 |
"Long
before it's in the papers"
August 03, 2010
RETURN TO THE WORLD SCIENCE HOME PAGE
Obama election changed voter testosterone
Oct. 22, 2009
Courtesy Duke University
and World Science staff
Young men who voted for the main losing candidates in the 2008 presidential election suffered a rapid drop in testosterone levels when results came out, a new study indicates. At the same time, men who voted for the winner, Barack Obama, had unusually stable testosterone levels.
Females appeared unaffected in terms of testosterone, according to the study, by researchers at Duke University and the University of Michigan.
Men who participated in the study would normally show a slight night-time drop in testosterone levels anyway, according to the group. But on this night, they showed a dramatic divergence. Those who voted for the winning Democrat had their levels fall less than
usual; those who supported Republican John McCain or Libertarian
Bob Barr lost more than normal.
“This is a pretty powerful result,” said Duke neuroscientist Kevin LaBar. “Voters are
physiologically affected by having their candidate win or lose an election.” In a post-election questionnaire, the McCain and Barr backers described feeling significantly more unhappy, submissive, unpleasant and controlled than the Obama voters.
The findings echo what other studies have found in men who participate directly in an contest—the winner gets a testosterone boost, while the loser’s testosterone drops. But this study suggests that even vicarious participation in a “macro-scale” competition is enough to change hormone levels, said Duke post-doctoral scientist Steven Stanton, the first listed author on a paper on the findings published online in the research journal
PLOS One this week.
“Voters participate in elections both directly by casting their ballots, and vicariously because they don’t personally win or lose the election,” Stanton said. “This makes democratic political elections highly unique dominance contests.”
Testosterone is a steroid hormone manufactured by the testes that is linked to aggression, risk-taking and responses to threats. Women have it too but in much lesser amounts and originating from different sources, their ovaries and adrenal glands, which makes them less prone to experience rapid testosterone changes following victory or defeat.
The investigators had 183 men and women chew a piece of gum and then spit into a sample tube at 8 p.m. as the polls closed on Nov. 4 last year. When the election results were announced around 11:30 p.m., the subjects gave a second sample, and then two more at 20-minute intervals. Those samples were then analyzed for testosterone and related stress hormones.
Stanton said the scientific consensus suggests the testosterone response to fighting and competition in males affects their future behavior in a beneficial way. The loser chills out a bit so he doesn’t continue to press his case and perhaps become injured. In contrast, the winner may be motivated to pursue further gains in social status. “The research on this extends beyond humans and other primates,” Stanton said.
The study also looked at levels of cortisol in the spit samples, a stress hormone behind the “fight or flight” response, and is to discuss those findings in a forthcoming paper.
The college-aged men involved in this study would generally have more testosterone than older men, so perhaps the study provided a better opportunity to see the dominance response at work, LaBar said. “It would be interesting to see how this shakes out in older men.”
Hormonal shifts from vicarious competition are also likely to occur around hotly contested collegiate football and basketball contests, the researchers note. To find out, they plan to repeat this kind of study on Duke and University of North Carolina basketball fans during one of their games this winter. “They’ll spit before the game and spit after the game, and we’ll just see,” LaBar said.
* * *
Send us a comment
on this story, or send
it to a friend
|
||||
|
Young men who voted for the main losing candidates in the 2008 presidential election suffered a rapid drop in testosterone level when results came out, a new study indicates. At the same time, men who voted for the winner, Barack Obama, had unusually stable testosterone levels. Females appeared unaffected in terms of testosterone, according to the study, by researchers at Duke University and the University of Michigan. Men who participated in the study would normally show a slight night-time drop in testosterone levels anyway, according to the group. But on this night, they showed a dramatic divergence. Those who voted for the winning Democrat had their levels fall less than normally; those who supported Republican John McCain or Libertarian Robert Barr lost more than would have been expected. “This is a pretty powerful result,” said Duke neuroscientist Kevin LaBar. “Voters are physiologically affected by having their candidate win or lose an election.” In a post-election questionnaire, the McCain and Barr backers described feeling significantly more unhappy, submissive, unpleasant and controlled than the Obama voters. The findings echo what other studies have found in men who participate directly in an contest—the winner gets a testosterone boost, while the loser’s testosterone drops. But this study suggests that even vicarious participation in a “macro-scale” competition is enough to change hormone levels, said Duke post-doctoral scientist Steven Stanton, the first listed author on a paper on the findings published online in the research journal PLOS One this week. “Voters participate in elections both directly by casting their ballots, and vicariously because they don’t personally win or lose the election,” Stanton said. “This makes democratic political elections highly unique dominance contests.” Testosterone is a steroid hormone manufactured by the testes that is linked to aggression, risk-taking and responses to threats. Women have it too but in much lesser amounts and originating from different sources, their ovaries and adrenal glands, which makes them less prone to experience rapid testosterone changes following victory or defeat. The investigators had 183 men and women chew a piece of gum and then spit into a sample tube at 8 p.m. as the polls closed on Nov. 4 last year. When the election results were announced around 11:30 p.m., the subjects gave a second sample, and then two more at 20-minute intervals. Those samples were then analyzed for testosterone and related stress hormones. Stanton said the scientific consensus suggests the testosterone response to fighting and competition in males affects their future behavior in a beneficial way. The loser chills out a bit so he doesn’t continue to press his case and perhaps become injured. In contrast, the winner may be motivated to pursue further gains in social status. “The research on this extends beyond humans and other primates,” Stanton said. The study also looked at levels of cortisol in the spit samples, a stress hormone behind the “fight or flight” response, and is to discuss those findings in a forthcoming paper. The college-aged men involved in this study would generally have more testosterone than older men, so perhaps the study provided a better opportunity to see the dominance response at work, LaBar said. “It would be interesting to see how this shakes out in older men.” Hormonal shifts from vicarious competition are also likely to occur around hotly contested collegiate football and basketball contests, the researchers note. To find out, they plan to repeat this kind of study on Duke and University of North Carolina basketball fans during one of their games this winter. “They’ll spit before the game and spit after the game, and we’ll just see,” LaBar said.