Testosterone, Aggression, Mates and Money
There’s evidence in humans that, just as in animals, testosterone is responsive to male-male competition. From what researchers can tell, testosterone is generated to prepare the body to respond to competition and/or challenges to one’s status. Any stimulus or event which signals either of these things can trigger an increase in testosterone levels.
Testosterone and Family Living
However, married men who spend time with their wives and kids have lower testosterone levels than bachelors. This 2002 discovery suggests that having less of the hormone could play a part in encouraging men to devote their energies to the family rather than looking for another partner. It suggests that lower testosterone makes dads less likely to stray, and encourages them to be true to their wives and spend time with their families. In turn, being around the family may lower testosterone, creating a continuous feedback loop. [Journal reference: Evolution and Human Behavior vol 23, p 193]
Testosterone and Violence
It’s commonly assumed that testosterone, that stereotypically male hormone, is intimately tied to violence. The evidence is all around us: weight lifters who overdose on anabolic steroids experience “roid rage,” and castration—the removal of the source of testosterone—has been a staple of animal husbandry for centuries. 
In the short-term, testosterone helps make both males and females bigger, stronger and more energetic, all of which would be useful for winning a physical or even mental contest. Testosterone is also responsible for libido in both sexes, and if researchers are correct, it powers our drive for social dominance, which is one way that humans decide who gets to mate with whom.
We assume testosterone is intimately tied to violence but, is it true?
If you give a normal man a shot of testosterone, will he turn into the Incredible Hulk? And do violent men have higher levels of testosterone than their more docile peers? …
“What psychologists and psychiatrists say is that testosterone has a facilitative effect on aggression,” comments Melvin Konner, an anthropologist at Emory University and author of The Tangled Wing: Biological Constraints on the Human Spirit. “You don’t have a push-pull, click-click relationship where you inject testosterone and get aggressiveness.”
Castration experiments demonstrate that testosterone is necessary for violence, but other research has shown that testosterone is not, on its own, sufficient. In this way, testosterone is less a perpetrator and more an accomplice—one that’s sometimes not too far from the scene of the crime.
For example: regardless of their gender, the most violent prisoners have higher levels of testosterone than their less violent peers. Yet scientists hypothesize that this violence is just one manifestation of the much more biologically and reproductively salient goal of dominance.
Testosterone and Money
Testosterone may play a much stronger part in business interactions than previously thought, according to a new study by researchers at Harvard University. As the New Scientist reports, the study suggests men with higher testosterone levels are more likely to refuse free money with no strings attached than other men.
Conclusion
No one really knows the answer, but a growing body of evidence suggests that testosterone is as much the result of violence as its cause. Both winning an athletic game and beating an opponent at chess can boost testosterone levels. But losing a competition, growing old and becoming obese all reduce levels of testosterone.
Jul 12th, 2007 at 6:24 am
This is a study that’s been severely outdated by recent studies. Testosterone poisoning anyone?
Really this is more of a paper churned out by Feminist studies to pin point society’s inherent problems with violence squarely on men.
In reality, women are equally as aggressive, competitive and violent as men.
Ironically, higher levels of testosterone also equiv to higher levels of estrogen.
So what’s the real culprit? 1 particular hormone? The cart before the horse?
Next blog post should be about how Domestic Violence is something like 80% men and 20% women… In reality it’s more 50/50 even split.
In the end maybe we can justify this as women who frequently have more sex have higher levels of testosterone since they absorb through intercourse and it’s end result.
Anything to keep the women as victims I guess.
Need to make the jump from now.org to [deleted]
Jul 12th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
“Facilitative”.. that sounds like another vague term invented by psychologists..it doesn’t _explain_ anything.
I don’t know about other guys, but I used testosterone patches for a few months, and all it did was make me nervous and give me insomnia.
Regarding this post in general, I’d like to see a few more citations of the studies mentioned. It’s been my experience, that whenever psychologists study something, the results can be interpreted in more that one way. For example, study results are often interpreted under the influence of the current stylish thinking, like in how the cause of so many negative symptoms are attributed to stress. Well.. it turned out they were wrong about ulcers..what else might they be wrong about??
Jul 12th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
previous post should read, “in more _than_ one way”
Jul 12th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
@jason
The Strange but True: Testosterone Alone Does Not Cause Violence media release was dated July 7th, 2007 so I’m surprised to hear that it is outdated. This article was also a July 4th, 2007 media release so again, I’m surprised to hear that it is outdated.
