Content uploaded by David A. Edwards
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by David A. Edwards on Jan 09, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Testosterone and Reconciliation Among Women:
After-Competition Testosterone Predicts Prosocial
Attitudes Towards Opponents
Kathleen V. Casto
1
&David A. Edwards
1
Received: 16 August 2015 /Revised: 20 October 2015 /Accepted: 22 October 2015
#Springer International Publishing 2015
Abstract Higher levels of testosterone (T) are thought to promote aggressive and/or
antisocial behavior as a means of achieving or maintaining social status. However,
recent research has begun to explore the association between T and more prosocial
behaviors relevant to social status. Reconciliation after conflict is a prosocial behavior
that has become ritualized in sporting contexts. T and cortisol (C) increase in associ-
ation with athletic competition, but the relationship between these hormones and the
willingness to reconcile with one’s opponent after athletic competition has never been
tested. Members of a women’s soccer team gave saliva samples associated with two
intercollegiate competitions, one victory and one defeat. Samples were subsequently
assayed for Tand C. Before giving the final saliva sample after each match, participants
completed a questionnaire designed to measure willingness to reconcile with a recent
opponent –the Attitudes Towards Opponents (ATO) questionnaire. T and C levels
increased during competition, but decreased in the 30-min period after the end of play.
ATO scores were higher, on average, after the win compared to the loss. ATO scores
showed a strong positive correlation with after-game changes in T level in both
matches. Win or lose, women whose T remained relatively high after the end of
the match were more willing to reconcile with their opponent than women
whose T levels declined more precipitously. There were no relationships be-
tween C and ATO scores. At least in women, T may motivate after-
competition behaviors that promote status through social cohesion rather than overt
aggression or dominance.
Keywords Test oster one .Cortisol .Reconciliation .Prosocial .Competition .
Sportsmanship .Athletes
Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology
DOI 10.1007/s40750-015-0037-1
*Kathleen V. Casto
kcasto@emory.edu
1
Department of Psychology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA
Introduction
Having social status, power, or dominance over others increases an individual’saccess
to limited resources and, thus, has noted survival advantages (for review, Cheng et al.
2013;Hamiltonetal.2015). Individuals seeking dominance may do so through various
forms of aggression (e.g., Buss and Shackelford 1997;Coieetal.1982; Vaillancourt
and Hymel 2006). However, there are multiple ways other than aggression by which
individuals achieve and maintain social status and power including those that may seem
prosocial in nature (Cheng et al. 2013; Hawley 1999). Anderson and Kilduff (2009), in
review of research on the strategies for status attainment in social groups among
humans, highlight the role of making social connections and being cooperative.
Specifically, individuals gain status by “enhancing their value in the eyes of fellow
group members –that is, by acting in ways that signal task competence, generosity, and
commitment”(p.296). Good leaders who possess abundant social influence are often
individuals that are well liked (Hogg 2005) and develop positive relationships by being
“sensitive, responsive, and caring”towards their followers (Popper 2005, p.47).
Accordingly, prosocial behavior may serve as an important pathway to power.
Testosterone (T), a steroid hormone produced in men and in lesser amounts in
women, has been linked to social status, implicit power motivation, and behaviors in
which social status is contested –being higher in high-status or power-motivated
individuals and increasing in response to some laboratory social competitions in winners
(for review, Archer 2006; Eisenegger et al. 2011; Hamilton et al. 2015; Mazur and
Booth 1998; Stanton and Schultheiss 2009). T also increases substantially over the
course of athletic competition seemingly independent of match outcome (e.g.,
Bateup et al. 2002; Casto et al. 2014; Edwards et al. 2006; Edwards and Kurlander
2010; Gonzalez-Bono et al. 1999; Hamilton et al. 2009;Suayetal.1999,butsee
Jiménez et al. 2012). Cortisol (C), a steroid hormone related to physiological and
psychological stress, may be inversely related to social status (for review, Hamilton
2015) and increase in response to losing a dominance contest in power-motivated
individuals (Wirth et al. 2006). But, C has been shown to increase significantly
during athletic competition independent of match outcome (e.g., Bateup et al. 2002;
Casto et al. 2014; Edwards et al. 2006; Edwards and Kurlander 2010; Filaire et al.
2009; Gonzalez-Bono et al. 1999). Relatively high levels of C appear to reduce or
eliminate the relationship between T and dominance/status seeking behavior in
experimental settings (Mehta and Josephs 2010) and T and status relationships
among teammates in women athletes (Edwards and Casto 2013). Relatively high
baseline C levels also appear to reduce T reactivity to athletic competition (Edwards
and Casto 2015) and social stress (Bedgood et al. 2014).Thus,bothTandCmaybe
relevant to status-seeking and/or competitive behavior.
Although there are multiple strategies to achieving and maintaining social status, T
is perhaps best known for its relationship with aggressive forms of status-seeking
(behavior directed towards another with the intent to cause harm; for reviews, see
Archer 2006;Booketal.2001; Carré and Olmstead 2015). However, high levels of T
are also associated with high implicit power/dominance motivation and social status in
men and (sometimes) in women in the absence of overt aggression (for review,
Eisenegger et al. 2011; Stanton and Schultheiss 2009). Recent research has
begun to explore the relationship between T and prosocial behaviors that may
Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology
facilitate social status. Edwards et al. (2006) found that among women athletes,
pre-competition levels of T were positivelycorrelatedtoaself-reportmeasure
social-group connectedness among teammates. That social cohesion has benefits for
status is consistent with the fact that individual differences in social-group connected-
ness were also positively related to players’ranking of leadership abilities by teammates.
