence (p. 252).
This study did not assess possible mitigating factors such as above average intellectual functioning or special talents. It has been noted by one author (Washburn, 1962) that a secure family environment may be one such mitigating factor. Generally, in this study, the early maturing boy presented a highly favorable personality picture with regard to important social variables.
In a similar study, Jones and Bagley (1950) studied sixteen boys who were most consistently retarded during four and one-half years beginning at the average age of fourteen. The results confirmed that the early maturers were rated as superior in physical attractiveness.
Moreover, their builds were more mesomorphic and they experienced more rapid growth in height.

29
They also noted that the early maturers were rated as more 11 masculine 11 in their build . In a later study , Mussen and Jones (1958)  the world of the small boy is one where physical prowess brings prestige as well as success, where the body is very much an instrument of the person.
Boys who are advanced in development, not only at puberty but before as well, are more likely than others to be leaders.
Indeed this is reinforced by the fact that muscular, powerful boys on average mature earlier than others and have an early adolescent growth spurt.
The athletically built boy not only tends to dominate his fellows before puberty, but by getting an early start, he is in a good position to continue the domination (Tanner, 1970, p. 92) C. Physical Appearance in Adolescence If a group of adolescents who do not know one another is asked to select a leader, the group tends to choose a large boy, and shorter adolescents are well aware of this. What's 1 expected 1 of them is childlike behavior.
Looking younger than they are because of their size, such children got treated as younger even by bigger kids their own age (Keyes,p.279 Since growth is considered an important achievement, children are proud of surpassing others and of approaching or even -in adolescence -exceeding the height of their parents.
If we further add the power tallness gives and the disadvantages shortness holds for children and adolescents in the group of their contemporaries, the significance of height in the competition between the sexes, the equating of tallness with adulthood and shortness with the subordinate estate of childhood, we can understand the desirability and 11 beauty 11 of tallness. Beigel, 1954, p. 257 36 Data supporting the hypothesis that short men are not viewed as being as attractive as tall men is overwhelming. This awareness emerges rather forcefully for the short male as he approaches adolescence.
Quite simply, the shorter male is not as desirable a dating partner (Graziano, 1978) and 11 shorter males, as a rule, do not strike the female as true men"   Magazine, Feb. 21, 1983, p. 70).
The universally acknowledged cardinal rule of dating and mate selection is that the male will be significantly taller than the female partner. This 11 rule 11 is almost inviolatable (Keyes, 1980;Gillis, 1980;Graziano, 1978;Berscheid and Walster, 1974;Berscheid, 1972).
In fact, Keyes (1980) conducted a survey in which he found that out of 79 women, only two (both were five feet eleven inches) said they would date a man shorter than themselves. The remainder of the women reported that, on the average, they would only date a man who was at least 1.7 inches taller than themselves.
In a study examining the influence of the male 1 s height on interpersonal attraction, Graziano (1978) reported that the influence was profound indeed. In this experiment 100 short, medium, and tall women, age 18-22, evaluated pictures of men whom they belived to be either short, medium or tall. He found that all women, regardless of their own height, found tall men to be significantly more attractive than short men. They also found that men of medium height (in this study medium height is almost six feet tall) were perceived as being the most attractive, well-liked, and having the most desirable personality traits. Martel (1984)  When the data were analyzed along the lines of the three factor scores as outlined in  original work, the results were analogous to the results of the item-by-item analysis.
Men of short height were viewed in a significantly less positive light on the Evaluation factor . On the Potency factor, men of tall height were seen as most potent, men of average height were seen as significantly less potent , and men of short height were seen as the least potent. On the Activity factor, men of short height were seen as less active or more passive than their taller counterparts.
The results of Martel's (1984)  In fact, the belief that the male must be taller than the female partner is so inflexible that in one study investigating the importance of physical attractiveness in dating behavior (Rothman, 1974) dates were randomly assigned to the subjects with one and only one limitation; 11 a man was never assigned to a date taller than himself" (p. 510). When it did occur that the computer assigned a taller female date to a shorter male, the IBM card was placed back into the deck and the next card selected.
The manner in which this research study was handled points to the fact that there are implicit rules regarding height as it applies to male-female relationships. The stricture regarding height is so prevelant as to be totally taken for granted.
It becomes evident that the short male's relationships with women will be profoundly affected by his stature.

11
No adult is more painfully aware of who's bigger than a smaller man competing with a larger one for the attention of a woman" (Keyes, 1980, p. 147 Meyerson (1963), in writing about physical disability said: It is clear that the handicap is not in the body nor in the person, but is a function of the society in which the person lives (p.13) It is an essential fact of life that the way one feels about his height largely depends on one's height relative to others. This applies to tall as well as short individuals. For example, "Thomas Wolfe, the 6 1 6 11 writer, used to say that he never felt tall when alone in his apartment; only when he stepped outside was he reminded (incessantly) by others of how big he was relative to them" (Keyes, 1980, p. 51). It is within the social context that an individual 11 learns 11 that his body is different. In fact, one may experience one's own height differently depending on who one is standing next to. Fisher (1973) makes the point that, We only judge our bodies in a most realtive way.
We have all had the experience of feeling altered in body size as the result of interacting with someone of unusual body dimensions or special significance to us. If you stand next to a very short person you will feel tall, and in the presence of another who is of extreme height, you suddenly become conscious of your smallness (p. 11) Ziller (1973) notes that the individual has recourse to "Paired-comparisons 11 of the self and significant others . "That is, self-evaluation evolves in terms of social reality. Self-evaluation then emerges within a social frame of reference (p. 84) 11 • This is a most critical point in the understanding of the psychosocial implications of short stance in males.
One of the first researchers to specifically address this point was Schilder (1935) in his book The Image and Appearance of the Human Body. In the discussion about body image he states that, our body is not isolated. A body is necessarily a body among other bodies.
We must have others about us. There is no sense in the word 11 ego 11 when there is not an 11 other 11 • (p. 281) In his later work, Schilder (1951) reinforces this point by defining the I-Thou relation more sharply.
We experience the body image of others. Experience of our body image and experience of the bodies of others are closely interwoven with each other.
Just as our emotions and actions are inseparable from the body image, the emotions and actions of others are inseparable from their bodies (p. 16). If an individual 11 learns 11 that he has a defective body, the social context in which he exists may cause him distress. As Fisher (1973) writes, the distress stirred up in someone who feels he has a defective body when he finds himself interacting with a person whose body he perceives as not being defective (and therefore presumably superior to his) is profound indeed. (p. 82) . Fisher (1973) believes that the individual who perceives his own body to be defective will experience the presence of a sound body as a "reproach to his inferior state, and he becomes disturbed" (p. 82).  (Lerner, 1969(Lerner, , 1972Staffieri, 1967) and generally speaking, the resesearch evidence supports the hypothesis that such a relationship ex- ists (Gascaly, 1979;Yates and Taylor, 1978;Dion, Berscheid, and Wal-ston, 1972;Wallace, . 1941 Since an individual 1 s physique is generally quite stable, it seems reasonable to assume that these stereotypic attributes associated with height (X) body-build combinations are communicated to the individual in terms of both expected behaviors and societal pressure to conform to its beliefs. If over a lifetime, an individual gradually succumbs to these societal expectations, the stereotype is perpetuated. Additionally, the male whose body type does not conform to the traditional image of the ideal male, that of the tall mesomorph, may face severe difficulty in accepting himself and having others accept him as truly masculine and competent in the male role (p. 101).
Women it seems, share the same values about body-build personality stereotyping.
As mentioned in a previous section of this review, Martel (1984) found that college age females possess strong and consistently negative attitudes about men of short height.
In another study aimed at assessing female stereotypes of male body-build/personality relationships, Lerner (1969) found that females from late ado-lescence to middle age hold a common stereotype of male body-build/ personality relationships, consistently favoring the large mesamorphic child.
It was his opinion that these findings strongly supported the social-inculcation hypothesis which states that individuals in the child's socializing environment do stereotypically associate various behavior-personality traits with specific body builds and this association is communicated in subtle yet powerful and longlasting ways.

