|
By Andrew Novick
Evidence in animals (1) and Alzheimer’s patients (2) suggests
that androgens possess cognitive enhancing properties. However, very
few studies have investigated the role of testosterone on cognition
in healthy individuals. The difficulty in assessing these effects is
probably rooted in the idea that testosterone is a “social hormone,”
influencing behavior only when status is challenged or threatened
(3). Phrased another way by Wood, “testosterone amplifies the
reinforcing or aversive value of social behaviors, thereby serving
as an aid to discriminating successful and unsuccessful social
interactions.” (4) Taken together, testosterone should only affect
cognitive performance in healthy individuals when social status is
at stake or when the task is competitive in nature. Recent studies
have investigated this very concept.
When the Alpha Male Loses: Studies in Testosterone and
Cognitive Performance
“Where is the poet who has sung of that most lacerating of
all human emotions, the cut that never heals-male humiliation?”
-Tom Wolfe, I am Charlotte Simmons
A group at the University of Texas (3) published a 2005 study
investigating the relationship between testosterone levels,
cognitive performance, and social status. 88 college students (52
females, 36 males) were given salivary testosterone assays and told
that they would complete a task demonstrating “the effects of
individual variables on group functioning.” Before completing verbal
fluency and spatial ability tests, the students were primed for
status. One-third were told that they were picked to be the “leader”
of their group (high status), one-third the “follower” (low status)
and the remainder were given no information on status to act as a
control. To analyze the results, the researchers divided males and
females into “High T” and “low T” individuals.
The results showed no difference in performance between high T
and low T individuals when controlled for status. However, high
testosterone and status had significant consequences on cognitive
performance. Among high T individuals, leaders performed the best,
followed by controls and then followers. High T followers also
performed significantly worse compared to low T followers. These
results suggest that high T individuals have an increased
sensitivity to status. High status increases cognitive performance
in high T individuals, while low status impairs it. There was no
relationship between status and performance in the low T group,
suggesting that individuals with low testosterone levels do not
share such status sensitivity.
The authors also observed that high T individuals are impaired
more by low status than they are enhanced by high status. Couple
this with the earlier observation that low T/low status performed
significantly better than high T/low status, the question is raised,
“What is it about high testosterone and low status that’s such a big
deal?” It appears that high testosterone individuals are threatened
when placed in low status situations and have a desire to re-gain
high status. Their attention to status ends up distracting them and
wasting cognitive resources. The authors conclude, “Ironically,
then, the desire to regain high status may be the biggest obstacle
to regaining it – at least on a cognitive task.”
The same research group (5) also investigated the interaction of
“stereotype threat” and “stereotype challenge” with testosterone
levels and intellectual performance. Stereotypes are often
statements related to status in different areas (white men can’t
dance, black men are good at sports, etc). In the first study, a
group of male and female college students who scored high in “Math
Identification” were divided up into two groups. The first group was
asked to answer a questionnaire designed to prime the stereotype
that females possess weak math abilities. The second group received
a control questionnaire. As expected, only high testosterone females
exposed to the stereotype performed significantly worse than the
control group. The stereotype conferred a threat to status on the
high testosterone females, similar to being placed in the “follower”
group in the previous study. The decrease in performance in high
testosterone females also corresponded with an increase in anxiety
levels.
The second study gave male participants the opportunity to
confirm a positive stereotype and improve their status (rather than
having their current status threatened by refuting a negative
stereotype). Half of the participants were told that they were
taking a test that would only identify people of exceptional math
ability. The second group was told that it was taking a test that
would only identify people of weak math ability. High testosterone
males performed significantly better on the “exceptional ability”
test than on the “weak ability test.” Here, high testosterone
coupled with an opportunity to enhance status (exceptional ability
test) enabled individuals to “rise to the challenge.” In the absence
of a status enhancing opportunity (weak ability test), high
testosterone individuals seemed unconcerned with their performance.
