Researchers at the University of Michigan have some helpful insights if you feel like you’re making less money than your peers…you were likely too short as a teenager. According to their study:
Using data from the U.S. National Longitudinal Survey of Youth and Britain’s National Child Development Survey, [researchers] found that each additional inch of height at age 16 is associated with a 2.7 percent increase in wages among white American men and a 2.6 percent increase among white men in Britain — regardless of occupational choice.
The researchers then make the massive leap to explaining why this correlation may be true, suggesting that ”those who were relatively short when young are less likely to participate in social activities like athletics, school clubs and dating that help teens hone their social skills — skills that eventually will help them secure good jobs as adults….” [The study also correlates participation in sports and clubs with higher income as an adult.]
Other than depressing those who were vertically challenged at age 16, this study suggests at least two useful insights for the cultural manager:
First, there’s a huge difference between correlation and causality. When we do our own research (audience or otherwise), it’s fairly common to believe that when two variables move together, they must be causally connected (there’s even a latin phrase for this, so you know it’s important: cum hoc ergo propter hoc). The researchers seem to be making this logical jump when they conclude the correlation of height and adult income are causally related (one drives the other). [As a friend likes to say: ”studies show that when people open an umbrella, their feet get wet…so you should never open an umbrella.”]
Second, there’s an interesting nugget of insight in the report that might help us rethink our own research. Most audience and demographic data gathering focuses on who our audience is now (where they live, what they earn, what they read, etc.). But for determining possible cultural preference and consumption patterns, it might be more useful to know who they were as they were forming their cultural tastes (in the early teens). Perhaps we could benefit from some sort of retroactive psychographic service.
A third insight might be to target tall 16-year-olds as future donors and board members, since they’ll eventually have all the money. Problem is, they’re all currently busy with athletics, school clubs, and dating.
