Skip to main content
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences logoLink to Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
. 2002 Sep 22;269(1503):1919–1923. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2002.2111

Women's height, reproductive success and the evolution of sexual dimorphism in modern humans.

Daniel Nettle 1
PMCID: PMC1691114  PMID: 12350254

Abstract

Recent studies have shown that, in contemporary populations, tall men have greater reproductive success than shorter men. This appears to be due to their greater ability to attract mates. To our knowledge, no comparable results have yet been reported for women. This study used data from Britain's National Child Development Study to examine the life histories of a nationally representative group of women. Height was weakly but significantly related to reproductive success. The relationship was U-shaped, with deficits at the extremes of height. This pattern was largely due to poor health among extremely tall and extremely short women. However, the maximum reproductive success was found below the mean height for women. Thus, selection appears to be sexually disruptive in this population, favouring tall men and short women. Over evolutionary time, such a situation tends to maintain sexual dimorphism. Men do not use stature as a positive mate-choice criterion as women do. It is argued that there is good evolutionary reason for this, because men are orientated towards cues of fertility, and female height, being positively related to age of sexual maturity, is not such a cue.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (142.9 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Chatterjee S., Das N., Chatterjee P. The estimation of the heritability of anthropometric measurements. Appl Human Sci. 1999 Jan;18(1):1–7. doi: 10.2114/jpa.18.1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Heliövaara M., Mäkelä M., Knekt P., Impivaara O., Aromaa A. Determinants of sciatica and low-back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1991 Jun;16(6):608–614. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199106000-00002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Hensley W. E. Height as a basis for interpersonal attraction. Adolescence. 1994 Summer;29(114):469–474. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Hilakivi-Clarke L., Forsén T., Eriksson J. G., Luoto R., Tuomilehto J., Osmond C., Barker D. J. Tallness and overweight during childhood have opposing effects on breast cancer risk. Br J Cancer. 2001 Nov 30;85(11):1680–1684. doi: 10.1054/bjoc.2001.2109. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Michaud D. S., Giovannucci E., Willett W. C., Colditz G. A., Stampfer M. J., Fuchs C. S. Physical activity, obesity, height, and the risk of pancreatic cancer. JAMA. 2001 Aug 22;286(8):921–929. doi: 10.1001/jama.286.8.921. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Nyström Peck A. M. Childhood environment, intergenerational mobility, and adult health--evidence from Swedish data. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1992 Feb;46(1):71–74. doi: 10.1136/jech.46.1.71. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Pawlowski B., Dunbar R. I., Lipowicz A. Tall men have more reproductive success. Nature. 2000 Jan 13;403(6766):156–156. doi: 10.1038/35003107. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Silventoinen K., Lahelma E., Rahkonen O. Social background, adult body-height and health. Int J Epidemiol. 1999 Oct;28(5):911–918. doi: 10.1093/ije/28.5.911. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Vetta A. Fertility, physique, and intensity of selection. Hum Biol. 1975 Sep;47(3):283–293. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences are provided here courtesy of The Royal Society

RESOURCES