Wolf et al (6) treated elderly men with 250mg of testosterone
enanthate and gave them both verbal and spatial cognitive tests both
before and 5 days after the injection. The testosterone treatment
blocked the practice effect on verbal fluency without affecting
other measures. In other words, the testosterone treated males
didn’t improve as much as expected from taking a test twice.
The relationship between testosterone and learning from a
repeated task was also investigated by Schultheiss, et al, (7) who
utilized another variable called “implicit power motive.” Implicit
power motive is the “nonconscious disposition to experience having
impact on others as rewarding.” Basically, there are two types of
power motives: personalized vs. socialized, with no difference in
baseline testosterone levels between the two. Individuals with
highly personalized implicit power motive receive reward from
asserting direct dominance over others (e.g. a boxer). Those with
highly socialized implicit power motive receive reward from having
impact through pro-social means (e.g. an artist).
Schultheiss found that when individuals with highly personalized
implicit power motive won a cognitive task against an opponent, not
only did their testosterone levels increase, but so did their
implicit learning: they unconsciously “learned” how to do the test
faster for the next time as if to assure future dominance. Those
with highly personalized implicit power motives who lost didn’t
experience any change in testosterone but their implicit learning
dropped significantly. It was as if defeat caused them to give-up,
or obsession with re-gaining status was too distracting. On the
other hand for those with highly socialized implicit power motive,
winning had little effect on testosterone or learning. But losing
did induce a significant drop in testosterone which correlated with
an increase in learning. Here, high testosterone appears
facilitative to learning when one is in high status (“winner”),
while low testosterone is facilitative to learning when one is in
low status (“loser”). However, both of these observations correspond
to different personality traits:
This research can be summarized by the following points:
- Individuals with high testosterone demonstrate sensitivity
to status.
- High testosterone facilitates cognitive performance when the
individual is in a high status position.
- High testosterone facilitates cognitive performance when the
individual is given the opportunity to enhance status
significantly (in a “challenging” rather than “threatening”
situation)
- High testosterone impairs cognitive performance when the
individual is in a low status position.
- Personality traits, such as amount and type of “implicit
power motive” affect both testosterone and learning in response
to cognitive competition.
#4 is perhaps the most interesting in that it makes a case for
the importance of testosterone plasticity instead of chronically
elevated levels. Most of us must endure various periods of
subordination and possibly some stereotype threat in order to
achieve our goals. Academia is one situation where the student is
often placed in a position of low status and expected to perform
cognitively. Paulo Freire, in his landmark work, Pedagogy of the
Oppressed, details how modern educational institutions set up a
dominant-subordinate relationship between teacher and student. And
while most college students probably wouldn’t complain of
overwhelming feelings of low status, being a successful student
often implies being an obedient student: following rules, meeting
deadlines, and giving a professor what he or she wants. Thus, it’s
possible that chronically high testosterone levels might lead to
frustration with low status rather than academic performance.
Instead, moderate testosterone levels that increase slightly with
academic mastery and decrease slightly with academic failure would
be ideal.
This puts anabolic steroid use in a new light. Supraphysiological
levels of androgens could impair cognitive performance in certain
scenarios and possibly prevent learning from failure, especially in
individuals who are already status sensitive and are motivated by
personalized implicit power. Similarly, the “nootropic” use of
androgens (short acting DHT derivatives and intranasal preparations)
may only work when the individual is in a high status position. For
example, a high-achieving, prepared student might benefit from
intranasal 5-alpha-androstanediol before an exam, but it might
actually be detrimental to a student with a history of poor
performance who hasn’t studied or been to class and is trying to
“wing” the exam.
There is no Spoon: The Relevance of Pre-Competition Appraisal
“Do not try and bend the spoon. That’s impossible.
Instead…only try to realize the truth.”
“What truth?”
“There is no spoon.”
“There is no spoon?”
“Then you will see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is
only yourself.”
