Why
do you think your paper is highly cited?
The possible role of testosterone in facilitating human
aggression has been studied for about 25 years now, and is
of interest to a range of researchers as it is at the
interface of neuroscience and social and evolutionary
psychology.
|
 |
|
|
“The article is a systematic synthesis of
existing knowledge in relation to a theory that
has not been applied to human studies before.” |
|
|
For all this time, it has remained a set of data in
search of an adequate theoretical framework. The simple view
that testosterone secreted at puberty increases
aggressiveness, as it does in many other mammals, was not
supported by the evidence, and yet correlations between
testosterone and measures of aggression were reported time
and again.
I happened to find an evolutionarily based theory of
testosterone and behavior that had been applied to studies
of birds (by Wingfield), and assessed whether the evidence
on testosterone and human behavior (wider than that on
aggression) fitted this theory: it did, so now we have a
theory that integrates all these many studies.
As a bonus, the evidence showing associations between
psychological individual differences and testosterone, also
seems to fit an extension of the theory to apply to
alternative mating strategies. The article has come to the
attention of some very active research groups interested in
testosterone and human behavior, and it has started to be
cited by them.
Does
it describe a new discovery, methodology, or synthesis of
knowledge?
The article is a systematic synthesis of existing
knowledge in relation to a theory that has not been applied
to human studies before. In a way, it does set out a new
discovery, in that it demonstrates a novel way of
conceptualizing the links between testosterone and human
behavior, and provides meta-analytic evidence for specific
parts of the theory.
Would
you summarize the significance of your paper in layman’s terms?
The challenge hypothesis was proposed as a theory of the
testosterone-behavior relationship in birds. Essentially, it
starts with the high fitness costs of maintaining high
circulating levels of testosterone through a male’s adult
lifetime. As these are high in monogamous species, the
levels secreted at puberty are only sufficient to maintain
reproductive physiology and behavior, but not to facilitate
aggressive behavior.
In situations of reproductive competition ("challenges")
testosterone levels increase and facilitate competitive
behavior in the short-term. When such aggressiveness is
unnecessary, for example, in a paternal phase of the life
history, testosterone levels are at a low level.
A systematic review of human studies in relation to a
series of specific predictions from the challenge hypothesis
showed that it fits the evidence from humans. The challenge
hypothesis is based on a trade-off between mating effort and
parental effort, and it can be extended to show that there
is a coherent pattern of individual differences associated
with higher or lower levels of testosterone, representing
differential emphasis on mating or parental effort.
How
did you become involved in this research, and were there any
particular problems encountered along the way?
I have a background in research on testosterone and
animal behavior, and I wrote a book on animal aggression
(published in 1988), following which I wrote a review of the
available evidence on testosterone and human aggression
(1991).
I subsequently carried out some empirical research on
testosterone, mood, and behavior, funded by the World Health
Organization to Fred Wu (University of Manchester) and
myself. This work has been published in 3 papers (2001,
2002, 2006), and the NBR article grew from this interest.
Unusually, I didn’t have any particular problems writing the
paper or getting it published.
Are
there any social or political implications for your research?
One implication is that those with a little knowledge of
the research in this area should stop attributing young male
aggression to the increase in testosterone secreted at
puberty. This view is often repeated in media accounts.
The reality is that the testosterone-aggression link is
more subtle. Testosterone will enhance competitive and
aggressive behavior when increased by competitive or
challenging situations.
A range of competitions, sports in particular, will cause
a testosterone surge, and this will be greater in winners
than losers. This in turn will make them competitive with
other males. Although their testosterone levels are much
lower, the same effects of competition have been found in
women.
Professor John Archer
Department of Psychology
University of Central Lancashire
Lancashire, UK