C. Height and Power
Duke was six-four, but he wore four inch lifts and a tengallon hat.
He had a station wagon modified to fit all that paraphernalia.
He even had the overheads raised on his boats so that he would walk through the doorways with the lifts on. And he was bigger than them all.
We short people think we're of average height and people taller than us above average, says 5' 5 11 physician George Shorago of South San Francisco Hospital.
He adds, "In medical school I sometimes had to stand on a stool when I operated.
It was tough on me until I became chief resident. Then everybody had to bend down to accomodate me.
As Kurda (1975) reminds us in his book on power, "Height means something to people, and its not wise to forget it." We exist in a social context in which one's body is judged in comparison with other bodies . This notion of social comparison has been commmented on in the previous section of this review. Keyes (1980) postulates that height is seen (a) relatively (b) by level of eye contact, and (c) in equation with power. All three of these components are germane to understanding the psychology of the short male.
It has been pointed out that a "primitive evaluation" (Fisher, 1970) process goes one between individuals that may be based solely on height. Biologist Stephen Jay Gould states that among both men and animals "gaze behavior" is an im-portant means of sorting out who stands where. "In essence, it is important whether you are looking up or looking down (in Keyes, p. 52, 1980 Social power is the ability to move others spatially or otherwise and to induce others to defer to one's wishes ....

(p. 71)
There is research to suggest that short males have considerably less social power than their taller counterparts.
As already noted in a previous section, individuals thought to be more important are judged to be taller. It seems to be a natural tendency to associate power with larger size. As Keyes (1980) points out it is a basic tenet of the psychology of perception that size is associated with value. Whatever our mind judges as important our eye will judge large.
And In the case of the short male, "abusing power, overexerting it -simply not knowing how to be graceful with power -is a potential problem ... " (Keyes, p. 106, 1980) In the only study to date that addresses this issue, Portnoy (1972) studied how height entered into the power relationship between people .
He brought together people of short and tall height, designed a task, and watched their interaction. He found that the short males conformed much less when they experienced pressure from the tall males. He concluded that smaller people experience a feeling of jeapordy in the presence of taller people. "I don't think it's a threat of bodily injury as such," he said, "just a general sense of threat to well-being" (quoted in Keyes, 1980, p. 63).
Fisher (1973) had predicted just that; an individual who regards his body or parts of it as inferior will be particularly vulnerable to a sense of intimidation. He believes that individuals will develop defensive styles and attempt to create an enviroment that they will experience as safe.
Such defensive styles may develop because of the difficulty the short male has in negotiating situations in which the power dimension is prevalent. If in fact aggressive acting out is 11 strongly associated with the phallic image (Fisher, p. 58, 1973)  Their findings revealed that the subjects did stop their approaches farther from the tall person as was predicted.
Hartnett reported that, both males and females maintain twice as much distance between themselves and the tall object person than between themselves and the short object person. This is most apparent in the standind position where the mean space for subjects were 9.8 inches and 22.7 inches for the short and tall subjects respectively (p. 134).
The authors conclude that height is a major determinant of the amount of personal space accorded to an individual. That is, as Keyes (1980) postulated, height is seen only within a relative and social context and it is seen in equation with power. It is perhaps the element of the 11 primitive evaluation 11 (Fisher, 1970) which is operating, albeit on a less than fully conscious level of awareness.
In another study, Caplan (1981) tested two predictions regarding the relationship between height and social power: a) When given a choice between violating a tall or short person's space, subjects will intrude more often into the short person's space.
The second hypothesis was that b) females in comparison to males, given a choice of vio~ lating the space of a tall or short person will more frequently intrude into the space of a short person. What they found was that the short person's space was violated more frequently and that the females are less likely to invade the tall person's space than were the males.
They concluded that, The present study, by using an experimental situation which contained a relatively small degree of threat provided evidence that height alone is a sufficiently robust characteristic to affect interpersonal spacing (p. 170).
The research clearly indicates that the amount of social power one enjoys may be dependent, at least in part, upon one's height. Size and power within western culture appears to be almost linearly related. Fisher (1973) (1964) results.
All in all, the research solidly demonstrates that greater height is positively related to greater perceived power and social status.
The taller individual is able to attain a more commanding position in the eyes of others, benefiting from the positive attributions based on his height.
Looking once again at a definition of social power: One who has the ability to move others spatially or otherwise and to induce others to defer to one's wishes. (Caplan, 1981, p It has been noted that society positively frames an identity for the short female by labeling· them as 11 cute 11 or 11 dainty 11 while the short boy is just plain 11 short 11 (Finch, 1978). This discriminatory posture makes its way into all important life spheres.
There is evidence that taller individuals are routinely favored in both social and economic endeavors (Keyes , 1980;Graziano, 1978;U.S. News and World Report, 1977;Feldman , 1975;Christian Science Monitor, 1977) although there is little public acknowledgement of this fact.
In the economic realm for example, not only do shorter men receive lower salaries, but they are less likely to be hired in the first place in spite of equal qualifications (Graziano, 1978).
In a survey at the University of Pittsburgh, graduating seniors who were 6 1 2 11 or taller received a starting salary 12.4 percent higher than graduates who were under six feet (Deck, 1971).
Being shorter than average may well be a greater deficit than being substantially overweight because one's weight can be changed but 11 if you're short, you're short" (Keyes, 1980 p.183 It is predicted that short males will be significantly less satisfied with the overall appearance of their bodies than either of the other two height groups. The construct of body satisfaction will be measured by the Secord and Jourard Body Cathexis Scale.
Prediction 2: It is predicted that short males will demonstrate a less favorable self-concept. The construct of self-concept will be measured by the Activity Vector Analysis.
Prediction 3: -61 -It is further predicted that short males will report experiencing greater psychological insecurity than their taller counterparts. The construct of psychological security will be measured by the Maslow Security-Insecurity Scale.
Prediction 4: The self-reported thoughts about the impact of height in an indi-vidual1s daily life will be significantly more pronounced for the short males than for either of the other two height groups. It is also predicted that this group will report experiencing less comfort in social situations. This will be measured by a questionnaire specifically designed for this purpose.
Prediction 5: It is also predicted that the sample as a whole will attribute negatively valenced and less socially valued personality traits and personal qualities to men of Short Height than to either the men of average or tall height. After the measures were completed, a debriefing and question-answer period was conducted. period.
• A lecture followed the question and answer For both of these administrations, subject data was partitioned on an post-hoc basis according to height.
The data collected from the two introductory psychology courses did not provide a sufficient number of subjects to fill the "short male" cell.
In order to fill this cell, advertisements aimed at the recruitment of subjects under 5 1 5 11 were placed in local college newspapers.
A copy of this advertisemnet is in Appendix A.
In this instance, groups of 3-10 students were administered the measures at any one time.
As was done previously, the cover sheet was For the purpose of this study the height groups are as follows: (1) short subjects are 5 1 5 1/2 11 or shorter, (2) average height subjects are between 5 1 8 11 -5 1 10 1/2 11 tall and (3)  These results, as well as the other significant differences between groups may be seen in table 1 .