In an experimental study of prosocial behavior, Eisenegger et al. (2010) gave a single
large dose of T to women and asked them to play the ultimatum bargaining game –a
laboratory task in which a participant, in the role of proposer, decides how money units
should be allocated between herself and a responder who can accept or reject the offer.
Participants who were given T made significantly more fair/generous offers than those
who were given a placebo. Thus, at least for women, T may preserve status by
motivating choices designed to “prevent social affront (Eisenegger et al. 2010,
p.358)”.However,Boksemetal.(2013) showed that in a similar game of “trust,”
women participants who were given a large dose of T and acting as an “investor”gave
significantly less money to an anonymous partner, the trustee, who would decide how
much of that investment, tripled, to return. But, when subsequently acting as the trustee,
participants who were given the dose of T returned significantly more to the investor
when entrusted with a generous offer –a sign of reciprocity. T administration has also
been found to increase cooperative behavior in women (only if the second-to-fourth
right hand digit ratio indicated low levels of prenatal T exposure; van Honk et al. 2012).
Taken together, these studies suggest that, at least in certain contexts, T influences
prosocial behavior in women. For men, although some studies have found a link
between T administration and behaviors such as reduced lying (Wibral et al. 2012),
there is less empirical evidence to support a hypothesized relationship between T and
prosocial behavior (e.g., Dabbs and Morris 1990).
Reconciliation, a prosocial post-conflict behavior, is defined as a friendly reunion of
former opponents not long after confrontation has occurred (Aureli et al. 2002; de Waal
2000). Reconciliation acknowledges the end of conflict and facilitates the repair of
social relationships with a recent adversary (Dovidio et al. 2010). In various non-human
socially cohesive primate species, reconciliation after a contest between two or more
individuals is common (Aureli et al. 2002) and important for decreasing social tension,
preventing future aggressive encounters, and repairing relationships (e.g., Aureli and
van Schaik 1991; de Waal 1986; Silk 2002). In one of the few laboratory studies of
reconciliation in humans (McCullough et al. 2014), conciliatory gestures increased
forgiveness and reduced post-conflict anger and exploitation risk towards a transgres-
sor, provided the relationship with a transgressor was valued. Because reconciliation
behaviors reduce the likelihood of post-conflict social reprisals, they may also function
more broadly to elevate or maintain social status, but this hypothesis has not been tested
empirically. It has, however, been noted in observations of non-human primates that the
initiation of post-conflict reconciliation is more common in high status individuals than
lower status individuals (de Waal 1984). As indicated in McCullough et al. (2014), “the
functional and proximate bases for peacemaking and reconciliation in humans…have
been both understudied and under theorized (p. 11,216).”
Athletic competition is a formalized physical and psychological contest to gain
status over an opponent. But, ritualized reconciliation behaviors in the form of shaking
or slapping hands after sports competitions are intended to foster sportsmanship, that is,
fairness, respect, and graciousness in winning and losing, particularly in behaviors
Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology
towards an opponent. T and C increase substantially over the course of competition and
then begin to decline immediately afterwards (e.g., Casto and Edwards 2015;Elias
1981). But the relationship between these changes and after-competition attitudes
towards reconciliation has never been tested. The present study was designed to
examine the relationship, if any, between basal and dynamic levels of T and C and
athletes’willingness to reconcile with an opponent after competition. The Attitudes
Towards Opponents (ATO) questionnaire was specially designed to measure a partic-
ipant’s attitudes regarding reconciliation with a recent opponent following an athletic
competition. T and C levels from saliva samples obtained at pre-warm-up baseline, after
warm-up, immediately after competition, and 30 min after each of two intercollegiate
soccer matches were analyzed in relation to women athlete’s after-competition re-
sponses to the ATO. In contrast to other studies involving the exogenous administration
of T and contrived experimental circumstances, in this study, we explore the relation-
ship between prosocial attitudes and endogenous levels of T and C during and after a
naturalistic competition –a setting in which women are highly motivated for the social
reward of gaining status over their opponent, i.e., winning.
Method
Participants
Participants for the study were the twenty-five consenting members (age 18–22) of the
2013 Emory University varsity women’s soccer team. This research was approved by
Emory’s Institutional Review Board and athletes gave written informed consent prior to
participation. As part of the consent procedure women were asked to respond “yes”or
“no”to the question “Are you currently using an oral contraceptive?”andtooneother:
“Are you currently using any injected, implanted, or patch-delivered hormone contracep-
tive?”Ofthe25participantsthatgaveconsent,only17wouldgoontoplayinthefirst
game and 15 in the second game. Because athletes who play have markedly different after-
competition levels of T and C than those who never enter the match in this study (Casto
and Edwards 2015) and in previous studies (e.g., Edwards et al. 2006), only data for
women who played were used in analyses involving hormone values other than baseline.
