2019 May 30, 12:16pm
687 views 8 comments
It makes sense that men who do not perceive themselves as being able to compete well with other men would instead opt for a strategy of redistribution.
Contrary to predictions, there were no significant correlations between SDO or support for redistribution and either bodily attractiveness (waist-chest ratio) or any of the facial measures (attractiveness, dominance, fWHR, and masculinity). These predictors also failed to explain significant variance in SDO and support for redistribution when they were entered in combination with other predictors into multiple regression models. Table 2 displays the results of regressing SDO and support for redistribution on all of these predictors simultaneously. When SDO was the outcome variable and bodily formidability was entered as the first predictor, no other single predictor (from the set of the four facial variables, waist-chest ratio, and time in gym) could be added to explain additional significant variance in SDO. When support for redistribution was the outcome variable and time in gym was entered as the first predictor, no other single predictor (from the set of the four facial variables, ...