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

Download

Share

COinS