I do not for a single moment believe that all of the problems we have in society can be laid at the feet of men or blamed on hormones. Actually I have been assaulted by both men and women who had personality disorders and anger management issues. And, I have seen the price my brothers paid and paid and paid to get out of their marriages to dominating and manipulative women.
I do not know what is “churned out” in feminist or women’s studies programs Jason because I have never enrolled in one. But thanks for the referral to the feminist website anyway. I chose to remove the link from your comment because I have never belonged to a feminist organization and I don’t have any intentions of joining one or promoting one in this blog.
Did you read the conclusion?
Now, when you read it this time, did you think it referred only to men? I sure didn’t. Both sexes produce testosterone and it seems it has the same effects on men’s bodies as it does on women’s bodies. Setting that aside I thought the subject the article emphasized was “dominance” as opposed to “violence”.
Thanks for commenting and please do share any further research that you uncover so we can all read it with a jaundiced eye.
Jul 12th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
@ustael
If you had read the multiple references within the post then you would clearly know that:
(1) I did not conduct the studies referred to,
(2) the words in the post are simply a summarization of the media article (reference materials) and,
(3) I merely reported what a selection of professionals have concluded from their research.
Take notice that you will never see a comment made by yourself posted on my blog if you cannot abide by the ‘About Comments” policy that I have posted here http://thistimethisspace.com/about/. I have not posted your first “one liner” comment because it had no substance in it and because you behaved like a braying jackass by accusing me of being a liar in it. I made no allegations whatsoever so, how indeed could I have lied about anything?
Jul 12th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Norman,
I agree with you. Whenever psychologists study any subject whatsoever the results can be interpreted in more that one way.
You have said: “I’d like to see a few more citations of the studies mentioned.”
So would I. I posted what I could find that the media considered to be “newsworthy”. But I’m hoping that others will provide citations that give us a much broader over-view of this subject which is of import to both men and women.
If you research this subject and blog about it I would be delighted if you emailed me so I will be aware of what you found.
Thanks for your comment.
Jul 12th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
There’s a lot of junk science and also lots of very primitive and often wrong interpretation of valid studies by journalists thrown at us every day. This might explain why some commenters here jumped to conclusions a bit too quickly - many men are simply tired of getting a similar treatment in the media as women a hundred years ago (”prone to hysteria” .. “in a state between childhood and manhood” .. some of the interpretations of research_then_).
The aggressiveness we’re talking about here has little to do with domestic violence btw, which is usually caused by a personality disorder that often appears in otherwise completely non-violent people and can be astoundingly independent of a person’s capability for violent behavior outside the isolated incidents.
I think mixing this up is one of the worst mistakes currently made and also one of the main reasons for the anti-male prejudice in the legal system when it comes to DV cases. It, and everything it is based on, completely fails to address this fact and seems to see DV and a bar brawl in the same class.
Of course a connection might still be there, but in general, our behavior is a product of complex processes. Probably too complex for news articles or what popular science authors want to present.
Jul 12th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
Acknowledged. I did a couple googles and here’s a small fraction of what I found;
1) google on ‘DSM-IV and testosterone and aggression’ yields over 50,000 hits(!) (of course since DSM-IV pertains to those with mental disorders, many of the hits would probably turn up studies done only on people with those type problems, not a general cross-section of men).
The fourth hit down the list I got, gave a reference to a study discussed on http://www.sciencedirect.com. One must shell out bucks to view the entire study, but there is a short section that can be viewed for free which discusses the results and conclusions:
“CSF TEST [test used to measure testosterone level] did not correlate with measures of aggression or impulsivity but did correlate directly with venturesomeness ” [the study was conducted on 31 men with personality disorders, and the publication date appears to be April 2006]
And “In contrast to some published studies, CSF TEST was not found to have a significant relationship with aggression.”
I usually like to go to the sources..I suspect the AMA web site has something on this. Also I think there is an “American Psychiatric Association”..
ha ha..”braying jackass”..that is funny :->
Jul 12th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
How do I email you? I guess that’s a stupid question, but when I click on your link above it just goes to another page on the site.
Jul 13th, 2007 at 5:25 am
wish granted…
Time… Are you man enough.
This suggests that testosterone is not a cause of aggression, but rather helps to prepare the body and mind for conflict, and to help those succeeding to keep going. Think of those other :masculine” attributes… focus, determination, grit… they may be more linked to testosterone than aggression.