B. Income
The mean family income for the entire sample is between $20,000 and $30,000 per year. As seen in In this sample, 23.5% of the short subjects reported having grade point averages within the range of 3.6 to 4.0, which was significantly higher than that of the other two groups.

D. Year in School
There were no significant differences among the three groups regarding year in school, with 68% of the sample in the first two years of college.

E. Marital Status
No significant differences were found among groups based on marital status. Over 92% of the short subjects, 95% of the average height subjects, and 95% of the tall subjects reported being single.

F. Religion
Differences between the three groups regarding religion wee found .
The short subjects reported being 43.4% jewish as compared to only 10% and 5% for average height and tall subjects respectively.
In contrast, the average height and tall subjects report being predominantly catholic (77.5% and 70% respectively).

G. Race
This study included only caucasian males.
ple is caucasian .

H. Medical Problems
Hence, 100% of the s~m-Subjects who responded that they did have "significant medical problems" were excluded from the study. All of the students in this study report being healthy with no significant medical problems

I. Significant Physical Abnormalities
Subjects who_ responded that they did have "significant physical abnormalities" were excluded from the study.  Table 1 ANOVA's and Tukey (HSD) follow-up tests are in Table 2 -Table 11 .

School number
There were some significant differences . between the three samples that requires some exploration and explanation.
differences may be seen in Table 12 A. Age These significant The ANOVA results for age were significant [F(2,134)=7.62, p<.01], as seen in Table 13 The Tukey (HSD) follow-up test (Table 17) The subjects from school 2 are somewhat older than the subjects from schools 1 and 3. The subjects from school 1 are the youngest (M=l8.9) as they were all part of an introductory psychology course.
The ~ubjects from schools 2 and 3 were recruited from campus newspaper advertisements.
ivy league school, Since school 2 is a state school and school 3 is an a greater age range of respondants is evident.
However, the mean age for each of the three schools (School #1 = 18.9, School #2 = 20.2, School #3 = 19.5) represents a 11 peer cluster" rendering the statistical significance of little importance.

B. Height
The ANOVA for height was significant [F(2,149)=90.59, p<.01], as seen in Table 14 The subjects from school 1 are significantly taller than the subjects from schools 2 and 3 (p<.01). This difference refleets the fact that all of the average height and tall subjects were drawn from school 1 while most of the short subjects were drawn from schools 2 and 3. These results are contained in Table 18 C. Weight The ANOVA for weight was significant [F(2,143)=29.29, p<.01], as seen in Table 15 Weight was positively correlated with height (r=.65), so that the taller subjects of school 1 who represent mostly average or tall subjects, weigh significantly more than the subjects from schools 2 or 3 who are all short subjects.  Table 21 The demographic data, when analyzed among schools, reveals that subjects from the three schools have a mena age of under 20 years old, do not significantly differ in terms of year in school and marital status. School 3 subjects have better grades, higher family incomes, • and a higher Jewish composition. These significant differences are sumarized in Table 12 The ANOVA and Tukey (HSD) follow-up test results are reported in Tables 13 through 21  Table 12 SIGNIFICANT  ANOVA FOR AGE ----      t-tests between schools 2 and 3 were performed on the Body Cathexis Scale and the Security Inventory . The Semantic Differential was subjected to an ANOVA and the Activity Vector Analysis was visually inspected to assess possible response differences between the two short groups.
As may be seen in       (Maslow, 1942(Maslow, ,1945 . The purpose of the measure , accordi ng to Maslow, is to detect and measure the feeling of security. As reported in the manual (Maslow, 1952)  from 1200 subjects used to standardize this version of the instrument.
The AVA system is constructed so that pattern shapes which reflect similar types of self concepts are spatially close to each other on the universe of all the possible pattern shapes . Hence, similar pattern shapes will form a "cluster" which is identifiable. That is, those individuals with similar self-concepts will be close together on the pattern universe.
The determination as to whether a particular pattern shape belongs to a cluster is based on a correlation of at least .69 with a pattern shape which has been chosen as the center of the cluster . The pattern shape in the center of the cluster is chosen if it correlates at least .69 with as many of the other pattern shapes as possible. This criterion was used in all previous studies (Merenda, 1964(Merenda, , 1968Merenda et al, 1970Merenda et al, , 1971Merenda & Mohaw, 1966;ro, 1974 (2) The second source of information was obtained from Q-sorts performed by graduate students using biographical data provided by the subjects.
(3) The third source of information was recieved from a Q-sort performed by individuals who had close social contacts with the respective subjects.
In another study of the same year, Musiker (1958) Parten, 1966;Babbie, 1973;Best, 1971;Gardner, 1980)   The adjectives used in the construction of the semantic differential for this study were culled from several sources Coyne and Holzman, 1966;Harigopal,1979;Albaum et al., 1981) and the use of the standard seven point scale was chosen.
Regarding the wording of the concepts chosen,  specify that: The investigator will usually (a) try to select concepts for the meaning of which he can expect considerable individual differences since this is likely to augment the amount of information gained from a limited number of concepts (b) try to select concepts which can be expected to be familiar to all his subjects (p.77). 96 That is, the concepts must produce large variance among persons and they should, to some extent, cover the semantic space .
Regarding the choice of scales, the two main criteria are the factor representativeness and the relevance to the concepts used (Kerlinger, 1973).
For the purposes of the assessment of the internal consistency of the three semantic differential measures (1) men of short height, men of average height,  •   and ideal desired height for the three height groups may be seen in Table 27 Even though the tall subjects desired the smallest increase in height, the difference between their actual and ideal height did attain statistical significance.
The three groups did not all choose the cultural ideal for height (around 6'2") but rather the short subjects wanted to be 5 1 9· 11 , the average height subjects 6 1 0 11 and the tall subjects 6 1 2 11 • The results reveal that the shortest group desire the greatest increase in height and the tallest group desires the least.
in Figure 1 These results are presented