Saliva Samples and Hormone Assays
As a part of a larger study (Casto and Edwards 2015), participants gave four samples in
association with each of two intra-conference NCAA soccer competitions, one week
apart. For each match, participants gave a saliva sample 10–15 min before the start of
an hour-long warm-up, another sample immediately after warm-up (a few minutes
before the start of the match), a third sample immediately after match completion, and a
final sample 30 min later. Participants were provided with a piece of sugar-free gum
(Trident®, original flavor) to stimulate saliva production and they gave whole saliva
samples by drool exactly according to the protocol used for athletes in other sports
(e.g., Edwards and Casto 2013). Although the use of chewing gum to stimulate
salivation and speed collection of saliva samples is common, this practice has been
recently questioned in reports that some brands and flavors of chewing gum may distort
Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology
salivary T levels relative to unstimulated samples (van Anders 2010). In the present
study, all participants chewed Trident® original flavor gum, not tested in the van
Anders (2010) study. Provided individuals chew for more than one minute before they
begin to deliver the sample, this particular gum does not appear to affect salivary T
level relative to what is assayed from unstimulated samples (Dabbs 1991; Granger et al.
2004). All saliva samples were collected between 1 and 5 PM, with both matches
beginning around 2:30 PM.
Samples were chilled on ice after collection and then stored at −80 °C within the
hour. Samples were assayed in duplicate for T and C on a single thaw by the
Biomarkers Core laboratory of the Yerkes Primate Center (Atlanta, GA) using com-
petitive enzyme immunoassay kits from Salimetrics (State College, PA). The average
intra-assay CV percents for T and C were 6.1 % and 7.2 %, respectively. The average
inter-assay CV percents for T and C were 8.1 % and 6.26 %, respectively.
Attitudes Towards Opponents
Consenting participants completed the ATO questionnaire approximately 20 min after
the end of each competition, immediately before giving their 30-min-after-competition
sample. The questionnaire consisted of 11 items (Table 1) on a 5-point Likert scale
(1 = “Strongly Disagree”,5=“Strongly Agree”) designed to measure an athlete’s
willingness to reconcile with her recent opponent. Items phrased in the negative (items
4 and 9) were reverse scored before analysis. The internal consistency coefficient
(Cronbach’s alpha) for the total scale was 0.87. In general, participants responded
systematically higher to 3 items, 3, 6, and 9 (M=3.6,SD = 0.01) that appear to relate
more to the desire to be perceived as a good sport, than the rest of the items (M=2.33,
SD = 0.21). However, removal of these three items reduced internal consistency
to 0.82. For the purpose of analysis, participants’total mean scores on the ATO
were used. As there are no pre-existing measures of after-competition attitudes
Tab l e 1 The attitudes towards opponents questionnaire
Please rate your agreement with the following statements based on how you feel right now, not how you would
think or feel in general
1. If given the opportunity, I would apologize to a member of the other team for any rough or foul play that
I committed toward her during the match.
2. I think the other team should be congratulated for their efforts.
3. I was more than willing to shake/slap hands with the members of the other team after the match.
4. I have no desire to make amends with a member or members of the other team. (reverse scored)
5. If confronted with members of the other team at a restaurant later this evening, I would be willing to initiate
friendly conversation.
6. I want members of the other team to think I am a good sport.
7. Now that the competition is over, members of the two teams should be able to make friends.
8. I would be willing to tell my opponent that she played well.
9. I had no desire to shake hands with members of the other team after the game (If I did, it was only because
I had to). (reverse scored)
10. Despite what happened on the playing field, I would be willing to reconcile (make peace) with members
of the other team.
11. I have no hard feelings towards the other team.
Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology
towards reconciliation, these items were developed through qualitative interviews with
athletes and selected based on face-validity. Distribution of this measure to a larger
sample of 39 women after participating in intramural sporting events resulted in an
overall mean score of 4.22/5 (SE = 0.08), significantly higher (i.e., more willing to
reconcile) than athletes competing against rival opponents in the present study.
Competitions
The first of the two matches was played at the participants’home field against
Washington University and the second game was played away from home against the
University of Chicago. The home match was a narrow 0–1 loss with the one goal scored
by the opponents in the 15th minute of the first half. The away match was a narrow 2–0
victory, with the first of two goals scored in the 51st minute of play and the second goal,
to secure the win, scored in the final minute of play (89th minute). Both opponents were
intra-conference rivals and ranked, along with Emory, in the top 25 NCAA (Division III)
teams nationally. Playing at home versus away from home did not appear to influence T
and C responses to competition in these athletes (Casto and Edwards 2015).
Statistical Analyses, Hormone Measures, and Transformations
The SPSS statistical package was used for calculation of a repeated-measures t-test (two-
tailed)forthedifferenceinATOscoreforthegamethatwaslostcomparedtothegamethat
was won. Correlation coefficients (r) were calculated to test the relationship between ATO
score and absolute levels of T and C as well as the percent change in T and C associated
with the period of competition and the 30 min period after competition. Relative (percent
change) instead of absolute change was used as the primary metric of change because the
levels of T and C before and after-competition are influenced by psychologically relevant
preceding events (warm-up and competition, respectively, Casto and Edwards 2015).
However, some studies use absolute difference to measure hormone change (e.g. Mehta
and Josephs 2006). In keeping with this, data for absolute change are included.
