Date of Graduation
5-2024
Document Type
Thesis
Degree Name
Bachelor of Arts in Psychology
Degree Level
Undergraduate
Department
Psychological Science
Advisor/Mentor
Brown, Mitch
Committee Member/Reader
Wamsley, Dene
Committee Member/Second Reader
Moxley, Shari
Committee Member/Third Reader
Wheeler, Jill
Abstract
The recurring threat of physical aggression throughout human evolutionary history presented a selection pressure that favored perceptual acuity threatening people. One heuristic of threat is men's formidability, often indexed by upper body strength. Although functional, such responses could be mismatched with demands of the U.S. legal system. The demands of a fair legal system could be at odds with ancestrally informed motives that serve to mitigate harm, a bias that has previously been demonstrated to increase sentencing length based on features deemed aggressive. This study extends previous findings by focusing on men's upper body strength while assessing how specific motivations to protect oneself from harm inform sentencing decisions. Participants reported dispositional beliefs in a dangerous world and provided sentencing recommendations for a male target convicted of aggravated assault. Women recommended less lenient sentences toward strong men when they believed the world was dangerous. Men's punitive decisions were not associated with such beliefs. These findings suggest that functional perceptions of formidability may inform with legal decision-making, particularly when considering physical size asymmetries imposed by sexual selection.
Keywords
physical aggression, upper body strength, functional biases, dangerous world beliefs
Citation
O'Neil, B., & Brown, M. (2024). Functional Biases Toward Formidable Men in Legal Domains. Psychological Science Undergraduate Honors Theses Retrieved from https://scholarworks.uark.edu/psycuht/62