6.40
Tall Group (n=40) 6 . 20 Average Group (N=38) 6 . 00  The responses to question #10 revealed that both tall and average height subjects were significantly more comfortable than the short subjects when standing at a club or bar.
It may be worth mentioning that in two of the three hypothetical situations in which no significant differences were found (Questions #5 and #7) the means reveal Short subjects reporting more comfort, and Tall subjects reporting the most comfort. The means and standard deviations for questions 1-11 may be seen in Table 28 Overall , the subject's responses to questions #5 -#11 reveal a significant difference in comfort level that men of different height experience in situations where height comparisons might be made, · with the short subjects reporting the lowest comfort level.   It is clear from the results of the questionnaire that the subjects in this study believe that being taller is a social asset and conversely, that short stature is a social liability. Moreover, the short subjects are more poignantly aware of the impact of height as they are the ones who must confront their 11 difference 11 within the social sphere on a daily basis.
The seven hypothetical social situations highlighted this aspect.
In four of the seven situations significant differences between the groups were attained and the trend of 11 talls 11 reporting greatest comfort and "shorts" reporting the least comfort was consistent, revealing the important role of height comparison within a social context.
Regarding the issues surrounding height in males and heterosexual relationships it is the short subjects who must negotiate a 11 problem 11 and as anticipated it is the short subjects who report the greatest awareness of potential issues. Apparently, short stature in males has some impact in their overall sense of their own attractiveness and desirablity to females.
While the short males in this study reported a desire for the most significant increase in height, the tall subjects also reported a desire for a significant increase that would bring them to the height of the cultural ideal for males: 6 1 2 11 • All in all, the results of the questionnaire reveal that all males regardless of height report wanting to be significantly taller and this belies a cultural emphasis on height and its probable relationship to other important factors.
If height were not such an important societal marker the desire to exchange one heig-ht for another would not be so readily apparent .        It is important to note that, although a significant difference was found, none of the groups report feeling 11 negatively 11 about their bodies. Rather, it is more accurate to say that the short males feel "less positively" about their bodies than their taller peers . This may be seen by the group means in Table 34 .