Across all participants, baseline T, but not C, levels were normally distributed. For
participants included in analyses involving competition and after-competition T and C levels
(those who played in each match), data for the change in C after competition for the first
match and change in T after competition for the second match were positively skewed. Natural
log-transformations were used to normalize the distributions for these hormone measures. In
all cases, analysis of transformed data produced the same overall results as analysis of the
raw data. Due to the number of correlations conducted, where appropriate, significance
was determined after controlling for false discovery rate (Benjamini and Hochberg 1995).
Results
T and C Change Associated with Competition and the 30 minutes After
Competition
Means and standard deviations for T and C associated with each match are
shown in Table 2. As reported elsewhere (Casto and Edwards 2015), T and C
Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology
levels in these athletes significantly increased over the course of warm-up and
competition in both games (Table 3). Within the 30 minutes after competition,
T levels decreased following both matches, but the decrease was significantly
largerfollowingthematchthatwaswoncomparedtothematchthatwaslost
(Table 3). However, because the game that was lost was played at home and
the game that was won was played away from home, effects due to winning
and losing may be confounded with any competition or after-competition effects
of venue. C levels remained relatively high for at least 30 minutes after both
matches, but decreased more after the match that was won compared to match
that was lost (Table 3). T and C changes associated with the competition and
after-competition periods were not different for OC users compared to non-
users.
Tab l e 2 Descriptive statistics
Testosterone (pg/ml) Cortisol (μg/dl)
Game 1 (Loss) Game 2 (Win) Game 1 (Loss) Game 2 (Win)
M(SD)M(SD)M(SD)M(SD)
Neutral-day Baseline 52.7 (14.1) 51.5 (14.6) 0.27 (0.14) 0.27 (0.15)
Before Warm-up 53.1 (12.9) 51.8 (13.9) 0.38 (0.16) 0.36 (0.18)
After Warm-up 65.8 (21.7) 66.9 (17.8) 0.32 (0.11) 0.33 (0.11)
After Competition 75.7 (22.0) 78.7 (22.5) 0.69 (0.31) 0.66 (0.23)
30 min. After Competition 63.6 (20.2) 58.6 (18.3) 0.70 (0.32) 0.58 (0.32)
Game 1,N=17;Game 2,N=15
Tab l e 3 The percent change in T, C, and E from neutral-day baseline to before warm-up and across warm-up,
competition, and 30 min after-competition and corresponding ANOVA results (Casto and Edwards 2015)
Game 1 (Loss) Game 2 (Win)
ΔFdfp η
2
ΔFdfp η
2
Tes to st er on e
S1 (From baseline) 4 % 0.01 1,15 0.952 <0.01 5 % 0.01 1,13 0.906 <0.01
S2 (Warm-up) 22 % 31.2 1,15 <0.001 0.68 32 % 43.2 1,13 <0.001 0.77
S3 (Competition) 19 % 4.7 1,15 0.046 0.24 18 % 13.8 1,13 0.003 0.51
S4 (After competition) −16 % 29.8 1,15 <0.001 0.67 −26%94.81,13<0.0010.88
Cortisol
S1 (From baseline) 55 % 8.9 1,15 0.009 0.37 53 % 3.6 1,13 0.080 0.22
S2 (Warm-up) −6 % 2.5 1,15 0.137 0.14 2 % 0.92 1,13 0.354 0.07
S3 (Competition) 142 % 15.1 1,15 0.001 0.50 131 % 15.5 1,13 0.002 0.54
S4 (After competition) 2 % 0.07 1,15 0.796 0.01 −15 % 2.2 1,13 0.166 0.14
Stages of Competition: S1 = Baseline to before warm-up; S2 = Before warm-up to after warm-up; S3 = After
warm-up to after competition; S4 = After competition to 30 min after competition. Δ=%change
Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology
ATO R espo nses
One participant gave incomplete responses to the ATO after the first game. Data for this
individual were removed from the Game 1 analyses leaving a total N = 16. For the
second game, one participant’s change in T within the 30 minutes after competition
exceeded 3 SD of the mean. Data for this individual were removed from the Game 2
analysis leaving a total N = 14, but results for both Winsorization and removal of this
outlier are included for reference. There were thirteen women who played in and gave
complete ATO responses for both matches.
For the thirteen athletes who played in both games, mean ATO score was signifi-
cantly lower after the game that was lost (M=2.36,SE = 0.19) than the game that was
won (M=3.35,SE =0.19),t(12) = −5.31, p<0.001,d=1.99.ATOscorewasnot
related to T change during competition or C change during or after competition in either
match. Additionally, ATO score was not related to absolute levels of T or C at any
point. As shown in Fig. 1, in both matches, the percent change in T after competition
was significantly and positively correlated with mean score on the ATO (Game 1, loss:
r(16) = 0.64, p= 0.007; Game 2 win: r(14) = 0.70, p= 0.005). That is, the higher an
athlete’s T remained after competition, the more willing she was to reconcile with her
opponent. For the participant whose post-competition T change exceeded 3 SDs from
the mean for the second match, Winsorization produced similar results (Game 2 win: r
(15) = 0.52, p= 0.046). Using absolute change, instead of percent change, the
positive relationship between T and ATO score remains, but is no longer
significant for the second of the two games (Game 1, loss: r(16) = 0.51, p=0.044;
Game 2 win: r(14) = 0.37, p=0.188).
Fig. 1 The relationship between the percent change in testosterone after competition and attitudes towards
reconciliation with an opponent.
