Home › Blogs › figleaf's blog

Non-controversial Testosterone Research Story Still Surprises: Expectation May Produce Stronger Results Than the Hormone

Mon, 2009-12-14 19:55 — figleaf

Ed Yong of Not Exactly Rocket Science passes along some fun news about gender, hormones, and “biology is destiny” memes. Questions of accuracy and bias arise in any study, and any news account of a study, but the information to assumption ratio in Yong’s piece is wonderful. Here are his opening paragraphs (emphasis his.)

What do you think a group of women would do if they were given a dose of testosterone before playing a game? Our folk wisdom tells us that they would probably become more aggressive, selfish or antisocial. Well, that’s true… but only if they think they’ve been given testosterone.

If they don’t know whether they’ve been given testosterone or placebo, the hormone actually has the opposite effect to the one most people would expect – it promotes fair play. The belligerent behaviour stereotypically linked to testosterone only surfaces if people think they’ve been given hormone, whether they receive a placebo or not. So strong are the negative connotations linked to testosterone that they can actually overwhelm and reverse the hormone’s actual biological effects.

He said it here.

That’s actually pretty consistent with…

  • findings related to testosterone levels in a variety of animals (but not, interestingly, the rats most of the early “confirmation” studies were done on) where aggressive and/or risk-taking behavior is undertaken to elevate testosterone levels in males, not as a result of elevated testosterone.
  • findings related to people’s reactions when they’re led to believe they’ve been given (or haven’t been) doses of other behavior-modifying compounds like alcohol and caffeine where for instance, going back at least as far as the 1960s where people are more likely, say, to act drunk when told they’ve been given more alcohol than they thought, or less drunk when told they’ve been given only a small amount.

And I’m inclined to trust the reporter not least because he seems to have done actual analysis reporting instead of regurgitating lurid bits. I’m inclined to trust the researcher because a) he doesn’t seem to be talking about the effect of a hormone on people rather than trying to prove gendered mandates and b) while his subjects were women that appears to be mostly because women respond more consistently and predictably to measured doses of testosterone than do men. (Which would also be consistent with findings that in men behavior changes a lot more in relation to relative rather than absolute amounts.)

I did say trust, though. Since the research appears to be gated behind a commercial firewall I can’t verify. So all I can say is it sounds interesting. And sounds measured. And sounds more like basic reporting on basic science than expectation-driven “just so” stories.

(Via Mackenzie at Geek Feminism Blog.)

Mon, 2009-12-14 20:57 — ChrisJ (not verified) #permalink

So you might say that you don’t smell a rat with this one!

It sounds hopeful, especially when there are so many essentialist studies and reports on them out there.

[I certainly don’t feel the need for as large a grain of salt. It’s easier to accept because the authors aren’t claiming such a small study is definitive, and yeah, whatever they went in thinking they were going to find they came out with unexpected results and… don’t claim it “proves” or even that their “findings suggest” anything essentialist. Thanks, Chris. —fl]

Mon, 2009-12-14 21:59 — Sungold (not verified) #permalink

Oh, this is a really fascinating study, and I agree that the reporting is good. Most of what I read at Science Blogs is just excellent. I saw this post earlier this week, and am thinking about rolling it into an unwieldy post on the charms of testosterone that’s been percolating for months.

Even without the published study, Ed Yong does give us some crucial information. The study was randomized, controlled, and double-blind. That’s all exactly as it should be. However, it may be underpowered. N=60 is too small for me to think that this study is definitive – especially since the women were then split into two groups. But it’s an intriguing pilot study that I hope will lead to more research.

Also: How can it possibly be that we don’t know how men’s bodies react to testosterone? Are men’s responses to T so much more complex than women’s? Or is it just that women are more sensitive to changes in T, since we operate with much lower levels in the first place?

[One of the nice things about the study is it sounds like it really is basic research, and so yeah, for that it’s totally fine to have just 60 subjects — at that point you’re looking for questions, not answers. Which, come to think of it, is what bugs me so much about Evolutionary Psychology — too much conclusions, not enough basic research.

As for the effects of testosterone on men, it’s not that they don’t do studies, its that men’s reactions vary based on relative levels, not absolute ones. Also, according to my recent sex-ed professor, men are able to affect their testosterone levels with thoughts and behavior, and tend to react more strongly to drops in levels (we want to boost it back up again to the levels we’re currently used to) than in increases. Women have naturally occurring testosterone too but, yeah, I guess it’s more steady-state… or maybe just more predictable how much is needed.

And finally, yeah, while further studies are needed if the initial results stand up that’s… pretty cool results for (human) gendered-behavior research! Thanks, Sungold. —fl]

Tue, 2009-12-15 05:04 — Cristy (not verified) #permalink

I love reading about how our minds can sometimes(?) “convince us” that we have something else physically going on than we do. Fascinating. Interesting post.

Tue, 2009-12-15 16:49 — Nightfall (not verified) #permalink

I’ve heard that the best way to get someone to do something they normally wouldn’t is to convince them that they’re not completely in control of their own actions.

Fri, 2009-12-18 00:16 — Carty (not verified) #permalink

Once upon a time researchers linked higher levels of testosterone to increased aggression. Not just one study, but thousands of them, all evidencing the same result. Eventually it occured to folks that this was a public relations disaster for males. Hence a thousand articles trying to backtrack and make all the previous research disappear.

[Oh no, Carty, testosterone is still unquestionably associated with increased aggression — no doubt about that. What’s changed is that they’re figuring out aggression, risk taking, and other behavior we associate with “too much testosterone” is actually more closely related to restoring or maintaining testosterone levels. Another complication is that it’s related not to absolute levels but relative ones. The same is true for women — the so-called “hormonal” period before menstruation is related to a natural but severe drop in hormones, not an increase. Men, and especially adolescent boys, go through similar level changes over the course of a day, which helps explain erratic changes in behavior in men. The point being that no, testosterone isn’t off the hook. And, if that’s what you want to call it then yes, it’s still a “public relations disaster” for men. But it’s just more complicated, but also more interesting, than “urg, man hormones, Hulk smash!” :-) —fl]

Fri, 2009-12-18 00:18 — Carty (not verified) #permalink

All you have to do is ask a farmer what happens when animals are castrated. Hint: they get really, really docile.

[Meh. You can ask humans too. There’s an… adjustment period after gonad removal, for men and women. But yes, you’re right. Certainly if you do it early on they get very docile. They also live longer, are more obedient, and on average have roughly an 8% – 13% lower metabolic costs. —fl]

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.