Jul 13th, 2007 at 10:03 am
Gents,
I have to work today and will not be available until this evening to respond to your comments. Please be patient and know that I do appreciate the responses you have made to my blog post.
I acknowledge that the stigma you have all referred to exists. It’s as real as the stigma my husband and I have endured along with all other couples who have chosen to remain childfree.
Although I will not be able to get back to this until this evening, also know that if any one of you would like to write a blog post illuminating your issues I will publish it on my blog by presenting the writer as a guest author. The only requirements I have is that the writing must be directed to the subject matter and must not get “personal” and must not exceed 600 words. Provided there are no insults and no profane language used I will not edit what you submit to me prior to publication.
@ Norman
If you click on my “About” page tab at the top of of the blog you will find my email address. In order to prevent spam bots from crawling it and deluging me with unwanted and unappreciated emails I have used only an image. For the same reason I will “munge” it here now thistimethisspace [at] yahoo [dot] ca
I moderate all comments so whether you email me or leave a comment on a post it’s really the same difference; both comments and emails are sent to the same address.
@ ustael
If you would like to try communicating with me again then please articulate what you have to say without becoming personal, accusatory or insulting and without name calling. These are the rules I have posted on my blog’s “About” page for posting comments and as long as you respect them I will post what you write. http://thistimethisspace.com/about/
Jul 13th, 2007 at 10:52 pm
I have a little trouble believing that DV in general is due to a personality disorder. There are myriad types of, and causes for DV. There are infinitely many scenarios in which one or more incidents may happen, and the psychology can be very complex. I’m also sure that in some incidents, it could be similar to street violence, as in “somebody hits someone” (a pschologist might be aghast at that statement, shaking his head wildly.. as he prefers to read complexity into everything). One must not get too carried away with the idea that “domestice violence” is so specific a term, and therefore associate it with a diagnosis..it simply means violence within the family. If we are going to say that domestic violence is due to a personality disorder, then it is only one more step to say that ALL violence is due to a personality disorder. Or, we would have to make the term “personality disorder” so general as to be meaningless.
At this point I am reminded of a humorous encounter I had with a women in a dance class. She said to me out of the blue, “did you know that 40% of people who live in Alaska have seasonal affective disorder?” I said, “why should that be the case..” She exclaimed, “well of course..because it is so cold!!” I thought about it for a moment, then said to her, “did you know that 98% of people confronted by tigers have panic disorder?” (I didn’t mention the other 2% who have guns).
“It’s only one step from the sublime to the ridiculous, but there’s _no_ road_back_ from the ridiculous to the sublime.”
Jul 15th, 2007 at 9:52 am
Thank you gentlemen for your patience. I have had to work far more hours than I anticipated this weekend and I do not have the time to respond to your comments individually.
Suffice to say that my invitation stated above is open to you. If any one of you would like to write a blog post illuminating your issues I will publish it on my blog by presenting the writer as a guest author. The only requirements I have is that the writing must be directed to the subject matter and must not get “personal” and must not exceed 600 words. Provided there are no insults and no profane language used I will not edit what you submit to me prior to publication.
Jul 16th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
“The aggressiveness we’re talking about here has little to do with domestic violence btw, which is usually caused by a personality disorder that often appears in otherwise completely non-violent people and can be astoundingly independent of a person’s capability for violent behavior outside the isolated incidents.”
Having worked with domestic violence victims many yeas ago, I have real trouble with the notion that domestic violence is caused by a personality disorder. That must mean that an awful lot of men (and in some cases women) have personality disorders. Far from it. Certainly we don’t think the judges, the accounts, the CEOs the, plumbers, the administrators, the financial officers, the truck drivers and the politicians and everyone from any walk of life, who daily make decsions on our behalf - have personality disorders do we? No.
Domestic violence is a result of many factors, but also as a result of the need to exert the will over another by force. The violence can be mental or physical or both. The same pattern can be seen in bullies - both in the playground and in the workplace. All they need to be “capable of violence” is a weaker person who will submit to the violence
A brawl in a bar with your mates might well be testosterone driven.But that’s a brawl in a bar. Domestic violence incidents do not require any such drive, particularly when it happens for years. While not saying that testosterone doesn’t play some part, I think they are less related than is alluded to in the comment here.
Maybe the reason for the anti-male sentiment at DV cases has something to do with the actual horror stories and constant harrowing evidence of women badly beaten up (and worse) at the hand of their partners and husbands.