+
over a data point denotes an individual whose cortisol increased within the
30 min. after competition
Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology
Due to the small sample size for each competition, there is insufficient statistical
power to test the potential moderating effect of C on the relationship between T and
reconciliation. For the game that was won, only four individuals showed increases in C
within the 30 minutes after competition whereas seven individuals increased in C
within the 30 minutes after competition following a loss (Fig. 1). The relationship
between after-competition T change and mean ATO score does not appear different for
these individuals compared to those who decreased in C after competition (Fig. 1).
Discussion
As described in a companion study (Casto and Edwards 2015), for the women soccer
players included in this research, intercollegiate competition was associated with a
substantial increase in salivary levels of T and C. For T, this increase began with warm-
up and continued through to the end of competition. C levels were stable during
warm-up, but increased dramatically during competition. Increases in T were seen for
both matches and in every one of the women participating in this study, with increases
ranging from 10 to 130 % relative to before-warm-up baseline. Similarly, increases in C
were seen in a vast majority of the athletes, with levels typically doubling over the
course of competition. These findings are consistent with more than a decade of research
on hormonal responses to athletic competition in highly-trained women across a wide
array of sports (e.g., Bateup et al. 2002; Casto et al. 2014; Edwards et al. 2006; Edwards
and Kurlander 2010; Gonzalez-Bono et al. 1999;Hamiltonetal.2009;Suayetal.1999).
The implications and potential function of short-term increases in T and C during
competition are discussed elsewhere (Casto et al. 2014; Casto and Edwards 2015).
Win or lose, T typically decreased after the end of competition, reduced by as much
as forty percent from peak levels seen 30 minutes earlier. After-competition changes in
C were less predictable, and differences between T and C in this regard are discussed
elsewhere (Casto and Edwards 2015). But, whether for T or C, the magnitude and
direction of the after-competition change in hormone level was highly variable from
athlete to athlete –in some individuals, competition-related peak levels of T and/or C
were sustained for at least 30 min after the end of competition, in others, hormone
levels decreased more quickly. Importantly, after-competition variability in the extent to
which T (but not C) was sustained was significantly correlated with an athletes’
willingness to reconcile with an opponent as measured by mean response to the ATO
questionnaire. More specifically, the closer an athlete’s 30-min post competition level
of T was to her end-of-competition peak, the more willing she was to reconcile with her
opponent, and this was true in both victory and defeat.
Although the relationship between T and willingness to reconcile was apparent
following both victory and defeat, ATO scores were, on average, significantly lower
following defeat than following victory. The dampened desire to engage socially with
one’s opponent after a defeat may be due to reduced mood following a sports competition
loss (e.g., Gonzalez-Bono et al. 1999). Indeed, mood has a demonstrated influence over
various socially-oriented cognitions and behaviors (e.g., Forgas 1984; Isen 1987).
Although the emotional reactions to winning and losing are quite different, the relation-
ship between T and individual differences in willingness to reconcile holds for both
outcomes.
Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology
It is important to note that the relationship between T and reconciliationis one that has
to do with hormone kinetics rather than absolute levels of hormones. Absolute levels of
T per se were not associated with ATO score for any of the time points sampled. Rather,
a woman with an after-competition T level that remained higher relative to her own
end-of-competition peak (no matter whether either of those levels were high or low
relative to other players) was, typically, more willing to reconcile than a woman whose T
level declined more quickly from its end-of-competition peak. Timing is also important.
Tlevelsinwomen’s athletic competition are constantly changing, increasing during
warm-up and competition and then decreasing after the end of competition (Casto and
Edwards 2015; Casto et al. 2014;EdwardsandKurlander2010). But, the only period for
which change in T level predicted willingness to reconcile was the interval within the
30 minutes after the end of competition –a time when actions towards reconciliation
would be most appropriate. Our findings, apparently the first to show a relationship
between T and prosocial attitudes towards reconciliation after competition, are in
accordance with previous research demonstrating that Tadministration results in increases
in prosocial behavior in women studied in other, more “experimental”contexts
(Eisenegger et al. 2010;Boksemetal.2013; van Honk et al. 2012, but see Zak et al. 2009).
Reconciliation serves a number of functions –to prevent group instability, reduce
future aggression, decrease anxiety, and meet the basic psychological need of removing
moral/ethical inferiority (for review, Aureli et al. 2002;deWaal2000; Dovido et al.
2010). Reconciliation may also function as a prosocial means of achieving and/or
maintaining social status. Indeed, other prosocial means of achieving status are well
documented (Anderson and Kilduff 2009; Cheng et al. 2012; Hawley 1999)andthe
particular strategy, antisocial or prosocial, likely depends on the social context (e.g.,
organized sport, a prison cell block, corporate boardroom, high school lunchroom).
Athletic competition is a context where sportsmanship and other cultural norms govern
expectations for social niceties, particularly after the competition has ended.
Consequently, status may be benefited more through acts of social cohesion rather than
direct aggression or antisocial behavior following a formal sports contest. And as a result,
the relationship between T and the desire to reconcile with an opponent after competition
is consonant with the notion that T relates to behavior intended to achieve or maintain
social status and individual power-motivation (e.g., Stanton and Schultheiss 2009;Mehta
and Josephs 2010; Edwards and Casto 2013; for review, Hamilton et al. 2015). Thus, in
influencing or being influenced by social status, relatively higher levels of T may produce
a wide range of behaviors so long as they are reinforced with access to power or influence.