----------------------------------------------------------------------~-
The ANOVA results for the (SI) did not attain significance with all three of the height groups reporting a mean level of psychological security that is well within the "normal" range (Maslow, 1952). The mean score for the entire sample was 22.71 (SD=l2.39) with no significant differences between the three groups (F[2,114] = 0.02) . The results of the analysis of variance on the (SI) may be seen in Table 35 , with the group means and standar deviations reported in Table 36 . This design, as may be seen in Table 37, has short subjects, average height subjects, and tall subjects rating the three concepts: "men of average height", 11 men of short height", and "men of tall height 11 , across 17 paired adjectives. In a MANOVA analysis, the F ratio is actually an approximation and cannot be directly ascertained (Tabachnick, 1983). Therefore, in this study, the Wilk 1 s Lamda, from which the subsequent F ratio was derived, will also be reported.
(The F approximations given here were produced by the BMDP2V computer program).   Table 38a.
The magnitude of this difference is graphically displayed in Figure 2 . Follow-up ANOVA's on the 17 items revealed significant effects for all but one of the items (item #3). These ANOVA results may be found in Appendix I.
lists means and standard deviations for these data.        The analysis of the interaction effects for the semantic differential reveals some significant effects. That is, the height of the subjects doing the ratings has some effect on the rating of the three concepts: 11 men of average height 11 , 11 men of short height", and 11 men of tall height 11 (F=l.78[68,834] p<.001).
The scores on the 17 item semantic differential measures were collapsed in order to yield one composite score. The results, as seen in         This may be seen in Figure 4.
An analysis of the items reveals that the tall subjects view "men of tall height 11 as significantly (p<.05) more mature, uninhibited, the "men of short height". This is seen in Figure 5. It is interesting to note that tall subjects are highly cathected to their own height category. This result would be anticipated as tall height is a highly valued physical characteristic.
The semantic differential data was also collapsed along the Evaluation, Potency , and Activity factors as outlined by      Men of Average Height" being seen as less potent , " and "Men of Short Height" being seen as less pote . nt. The Potency factor is interpreted as 11 strength 11 and strongly associated with masculinity . These resul t s are seen in Table 46 and 47 .   With the exception of the Activity factot", significant intet"actions on the factot' scores were also found [F{4,236) = 9.66, p<.001]. These result are seen in Table 50 .     The results of the Tukey (HSD} test reveals that the average height subjects rated 11 men of short height 11 significantly lower than either of the other two groups. These results are seen in Table 54 . - These results are seen in Table 55. For a visual representation of the simple effects test on the potency and evaluation factor the reader is referred to Figure 6 .    AVA, 1973). This is seen in figure 7 .
The short height group profiles for the Basic Self also clustered solidly within the Vector 4 influence. In fact, 49% of the short height group were included within this cluster, reflecting a tighter grouping than that of the average height subjects. That is, signifi-cantly more of the short subjects were more distinctly within the influence of the high Vector 4 pattern. This may be seen in Figure 8 .
Analysis of the tall height subject profiles for the Basic Self revealed a wide despersion within the northern hemisphere of the AVA universe. There were no identifiable clusters, reflecting much greater variance than either of the other two height groups.
Analysis of the Social Self (Role) data reveals that 38% of the average height subject profiles cluster about pattern shape 6815. This cluster yields a high Vector 2 and low Vector 3 influence . This kind of individual may be described as sociable, gracious, and persuasive.
He is enthusiastic, but this is also the kind of person who may tend to get carried away by his own hearty manner and high spirits. Because of this, he may at times be considered a thoughtless person.
This constellation is seen in Figure 7 .
The short height subject profiles on the Social Self clustered around pattern shape 4349 with 40% of the short subjects included within this cluster . This pattern shape is well within the influence of Vector 4 and it is basically the same pattern as for this group's Basic Self image. As already mentioned, this is the kind of person who is highly dependent on others for guidance, assurance, and direction . this person finds it difficult to make independent decisions and is one who works best when instructions and directions are laid down. Such a person is anxious and is likely to be a worrier, especially concerning actions which he has taken. There is a great tendency in these people to be meticulous, fastidious, and punctilious .
They do careful and accurate work and they take great precautions not to deviate from established rules and guidelines (Merenda & Berger, 1978). This constellation is seen in Figure 8.
The pattern shapes of tall subjects on the Social Self were once again scattered throughout the northern hemisphere of the 258 AVA pattern Universe with no distinct clusters (that is, composed of at least about one-third of the subjects in any particular group).
On the Image construct, the average height subjects were divided between two clusters. The pattern shape centroids for these two clusters were pattern shapes 3349 and 4817.
It is important to note that these two centroids are not polar opposites but do share the common element of a low Vector 3 influence. This type of individual is described as being very expressive. These persons are not the kind of people who tend to worry about things until they happen. They do not tend to plan well due to their proneness to impulsivity. (AVA Manual, 1973). This constellation is seen in Figure 9 .
The short height subjects were once again clustered within the high Vector 4 influence on the Image construct. This group centroid of pattern shape 5429 included 54% of the short height subjects making it a rather tight cluster. This pattern shape reflects a high Vector 4 and low Vector 3 influence. This constellation is seen in Figure 11 .
The tall height subjects were without a distinct cluster on the Image construct.
As with the Basic Self and Social Self results for this group, the majority of pattern shapes '92%) were scattered within the northern hemisphere of the AVA Universe. He would tend to be calm , think things out, and more of a leader type. What is most interesting in these results, for the purposes of this study is the pronounced consistency in the Basic Self, Social Self, and Image profiles for the short group. While the average height group is similar to the short height group on the Basic Self profile, they believe that they present a more sociable facade to others . And in turn, they believe that others see them in that way.
The short subjects on the other hand, think of themselves as "Highly dependent" and they believe that others see them this way. In fact, the image profile for the short subjects are likely to be perceived by others. Given the predominant influence of Vector 4 on the Basic, Social, and Image profiles, one would expect such individuals to be more contained, take fewer interpersonal risks, and be more concerned about how others see them.
Such an interpretation would be consistent with the results on the other measures in this study.
Data from the tall subjects is difficult to interpret, as there are no identifiable clusters .
As was the case for the short and average height subjects, the tall group is characterized by dependency, impulsivity, and sociability . This makes them most similar to the average height subjects .
The results of the analysis of the Ideal Self data is rather interesting in that they did not mirror the results of previous AVA research on the Ideal Self. Previous research with the AVA has found that the 11 ideal 11 male self-concept is that of a 11 Jack Armstrong, All-American Boy 11 stereotype (Merenda, 1961(Merenda, , 1964(Merenda, , 1979Merenda and Clarke, 1959;Merenda et . al., 1971Merenda et . al., , 1975Merenda and Mohan, 1966;Merenda and Shapurian, 1974) .
scribed as: This type of ideal person may be deone who is at his best in a situation requiring smooth performance.
He is relatively passive but friendly and is widely attracted to a wide variety of people. He is a charmer who is politically astute and is successful in getting others to go along with his view. (Merenda andShapurian, 1974, p. 1208) It is of particular interest for the purpose of this study to note that Merenda (1961) found that, in the process of acquiring a higher education 11 college students tend to also acquire a stereotyped set of self-concepts. The stereotype is characteristic of a relatively passive, non-aggressive, socially confident person (p. 59). He concluded that these stereotyped self-concepts are assumed to be reflections of an attitude toward social behaviour which college students acquire through the process of acculturation in the school setting where the desireability of possessing these ideal traits is likely to be imposed by the family and fellow students (p . 59).
In the present study, the analysis of Ideal Self , data reveals that there is a remarkab l e similarity among the three groups. The composite profile of the entire sample clustered about pattern shape 4871.
While this pattern shape is quite similar to the Ideal pattern shapes in previous studies, it is also different in a notable way. Table 56 shows the correlations between ideal self-concept generated in this study and ideal self-concept generated by seven other studies (Merenda, 1964;Merenda and Mohan, 1966;Merenda and Clarke, 1967;Merenda et al., 1970 ;Merenda et al., 1975) . As may be seen in Table 56, the correlations between the present study and these seven studies are generally positive, but do not approach a perfect correlation. A person with this AVA profile may be described as having a gregarious, sociable and empathic, as well as sympathetic attitude toward the needs of others. presence. This pattern shape reflects a high Vector 3 influence and this finding was consistent across the three groups. This Ideal Self cluster may be seen in Figure 12 This profile reflects what appears to be the integration of what have traditionally been thought of as 11 fem-inine" traits.
That is, what we may be seeing is a movement towards androgeny (Kaplan and Sedney, 1980;Sargent, 1977;Singer, 1976).

P'igure ll PATTERN � � � SELF-CONCEPT � � � �
As mentioned earlier in this secion, the construct of· Activity in the AVA refers to the degree of aliveness, vitality, energy, or responsivity to the environment which an individual exhibibts (Clarke, 1967). It is an assumption of the AVA that, Individuals with high energy levels clearly demonstrate greater endurance, dynamic behaviour, greater altertness and awareness, greater vitality, greater mental capacity, more efficient behavior, greater resistance to disease and usually more productive and successful lives than individuals with low energy (Manual for the AVA, 1973, E· 10-8) The Activity levels for the three subject groups were analyzed for both the Self and Role profiles. The ANOVA results between groups did not attain significance in either of these analyses [Activity Self: F(2,122)=).25, n.s .; Activity-Role: F(2 ,1 22)=1.03, n.s.]. These repults may be seen in Table 57   Table 57 ANOVA tions may be seen in Table 59 The group means and standard devia-  The construct of Congruence is defined as the relationship between the pattern shape for the Self and the pattern shape for the Role, expressed in terms of a correlation coefficient. The congruence score is actually a modified correlation coefficient which is computed using a modified Pearsonian formula (Whisler, 1957 In the present study the Congruence scores were obtained by first correlating the subject's AVA for Self with Role.
The r values that resulted were transformed into z scores and the z scores were averaged for each group. the resulting means were used in a between group • ANOVA. The z scores were then transformed back into r scores, as the Congruence score is actually a modified correlation coefficient.

