Napoleon complex

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
British propaganda of the time promoted the idea that Napoleon was short.

"Napoleon complex" is a term describing a theorized condition occurring in people of short stature. It is characterized by overly-aggressive or domineering social behavior, and carries the implication that such behaviour is compensatory for the subject's stature. The term is also used more generally to describe people who are driven by a perceived handicap to overcompensate in other aspects of their lives. Other names for the purported condition include Napoleonic complex, Napoleon syndrome, and Short Man syndrome.[1][2][3]

The Napoleon complex is named after Emperor Napoleon I of France. The conventional wisdom is that Napoleon compensated for his lack of height by seeking power, war, and conquest. Though he was long reported to have stood at only 5 feet 2 inches (1.57 m),[4] historians have now suggested Napoleon was actually 5 feet 6 inches (1.68 m) tall, taller than the average Frenchman of his time. Napoleon was often seen with his Imperial Guard, which contributed to the perception of his being short because the Imperial Guards were of above average height.

In psychology, the Napoleon complex is regarded as a derogatory social stereotype.[5]


In 2007, research by the University of Central Lancashire suggested that the Napoleon complex (described in terms of the theory that shorter men are more aggressive to dominate those who are taller than they are) is likely to be a myth. The study discovered that short men were less likely to lose their temper than men of average height. The experiment involved subjects dueling each other with sticks, with one subject deliberately rapping the other's knuckles. Heart monitors revealed that the taller men were more likely to lose their tempers and hit back. University of Central Lancashire lecturer Mike Eslea commented that "when people see a short man being aggressive, they are likely to think it is due to his size, simply because that attribute is obvious and grabs their attention."[3]

The Wessex Growth Study is a community-based longitudinal study conducted in the UK that monitored the psychological development of children from school entry to adulthood. The study was controlled for potential effects of gender and socioeconomic status, and found that "no significant differences in personality functioning or aspects of daily living were found which could be attributable to height";[6] this functioning included generalizations associated with the Napoleon complex, such as risk-taking behaviours.[7]

Abraham Buunk, a professor at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands, has found evidence of the small man syndrome. Researchers at the University found that men who were 1.63 metres (5 ft 4 in) were 50% more likely to show signs of jealousy than men who were 1.98 metres (6 ft 6 in).[1]

See also[edit]


  1. ^ a b Fleming, Nic (13 March 2008). "Short man syndrome is not just a tall story". The Telegraph. Retrieved 4 December 2013. 
  2. ^ Morrison, Richard (2005-10-10). "Heart of the Fifties generation beats once again". The Times. Retrieved 2008-01-17. 
  3. ^ a b "Short men 'not more aggressive'". BBC News. 2007-03-28. Retrieved 2008-01-17. 
  4. ^ BBC
  5. ^ Sandberg, David E.; Linda D. Voss (September 2002). "The psychosocial consequences of short stature: a review of the evidence" (PDF). Best Practice & Research Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism. Elsevier Science Ltd. 16 (3): 450. doi:10.1053/beem.2002.0211. Retrieved 2008-01-01. [dead link]
  6. ^ Ulph, F.; Betts, P; Mulligan, J; Stratford, R. J. (January 2004). "Personality functioning: the influence of stature". Archives of Disease in Childhood. BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. 89 (1): 17–21. doi:10.1136/adc.2002.010694. PMC 1755926free to read. PMID 14709494. 
  7. ^ Lipman, Terri H.; Linda D. Voss (May–June 2005). "Personality Functioning: The Influence of Stature". MCN: the American Journal of Maternal/Child Nursing. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. 30 (3): 218. doi:10.1097/00005721-200505000-00019.