In addition to social context, gender/sex could also play a role in determining
whether relatively higher levels of T relate to prosocial or antisocial behavior, but
current evidence is inconclusive. Although, both men and women use prosocial
strategies to attain status (Anderson and Kilduff 2009; Cheng et al. 2012; Hawley
1999), studies that demonstrate a positive relationship between T and antisocial behav-
ior have been mostly conducted with men (e.g. Dabbs and Morris 1990; for review,
Archer 2006) and studies that demonstrate a positive relationship between T and
prosocial behavior have been mostly conducted with women (e.g., Boskem et al.
2013; Eisenegger et al. 2010; van Honk et al. 2012)–a bias that may inappropriately
lead researchers to predict a sex difference. The present study was conducted with
women. Whether the same prosocial relationship between changing levels of after-
competition T and reconciliation holds true for men remains to be determined.
Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology
Some reports are seemingly inconsistent with the finding that T relates to prosocial
behaviors like reconciliation. For example, basal T appears inversely related to the
ability to accurately infer the thoughts and feelings of others (Ronay and Carney 2013),
colleagues’ratings of one’s leadership abilities (Ronay and Carney 2013), and perfor-
mance in cooperative competition (Mehta et al. 2009). In women, administration of T
appears to reduce behaviors thought to reflect empathy (Hermans et al. 2006;vanHonk
and Schutter 2007; van Honk et al. 2011) and, in one study, increased egocentric
decision-making (Wright et al. 2012). However, the desire to reconcile with an
opponent and attempts to do so are probably not motivated by inherently altruistic
motives (Eisenegger et al. 2010) or necessarily benefitted by the ability to infer minute
emotional dispositions. Reconciliation can be self-serving (e.g., a strategy for promot-
ing one’s status) and, at the same time, beneficial to others (i.e., prosocial), but none of
these effects seem obviously served by empathy. Additionally, when considering
studies that may or may not agree on hormone-behavior relationships, it is also
important to distinguish between the effects or correlates of basal/baseline levels of
hormones and the effects or correlates of dynamic/rapidly changing levels of hormones
(Carré and Olmstead 2015, p.172). The long and short-term influence of hormones on
behavior and physiology are distinct and in some instances even opposing (e.g.
Crewther et al. 2011; Stanton and Schultheiss 2007; Edwards and Casto 2013).
Additionally, differences in the effects of endogenous hormone levels (basal or rapidly
fluctuating) compared to exogenously administered supraphysiological doses are not
well-understood. Studies exploring the relationship between T and social behavior
would only be truly contradictory if presenting opposing effects that were at least
matched on whether or not the hormone levels reflect an endogenous or exogenous
source and whether or not the endocrine metric reflected basal or dynamic levels.
Interpretation of the results from the present study is limited by the small sample
size. Despite the small number of participants, this study was conducted in a naturalistic
competition setting and across two separate matches. Importantly, the principal effect
for this study is demonstrated on two separate occasions, a victory and a defeat. But, it
is imperative that future research explore the relationship between T and reconciliation
and the interaction between T and C in predicting reconciliation behavior with a larger
sample size in both real-world settings and in competitive laboratory contexts.
Conclusion
For a competing woman athlete, T typically increases over the course of competition.
The degree to which after-competition T levels are sustained reflects her willingness to
reconcile with a recent opponent in victory and defeat. Sustained high levels of T may
motivate reconciliation and other prosocial behavior at times when status is benefitted
more through social cohesion rather than overt aggression. In review of the history of
research on conflict resolution among non-human primates, de Waal (2000) describes
how decades of research centered around an individual model of aggression led to an
impoverished understanding of behavior, its antecedents, and consequences. Instead, de
Waal argues that a more comprehensive understanding requires a model of the
individual that is socially integrated as, for example, “high-ranking individuals
are not necessarily the strongest, but the ones that can mobilize the most support”
Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology
(de Waal 2000, p. 586). Inkeeping with this, the demonstration of a positive relationship
between T and reconciliation in the present study should encourage studies of the link
between T and status striving that extend beyond the aggressively power-motivated
individual to the socially embedded context in which that individual achieves and
maintains his or her status.
Acknowledgments We thank the Emory University varsity women’s soccer coach, Sue Patberg, assistant
coach Rachel Moreland, and the 2013 varsity women’s team for their participation in the research described in
this article.
Compliance with Ethical Standards This study complies with the laws for research with human subjects
in the United States and was approved by Emory University’s IRB. All persons gave written informed consent
prior to participation in this study.
Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
References
Anderson, C., & Kilduff, G. J. (2009). The pursuit of status in social groups. Current Directions in
Psychological Science,18,295–298.
Archer, J. (2006). Testosterone and human aggression: an evaluation of the challenge hypothesis.
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews,30,319–345.
Aureli, F., & van Schaik, C. P. (1991). Post-conflict behaviour in long-tailed macaques (macaca fascicularis):
II coping with the uncertainty. Ethology,89, 101–114.
Aureli, F., Cords, M., & van Schaik, C. P. (2002). Conflict resolution following aggression in gregarious
animals: a predictive framework. Animal Behaviour,64,325–343.
Bateup, H. S., Booth, A., Shirtcliff, E. A., & Granger, D. A. (2002). Testosterone, cortisol, and women’s
competition. Evolution and Human Behavior,23,181–192.