I must caveat this by adding that I’m not anti-male. As a childfree woman I feel that men get the short end of the stick when it comes to their views being considered. DV the cause of a personality disorder? Or simply because of a hormone? I don’t buy that because it is a cop out.
Jul 17th, 2007 at 12:40 am
“and in some cases men”
Almost 200 scientific studies (for example those done by Dr. Murray Straus) have shown that women are equally as likely as men to initiate domestic violence. The fact that “men hit harder” is counter-balanced by the fact that women tend to ambush their partners or throw things at them. Studies have also shown that in dating violence, women are _more_ likely to be perpetrators than men.
In spite of this, the domestic violence industry spends over a billion dollars each year to help women, but offers virtually nothing to men.
False accusations of domestic violence against the father, are a common tactic used by women seeking child custody during a divorce. In fact, a restraining order my be taken out on the man even if no violence is alleged. In some locales, the wife’s lawyer can be sued, if he (the lawyer) does not recommend to the wife that she take out a restraining order during a divorce.
Jul 17th, 2007 at 12:47 am
The “Duluth Model” for domestic violence is a joke. One reason automatically takes the stance of “male as perpetrator, female as victim”
In many “therapy sessions” for men run by DV treatment centers, the fascist who is in charge of the meeting forces each man to say he is “sorry”, and if he states he has done nothing wrong, which is often the case, he is continually subjected to this abuse until he relents.
Feminists have tremendous time and energy invested, in both creating and perpetuating false DV statistics. The media is only too happy to be manipulated by them, and thus give the public a totally false picture of what is actually going on.
Jul 17th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
I want to sincerely thank everyone who had enough interest and made enough time to share their views on this post.
Both sexes produce testosterone and it seems it has the same effects on men’s bodies as it does on women’s bodies. More to the point — testosterone alone does not lead to violence. The article emphasized “dominance” and exerting dominance is characteristic of both sexes.
The blog post concluded:
Jul 18th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
“Feminists have tremendous time and energy invested, in both creating and perpetuating false DV statistics. The media is only too happy to be manipulated by them, and thus give the public a totally false picture of what is actually going on.”
Well, neither feminists nor the media had anything to do with what I have seen myself, of women suffering domestic violence at the hands of their partners.
The number of female victims far outweigh the number of make victims. And if anything DV is continues to be under reported with women only able to come forward to report after their lives or the lives of their children are threatened. That takes about approx 20 -25 incidents. But I have no wish to take this further off topic not assist you in turning it into a feminists vs the men thread.
Suffice it to say that I agree that testosterone isn’t the cause of violence whether men to women or vice versa. In my opinion the need to have power over and the ability to dominate another person may exist as characteristics in both sexes but not in equal amounts. I believe men are raised to believe they must exert dominance over another to win… and it doesn’t have to be a female.
Jul 19th, 2007 at 6:50 am
@brightfeather
Hi, just wanted to post my comments. As a men’s rights activist I want to say that I DO NOT find your article offensive or anti-male in any way. I can see how you have examined the effect on both sexes and even admit that the studies you have are inconclusive. You must understand, however, that when it comes to some of the men making comments which seem defensive, it is because they see an article about testosterone written by a woman and some red flag goes up and makes us wonder “Is this more anti-male bias?”. This is no excuse for you being misunderstood or some of the negative comments, but understand that many women do write one-sided info about these things to smear our entire gender. Just know men have feelings about that and sometimes have trouble expressing it constructively because we’ve always been taught to internalize those feelings. Take care of yourself and peace!
Jul 19th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
@britgirl
“In my opinion the need to have power over and the ability to dominate another person may exist as characteristics in both sexes but not in equal amounts. I believe men are raised to believe they must exert dominance over another to win… and it doesn’t have to be a female.”
Yes. I agree. This is also my belief based on my life experience.
Thanks for taking part in this discussion.
@wakeup
Thanks for taking the time to leave a comment.
I understand why some men might have been on guard but I do think that those men reading women’s blogs should be mindful enough to read closely and recognize a friend when one presents.
Jul 19th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
@norman
I really want to thank you for all the excellent information you shared. I acknowledge that I haven’t done it justice as yet. I’m just to distracted with the memorial service for my friend tomorrow to do so at this time.
May 23rd, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Free Chess Games No Emails…
As a result, TrackBack spam filters similar to those implemented against comment spam now exist in many weblog publishing systems..)…