Body Satisfaction
The results of this study supported the prediction that short males would be significantly less satisfied with the overall appearance of their bodies than either of the two other height groups.
The degree of body cathexis did not significantly differ between the average height and tall groups. It appears that short subjects do, in fact, experience less satisfaction with their bodies than their taller peers. Moreover, the fact that the tall and average height subjects do not significantly differ in their overall body cathexis scores supports the idea that height, as a predictor of body cathexis, diminishes in importance when one is of at least average height. It is those who are farthest from the cultural ideal for height that are most aware of the role that "insufficient" height plays, thereby affecting the view that they hold of themselves.

Self-Concept
The prediction that short males would demonstrate a less favorable self-concept was substantially supported.
What is most striking about the results on the Activity Vector Analysis is the way in which the short subject group's pattern shapes for Basic Self, Social Self, and Image all clustered within the vector four influence.
Such was not the case for the other two height groups.
That is, the short group's centroids for Basic Self, Social Self, and Image were virtually the same, indicating that they viewed themselves, felt others viewed them, and were likely to be viewed by others as "dependent-follower" type personalities. This might be interpreted to mean that the short subject has a pronounced tendency to be more interpersonally constrained and is apt to take fewer interpersonal risks.
He is the kind of individual who is very concerned about how others see him. As a result, the short male is less apt to take on a leader role. Such a role would require both interpersonal risk and assertive behavior.
This result fits well with much of the literature reviewed for this · study. The short male grows up with his body being perceived by self and others as less than satisfactory. During pivotal developmental years, when acceptance of the body as a symbol of the self is most crucial, the short male may feel less secure about taking interpersonal risks, he is less successful in competitive sports, and he is less successful in gaining peer acceptance. All in all, he may be unable to feel that his body is a positive symbol of the self.
Given this, it should not be unexpected that the short male reports being a "dependent-follower" personality type.
The average height subjects demonstrated greater variability among the Basic Self, Social Self, and Image constructs. They too saw themselves as being more like a "dependent-follower" personality type, Height's Impact in Daily Life

Self-Reports
The prediction that self-reported thoughts about the impact of height in an individual's daily life would be significantly more pronounced for the short male was substantially supported.
The short subjects do not report that their height has been of help socially and, in fact, they report that their height has significantly hindered them. The tall and average height subjects did not experience height as a factor that hindered them socially.
In the seven hypothetical situations aimed at assessing selfperceived comfort in situations where height comparisons might be made, four significant results were attained. In these four situations, the trend was that "talls" reported the greatest comfort and "shorts" reported the least comfo~t, revealing the important role of height comparison within the social context. In none of the seven hypothetical situations did short subjects report greater comfort than the other two height groups.
These results support the prediction that short subjects would experience less comfort or security in social situations. These results are consistent with the literature reviewed on self-esteem, power, and issues relating to height within the social context.
Height is seen in a relative way: it is within the social context that the short male must directly confront his own feelings about being "shorter than" and it is within the social setting that he must negotiate the derisive comments and behavior of others.

163
The short subjects' greater awareness of the importance of height in everyday life was reflected in their desire for the greatest amount of increase in height (mean= 6.1 inches).
As anticipated, short subjects believed significantly more strongly that a man's height was important in acquiring a dating partner. The other two height groups did not feel it was as important, once again indicating their lack of awareness of height as a key issue.
The impact of short stature on the subject's belief regarding his attractiveness vis-a-vis his peers once again revealed that the short subject felt significantly less attractive. This result is consistent with the significant difference on the Body Cathexis Scale.
It is likely that this self-perception of being less attractive is due in large part to the consistently negative response that the short male gets from others. In particular, the short male begins to view himself as others see him.
Perhaps most important is the way females view men of short height. Martel (1984) had 170 female college students complete three semantic differential measures aimed at assessing their opinions about men of different heights. As in the present study, the female subjects were asked to rate "men of average height", "men of short height", and "men of tall height" on seventeen paired adjectives.
The results clearly indicated that the female subjects had strong and consistently negative attitudes regarding men of short height. On 164 the other hand, men of average height and men of tall height were seen in consistently positive terms.
An item by item analysis of variance among the three semantic differentials was performed utilizing the PMDP2V computer program.
The ANOVAs revealed significant differences (p < .01) across fifteen of the seventeen semantic differential items.
The female subjects find "men of short height" to be more immature, inhibited, negative, insecure, conforming, feminine, passive, incomplete, pessimistic, withdrawn, less successful, and less capable than either their average or taller male counterparts.
On three of the items there were significant differences between all three height categories, with "men of t~ll height" being seen as most dominant, aggressive, and confident, with "men of average height" significantly less so, and "men of short height" being the least so.
On none of the seventeen items were "men of short height" rated more favorably than either of the other two categories. When data was collapsed along the Evaluation, Potency, and Activity factors, men of short height were rated more poorly on all three factors.
The results of the ANOVA and Tukey (HSD) follow-up tests for the three factor scores reveal significant differences that are analogous to the results of the item-by-item ANOVA. On the Evaluation factor, "men of short height" are evaluated less favorably than either of the other two groups (p < .01).
On the Potency factor, all pairwise differences were significant (p < .05), with "men of tall height" being seen as most potent, "men of average height" being seen as significantly less potent, and "men of short height" being seen as least potent.
On the Activity factor, "men of short height" are viewed as significantly less active than the other two height categories.
This result reveals that females, like their male counterparts, tend to believe, and most likely communicate their belief, that men of short stature are not as attractive or masculine as their taller

peers.
Unfortunately, what  wrote thirty years ago may be as true now as it was then: "shorter males, as a rule, do not strike the female as true men." These results clearly suggest that stereotyping, social discrimination, and attribution of personality characteristics based exclusively on the factor of height do, in fact, exist and can be measured. This study may be seen in Appendix K.