Bedgood, D., Boggiano, M. M., & Turan, B. (2014). Testosterone and social evaluative stress: the moderating
role of basal cortisol. Psychoneuroendocrinology,47,107–115.
Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach
to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B,57,289–300.
Boksem, M. A. S., Mehta, P. H., Van der Bergh, B., van Son, V., Trautmann, S. T., et al. (2013). Testosterone
inhibits trust but promotes reciprocity. Psychological Science,24,2306–2314.
Book, A. S., Starzyk, K. B., & Quinsey, V. L. (2001). The relationship between testosterone and aggression: a
meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior,6, 579–599.
Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). Human aggression in evolutionary psychological perspective.
Clinical Psychology Review,17,605–619.
Carré, J. M., & Olmstead, N. A. (2015). Social neuroendocrinology of human aggression: examining the role
of competition-induced testosterone dynamics. Neuroscience,286,171–186.
Casto, K. V., & Edwards, D. A. (2015). Before, during, and after: how phases of competition differentially
affect testosterone, cortisol, and estradiol levels in women athletes. Adaptive Human Behavior and
Physiology. doi:10.1007/s40750-015-0028-2.
Casto, K. V., Elliott, C. M., & Edwards, D. A. (2014). Intercollegiate cross country competition: effects of
warm-up and racing on salivary levels of cortisol and testosterone. International Journal of Exercise
Science,7,318–328.
Cheng, J. T., Tracy, J. L., Foulsham, T., Kingstone, A., & Henrich, J. (2013). Two ways to the top: evidence
that dominance and prestige are distinct yet viable avenues to social rank and influence. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology,104,103–125.
Coie, J., Dodge, K., & Coppotelli, H. (1982). Dimensions and types of social status: a cross-age perspective.
Developmental Psychology,18, 557–570.
Crewther, B. T., Cook, C., Cardinale, M., Weatherby, R. P., & Lowe, T. (2011). Two emerging concepts for
elite athletes: the short-term effects of testosterone and cortisol on the neuromuscular system and the dose-
response training role of these endogenous hormones. Sports Medicine,41, 103–123.
Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology
Dabbs, J. M. (1991). Salivary testosterone measurements: collecting, storing, and mailing saliva sample.
Physiology & Behavior,49, 815–817.
Dabbs, J. M., & Morris, R. (1990). Testosterone, social class, and antisocial behavior in a sample of 4,462
men. Psychological Science,1, 209–211.
de Waal, F. B. M. (1984). Coping with social tension: sex differences in the effect of food provision to small
rhesus monkey groups. Animal Behaviour,32, 765–773.
de Waal, F. B. M. (1986). The integration of dominance and social bonding in primates. The Quarterly Review
of Biology,61, 459–479.
de Waal, F. B. M. (2000). Primates: a natural heritage of conflict resolution. Science,289,586–590.
Dovidio, J. F., Johnson, J. D., Gaertner, S. L., Pearson, A. R., Saguy, T., & Ashburn-Nardo, L. (2010).
Empathy and intergroup relations. In M. Mikulincer, & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Prosocial motives, emotions,
and behavior (pp. 393–429). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Edwards, D. A., & Casto, K. V. (2013). Women’s intercollegiate athletic competition: cortisol, testosterone,
and the dual-hormone hypothesis as it relates to status among teammates. Hormones and Behavior,64,
153–160.
Edwards, D. A., & Casto, K. V. (2015). Baseline cortisol moderates testosterone reactivity to women’s
intercollegiate athletic competition. Physiology & Behavior,142,48–51.
Edwards, D. A., & Kurlander, L. S. (2010). Women’s intercollegiate volleyball and tennis: effects of warm-up,
competition, and practice on saliva levels of cortisol and testosterone. Hormones and Behavior,
58,606–613.
Edwards, D. A., Wetzel, K., & Wyner, D. R. (2006). Intercollegiate soccer: saliva cortisol and testosterone are
elevated during competition, and testosterone is related to status and social connectedness with team-
mates. Physiology & Behavior,87,135–143.
Eisenegger, C., Naef, M., Snozzi, R., Heinrichs, M., & Fehr, E. (2010). Prejudice and truth about the effect of
testosterone on human bargaining behavior. Nature,463,356–361.
Eisenegger, C., Haushofer, J., & Fehr, E. (2011). The role of testosterone in social interaction. Tren ds in
Cognitive Neuroscience,15,263–271.
Elias, M. (1981). Serum cortisol, testosterone, and testosterone-binding globulin responses to competitive
fighting in human males. Aggressive Behavior,7,215–224.
Filaire, E., Alix, D., Ferrand, C., & Verger, M. (2009). Psychophysiological stress in tennis players during the
first single match of a tournament. Psychoneuroendocrinology,34,150–157.
Forgas, J. P. (1984). The influence of mood on perceptions of social interactions. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology,20, 497–513.
Gonzalez-Bono, E., Salvador, A., Serrano, M. A., & Ricarte, J. (1999). Testosterone, cortisol, and mood in a
sports team competition. Hormones and Behavior,35,55–62.
Granger, D. A., Shirtcliff, E. A., Booth, A., Kivlighan, K. T., & Schwartz, E. B. (2004). The “trouble”with
salivary testosterone. Psychoneurocrinology,29, 1229–1240.
