It seems short men really do act more aggressively than their peers to make up for their small stature.
Researchers used a money sharing conundrum, dubbed the Dictator Game, which tests how fairly individuals treat others.
It typically consists of two individuals, with one given a quantity of money which they must offer a portion of to a rival – even if the amount is zero.
They found that smaller men responded more aggressively when competing in the psychological test – so long as there were no repercussions.
Scientists say this means the phenomenon, known as short-man syndrome, or the Napoleon Complex, is real.
The findings were made by researchers from Vrije University in the Netherlands, according to reports in New Scientist.
A group of 42 volunteers in the study were split into pairs and allowed to meet with their opponents.
They were then given a short time to assess them, before being led to separate rooms.
Each was given a small sum amount of cash, in the form of eighteen tokens that were worth 7.36 pence (ten cents) each.
They were then asked how much they would like to keep for themselves, and how much to leave for their adversary.
The shortest men in the study, at around 5ft, 7in (1.7m), kept 14 chips for themselves on average. The tallest men, who were 6ft 6in (2m) kept just nine.
However, when the threat of repercussions were introduced, shorter men did not display any more aggression that their rivals.
‘It’s probably smart for short men to be like this because they have less opportunities to get resources,’ lead researcher Jill Knapen told New Scientist.
Short men may have every reason to be fed-up with their lot.
Studies have shown that tall people are wealthier, more successful at work, healthier and even enjoy better love lives than their smaller counterparts.
A 2004 study by psychologist Timothy Judge found that tall people earn more. He calculated that every inch of height added £505 ($789) to someone’s annual salary every year.
That means, on average, a worker who was 6ft (1.8m) earned £3,535 ($5,525) more than someone who was 5ft 5in (1.67m).
When author Malcolm Gladwell polled the management of half the top US companies, he found that 58 per cent of chief executives were at least 6ft (1.8m) tall, compared to just 14 per cent of the population.
Since 1916 — the era when our politicians have appeared on cinema screens and TV — the taller US presidential candidate has won 17 times, the shorter candidate just six.
Other studies have shown tall men are more likely to find a long-term partner and taller teenagers have more dates.
Short people are also more likely to become criminals, more likely to develop heart disease, tend to be more unhappy and don’t live as long.
Whether the short man syndrome exists, or if the perception of aggressive behaviour is more exaggerated when it comes from men of smaller stature, is up for debate.
Shorter men may also be the victims of more aggression from their larger peers, forcing them to adopt a defensive stance.
Speaking to New Scientist, Mike Eslea at the University of Central Lancashire added: ‘They’re supposed to be publicly advertising their aggressiveness to compensate for their lack of stature.
‘To me this doesn’t suggest the Napoleon Complex exactly, it suggests something else.’
The full findings of the study were published in the journal Association for Psychological Science.