Interviews
In another study, Martel (in preparation) interviewed short males (5'5" or shorter) regarding the possible developmental problems and everyday issues confronting them. As a group, the short subjects presented a very strong awareness that their height made them significantly different than their taller counterparts.
All reported an awareness that their short stature had a significant impact on their development, personality, and self-concept. All were aware that they had to compensate in some way for their stature.

166
The following excerpt from one interview serves to illustrate this point. A likely result of this concomitant of closeness is that the short male will keep a habitual emotional distance between himself and others. That is, he will interact with others through humor and good social skills, while also using these skills as a means of warding off true intimacy. Hence, there will remain a highly sensitive core of insecurity, hidden rage, and loneliness based on a deeply-experienced knowledge of being different. The possibility of disconfirming experiences of healthy intimacy and acceptance is reduced further by his use of distance as a defense. Over time, the short male will develop a personality that is seen by others as personable but somewhat self-contained.
Since the short male does want to be a part of the larger males' peer group, he appears to be willing to accept his role as either mascot or intellectual leader.
None of the interview subjects admitted seeking support from other short males.
In fact, the distinct impression was that short males tend to avoid contact with one another. This seems to be an avoidance of the possibility that others would think they were grouping themselves based on height, which would be a social acknowledgement by them of their stature difference. Although the potential for increased group power and the development of positive self regard is available, it has not been seized upon. While some other minority groups have powerful support and advocacy groups, the short male acts "as if" the issues are not present. Although lack of cohesiveness is a common problem of low status groups, the short male thereby forfeits his opportunity to identify positively with his own peer group.
Since "short" height is often associated with being childlike and in a subordinate relationship, the major question facing the short male as an adult is how to manage the incongruity between his adult self-image and being treated as a child, in a way that allows for  (Fisher, 1973), or a movement toward more intellectual pursuits.
The short male's "failure" to attain the cultural ideal for height translates into less social power, lower perceptual impact or "presence", and lower desirability as a heterosexual partner.
Social learning theory would suggest that individuals will behave in a manner consistent with the expectations of others. If, as Staffieri (1967) points out, the expectations are consistent and long lasting, the behavior will be consistent with expectations.
Ultimately, one does not end up with a self-fulfilling prophecy but, rather, a social-fulfilling prophecy (McCandless, 1960). As one author expresses it, "when everybody you know treats you shabbily because you are short, you begin to think ill of yourself" (Sokolov, 1978, p.195).
While no research has been conducted on this subject, one potential coping behavior for the stresses of short male stature in adolescence is the choice of homosexuality as a sexual orientation.
This allows avoidance of the arenas of heterosexual competition and accommodates the short boy's admiration for height in taller males.
Although this choice of lifestyle does not meet with general societal acceptance, it brings membership in a male group that may provide a strong sense of belonging which he could not otherwise experience.
One aspect that emerged in the interview study and that warrants further attention is the potential interaction between a highly supportive environment and successful adaptation and coping. It is this intervening variable that may well account for the differences in adaptation.
There is research evidence to support this assertion (Wallace, 1964;Dion, Berscheid & Walston, 1972;Yates and Taylor, 1978;Gacsaly, 1979). It was found by Staffieri (1967) for example, that children as young as six years old had absorbed the stereotyped body type-personality relationships.
Others such as Lerner and Korn (1972) have demonstrated that all age groups show a preference for the mesomorphic body build. Still other research (Berscheid, et al . , 1973;Berscheid & Walster, 1974;Elman, 1977)  Thirty years ago, Barker (1953) lamented that no studies examining the relationship between height and personality could be found in the literature. This situation has not changed much as several recent authors have noted (Gunderson, 1965;Feldman, 1975;Graziano, 1978;Adams, 1980;Keyes, 1980).
One author (Keyes, 1980) makes the provocative observation that the paucity of research on the topic is due to the fact that: the whole problem makes everybody nervous all around, with the short people themselves wishing the issue would just go away, normal sized people often wishing short people would just go away (p. 92).
The results of the research on this topic are overwhelmingly consistent.
The short male is viewed as being less attractive and a less desirable dating partner (Graziano, 1978) . He is also seen as a less desirable marriage partner (Beige!, . 1954). The short male is often described by others in pejorative terms (Gillis, 1982) and he is sometimes thought of as being 11 handicapped 11 (Dwyer, 1968). One author  has even written that 11 shorter males, as a rule, do not strike the female as really true men. 11 This social reality in conjunction with a strictly adheared to male-taller dating/marriage norm Walster, 1966;Berscheid, 1972;Graziano , 1978 ;Keyes, 1980;Gillis, 1980Gillis, , 1982 makes for possible developmental and lifelong difficulties.
The short male is discriminated against in virtually all important life spheres including both social and economic ones (Kurtz, 1969;Christian Science Monitor , 1977;Feldman, 1975;U.S. News & World Report, 1977;Graziano, 1978;Keyes, 1980), and it is further hypoth-  . The adjectives used in the constructi~n of the semantic differential used in this study were culled from several sources Coyne and Holzman, 1966;Harigopal, 1979;Albaum et al., 1981) .
The use of the 7-point scale was chosen as it has been found that with seven alterna , tives, all of them tend to be used with roughly equal frequencies (Osgood, Succi, and Tannenbaum, 1957 Chronbach, 1951) for each of these three measures was computed. As seen in Table 65, the results of these analyses reveal a rather high level of internal • consistency, with all three scales yielding alpha coeffic i ents in the mid-eighties (Measure 1 = . 85 , Measure 2 = .81, Measure 3 = . 87).

RESULTS
An item by item analysis of variance among the three semantic differentials was performed utilizing the BMDP2V computer program . The ANOVA's revealed highly significant differences (p < . 01) across 15 of the 17 items.
The ANOVA results may be found in Table 61 Significant ANOVA's were followed by the Tukey (HSD) Multiple range test.
These results may be found in Table 62 .
The pattern of results across items on the three measures is graphically in Figure 13 As the pattern of individual items clearl y indicates, the female subjects had remarkably distinct and unequivocable opinions about the characteristics associated with men of different height.
The "Men of Short Height" were consistently seen in pejorative or negatively valanced terms while the "Men of Average Height" and "Men of Tall Height" were seen in consistently positive terms. As may be seen in Figure 13 the vast majority of responses yield no significant difference between "Men of Tall height" and "Men of Average