Hamilton, L. D., van Anders, S. M., Cox, D. N., & Watson, N. V. (2009). The effect of competition on salivary
testosterone in elite female athletes. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance,4,
538–542.
Hamilton, L. D., Carré, J. M., Mehta, P. H., Olmstead, N., & Whitaker, J. D. (2015). Social neuroendocri-
nology of status: a review and future directions. Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology,1, 202–230.
Hawley, P. H. (1999). The ontogenesis of social dominance: a strategy-based evolutionary perspective.
Developmental Review,19,97–132.
Hermans, E. J., Putman, P., & Van Honk, J. (2006). Testosterone administration reduces empathetic behavior:
a facial mimicry study. Psychoneuroendocrinology,31, 859–866.
Hogg, M. A. (2005). Social identity and leadership. In D. M. Messick, & R. M. Kramer (Eds.), The
psychology of leadership: new perspectives and research (pp. 53–80). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Isen, A. M. (1987). Positive affect, cognitive processes, and social behavior. In G. Meurant (Ed.), Advances in
experimental social psychology (vol. 20, pp. 203–247). San Diego: Academic Press.
Jiménez, M., Aguilar, R., & Alvero-Cruz, J. R. (2012). Effects of victory and defeat on testosterone and
cortisol response to competition: evidence for same response patterns in men and women.
Psychoneuroendocrinology,37, 1577–1581.
Mazur, A., & Booth, A. (1998). Testosterone and dominance in men. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
21,353–363.
McCullough, M. E., Pedersen, E. J., Tabak, B. A., & Carter, E. C. (2014). Conciliatory gestures promote
forgiveness and reduce anger in humans. Pnas,111, 11211–11216.
Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology
Mehta, P. H., & Josephs, R. A. (2006). Testosterone change after losing predicts the decision to compete again.
Hormones and Behavior,50,684–692.
Mehta, P. H., & Josephs, R. A. (2010). Testosterone and cortisol jointly regulate dominance: evidence for a
dual-hormone hypothesis. Hormones and Behavior,58,898–906.
Mehta, P. H., Wuehrmann, E. V., & Josephs, R. A. (2009). When are low testosterone levels advantageous?
The moderating role of individual versus intergroup competition. Hormones and Behavior,56, 158–162.
Popper, M. (2005). Leaders who transform society: what drives them and why we are attracted. Westport, CT:
Praeger Publishers.
Ronay, R., & Carney, D. R. (2013). Testosterone’s negative relationship with empathic accuracy and perceived
leadership ability. Social Psychological and Personality Science,4,92–99.
Silk, J. B. (2002). The form and function of reconciliation in primates. Annual Review of Anthropology,31,
21–44.
Stanton, S. J., & Schultheiss, O. C. (2007). Basal and dynamic relationships between implicit power
motivation and estradiol in women. Hormones and Behavior,52,571–580.
Stanton, S. J., & Schultheiss, O. C. (2009). The hormonal correlates of implicit power motivation. Journal of
Research in Personality,43, 942–949.
Suay, F., Salvador, A., González-Bono, E., Sanchís, C., Martínez, M., Martínez-Sanchis, S., Simón, V. M., &
Montoro, J. B. (1999). Effects of competition and its outcome on serum testosterone, cortisol and
prolactin. Psychoneuroendocrinology,24,551–566.
Vaillancourt, T., & Hymel, S. (2006). Aggression and social status: the moderating roles of sex and peer-
valued characteristics. Aggressive Behavior,32,396–408.
van Anders, S. M. (2010). Chewing gum has large effects on salivary testosterone, estradiol, and secretory
immunoglobulin a assays in women and men. Psychoneuroendocrinology,35,305–309.
van Honk, J., & Schutter, D. J. L. G. (2007). Testosterone reduces conscious detection of signals serving social
correction implications for antisocial behavior. Psychological Science,18,663–667.
van Honk, J., Schutter, D. J., Bos, P. A., Kruijt, A.-W., Lentjes, E. G., & Baron-Cohen,S. (2011). Testosterone
administration impairs cognitive empathy in women depending on second-to-fourth digit ratio.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,108, 3448–3452.
van Honk, J., Montoya, E. R., Bos, P. A., van Vugt, M., & Terburg, D. (2012). New evidence on testosterone
and cooperation. Nature,485,E4–E5.
Wibral, M., Dohmen, T., Klingmüller, D., Weber, B., & Falk, A. (2012). Testosterone administration reduces
lying in men. PloS One.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0046774.
Wirth, M. M., Welsh, K. M., & Schultheiss, O. C. (2006). Salivary cortisol changes in humans after winning or
losing a dominance contest depend on implicit power motivation. Hormones and Behavior,49,346–352.
Wright, N. D., Bahrami, B., Johnson, E., Di Malta, G., Rees, G., Frith, C. D., & Dolan, R. J. (2012).
Testosterone disrupts human collaboration by increasing egocentric choices. Proceedings of the Royal
Society of London B: Biological Sciences, rspb20112523.
Zak, P. J., Kurzban, R., Ahmadi, S., Swerdloff, R. S., Park, J., et al. (2009). Testosterone administration
decreases generosity in the ultimatum game. PloS One,4, e8330.
Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology
- A preview of this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
- Learn more
Preview content only
Content available from Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