Height 11
In fact , the pattern for "Men of Short Height and ''Men of Tall Height" consistenly covary.
The "Men of Short Height" , on the other hand, are seen significantly more pejorative terms than their taller counterparts .
.. Regarding the first point, if one accepts the viewpoint that one's geneticaliy determined attributes interact with social-learning variables in subtle ways (Bandura, 1963(Bandura, , 1967, it becomes clear why short stature has important implications for one's personality development.
In this society, tall stature and mesomorphic build in males brings esteem and facilitates the acquisition of rewarding resources. Over time, this will profoundly influence an individual's social-learning history.
Boys who are of short stature will most likely be relatively unsucessful in obtaining positive reinforcement from their peers leading to a "flight from the body world" (Fisher, 1973) or a movement toward more intellectual pursuits.
Another response to short stature is the "Mascot adaptational 11 response (Finch, 1978) in which the Short male gains acceptance of peers by being a mascot rather than an equal member of the group. A recent review of the literature on short stature in males (Martel, 1984) revealed that the impact of short stature is profound and long lasting.
The short male's 11 failure 11 to meet the cultural ideal in terms of appearance translates into less social power, lower perceptual impact or 11 presence 11 among other people, and lower desirablility as a heterosexual partner.
In essence, the views that females hold toward the short male may have a very significant impact on his development of masculine worth. This is reflected by his limited choices in the dating and marriage arena .
As the short male approaches adolescence, he realizes that he is not as desirable a dating parner (Graziano, 1978). The short boy may intuitively know, and his peers frequently emphasize the social reality that, Personality and all other things being equal, most girls probably prefer tall and handsome boys to those who are short and handsome. (Dyer, 1968, p. 366) The universally acknowledge cardinal rule of dating anq mate selection is that the male will be taller than the female partner. This 11 rule 11 still remains almost inviolatable (Keyes, 1980;Gillis, 1980;Berscheid and Walster, 1974;Berscheid, 1972).
All in all, the results of this research clearly suggest that the short male exists within a social milieu that holds rather negatively valanced attitudes towards him. The results support the hypothesis that people do make assumptions regarding one's personality and behavior based on this salient physical characteristic. Although the complexities of the phenomenon are not fully understood, it is a phenomenon that clearly exists.                Berscheid, E., Walster, E. (1972). Beauty and the best. Psychology Today, ~(10), 42-46. Berscheid, E., Walster, E., and Bohrnstedt, G. (1973). The happy American body, a survey report.
Do you think that there is any relationship between the fact that you are shorter. than average and brighter than average? Do you feel that you have been abused or r:iistreated in any way because of your heicht? Did you have a nickname?
How would life be different for you if you were 5' 10"?
Ya, in terms of, there was always the typical picking of teams, and I was always one of kir.d of the smaller pe0ple who were just the last co be picked, and, in general, peopl~ not realizing that you are as old as you are." "Just that for no other reason th an you were shorter.
It was as though you were just inherently worse than everyone for no fault of your own, and people who were your friends regularly, in certain things like that said, 'We 11, we don't want you' • " "I don't know if there is any inherent relationship to start with. Maybe because, if you're shorter, you tend toward some sort of social isola tio n. You tend to study more in your early years." "Oh, ya, especially in eler ::r ::! ntar y school. They said, 'There's the fa ., !~i d , or the sho-:::-t kid I • II "Just the general 'shortie'," "In terms of what bosses do, it seP.r:is that my perception of people is that, if they need to hire someone to be in charge of other people, they are more likely to hire someone who is the tall, domineeri:r1g type person." "In general relations with people, there would be one less obstacle, one less barrier you would have to overcome, or one less touchy subject to deal with in terms of meeting people." Excerpts from Interview Study (continued) 1-Jould you say that you come from a happy family, a well-adjusted family?
What do you think about people saying something like that?
When was the first time that you became aware that you were not going to grow anymore?
First awareness. How did it feel?
How did your not being as big as the other boys have an impac~ on your style or your relationshi ps with t h,~m?
"Oh, sure. My parents instill e u a sens e of self-esteem in what I was doing. It wasn't a sticky point that I wasn't playing basketball, because I was good at other thinRs. I was particularly involved in lc;:idership in my high schoo 1. Some people jo kH i a bout that -Napoleon complex." "Smaller peopl e IIAVE t o sort of f i.~ht their way through the crowd to be not ; cr,ri, In some cases the y have to be morr : d0.fe nsi Vf "! or more aggressive as the circ11 rnsta nces warrant.
They tend to be the sr:1 a1: ·t e r pe ople in the class, or. people who are c!n,.,•rs." "When I was about 12, they sent me to Boston Children's Hospital, 9th grade, to find out why. I went through all those painful tests for them to tell me that it was he reditary. It was very painful." "I was angry that I had to do through all of those tests.
But, I remember that I had feelings that ny brother was bigger and stronger than I was.
In terms of sibling rivalry, fights and things like that, he had power over me. I resented that." "Sixth grade. The first girl th;:.t I liked was 5" 10".
In gym, I was al,,ays the shortest. It didn't feel good.
I remember feeling inferior. I r"member thinking that if I got into any fights, 'cause I was in a rough school, I would lose, 'cause most everybody was bigger th a n me. So I would really never get involved in fights.
"Oh, I was more verbal.
I compensated in that ~ay 'cause I was net really active in spor t s. They usually picked the bigger peopl e nn teans and that s ort of thing, s o I co ir. pensclt c d vr:r.bally.
I was very verbal an d v,, ry hyp e ::-. So, in those ways, I think t hat' s how I got my attention."

Excerpts from Interview
Study (continued) Discrimination?
Being male.
The management of aggressive impulses.
How do you handle feelings of anger and aggression?
Has it always been that way?
What kind of judgments do you think other people make about you based more or less exclusively on height?
l·.f hy would you think that one has to cofilpensate for this?
"last year when going for int erv iews, this guy had this couch that 1,·as ab out a foot to0 deep, and I felt that I either had to sit on the end or sit forward.
I felt very smalllike Alice in Wonderland or Tom thumb. I walked out of there feeling very intimidated." "There's a value for men to be bie, strong, and instrumental.
If you get i nto that crap, you're going to be very affected by your height," "Obviously there is some social reinforcerr.ent in wanting to be tall.
Tall people do seem to be more attractive in some ways. There is a psychological stigma associate d with being short, and that has to do with people feeling that small is inadequate." "Ny height protects me in some ways fro m physical aggression. It give me some license to say things that I really feel without giving people a license t o hit me." "Sarcasm." ,. Dion, K., Berscheid, E., and Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Persinality and Social Psychology, 24 285-290. Divesta, F., and Walls, R. (1970).
Factor analysis of the semantic attributes of 487 words and some relationships to the conceptual behavior of fifth grade children.