-The Matrix
Astute readers might be thinking that this idea of “status” seems
very subjective. Shouldn’t an individual be able to conceive of
oneself as having “high status” despite external feedback to the
contrary (stereotype threat, being labeled a “follower”)? If the
individual had conceptual control over status, the idea of high
testosterone impairing cognitive ability would be moot. A more
controllable view of competitive appraisal is exactly the direction
that Alicia Salvador in her review “Coping with competitive
situations in humans” takes us (8).
For the past 15 years, Salvador’s research team has been
investigating hormonal and psychological responses to competition
and its outcome. There are some fundamental differences between her
studies and the cognitive studies above. An advantageous difference
is that Salvador’s team uses a reciprocal hormonal model instead of
a baseline one. They measure how certain behaviors and outcomes
affect testosterone levels and how testosterone levels affect
certain behaviors and outcomes. A not so advantageous difference
(for relating the findings to the above studies) is that the
research is done on physical sports competitions rather than
cognitive ones. Nonetheless, Salvador’s conclusions suggest that the
cognitive impairing effect of high testosterone might be prevented
by certain coping strategies. Her conclusions also suggest that
testosterone levels in response to competition can also be
manipulated by coping strategy.
Mazur, one of the founders of testosterone biosocial research,
presented the original reciprocal relationship involving
testosterone and agonistic encounters. In a competition between two
individuals, the winner would most likely be the one who had the
higher testosterone levels to begin with. In response to winning,
his testosterone levels would rise further ensuring future
dominance. Similarly, the loser’s testosterone levels would drop,
facilitating future submission.
While Mazur’s hypothesis sometimes holds true for humans engaged
in sports, it’s difficult to re-create. Salvador argues that the
mere outcome (winning or losing) has little relation to testosterone
levels. Hormonal responses are instead mediated by complex
psychological processes. Testosterone levels before a competition
are correlated with rank, previous wins, and desire to win (status,
motivation). An increase in testosterone in response to winning is
largely dependent on how positively the winner appraised himself.
Was the win due to his performance or an external factor? Only
winners who had high levels of internal attribution (“blaming”
themselves for good performance) experienced significant increases
in testosterone.
Salvador concludes that victory and increases in testosterone are
most likely if the individual positively appraises the competition
and takes an active coping strategy. In the appraisal, the
competitor asks, “Is this competition important to me? What is the
relevance to my sense of status? How prepared am I? Do the demands
of this situation meet my resources?” The answers to these questions
will determine whether the competition appears as a “challenge”
(important to status, resources are greater than demands) or a
“threat” (important to status but demands are greater than
resources). Viewing the competition as a challenge will ultimately
enable a positive stress response with active coping, increases in
testosterone, and a controlled cortisol response. In Salvador’s own
words:
Conscious or unconscious thoughts of the individual will
ultimately determine the coping behavior. If the individual
‘appraises’ the situation as important for him/her and dependent
on him/her, and he/she has resources to control it, the
probabilities of employing an active strategy increase. This
coping response includes increases in T (especially in an
aggressive/competitive situation) and SNS activation.
So the million dollar question is: if the high testosterone
“followers” in the original study and the stereotyped high
testosterone females in the second study had employed a positive
appraisal, could they have avoided impairment? It’s possible,
although Salvador does admit that both unconscious and conscious
thoughts control appraisal and coping. But if the high testosterone
female subjected to stereotype threat were to consciously appraise
the situation such that she ended up feeling challenged instead of
threatened, it’s possible she might have overcome some cognitive
impairment. Reminding herself of superior math preparation, previous
success and expertise could secure feelings of high status. To
convince herself of the invalidity of the presented stereotype, she
might try conjuring up images of successful female mathematicians
and inferior males. However, some might argue that the unconscious
effects of stereotype threat would trump such efforts.
In conclusion, testosterone has a dual effect on cognitive
performance. It increases performance when the individual is in a
high status position or given the opportunity to enhance status.
Similarly, testosterone can impair cognitive performance when the
individual is forced into a low status position or has his/her
status threatened. Both of these effects are due to the relationship
between testosterone and status sensitivity. High testosterone
individuals have a need for high status and experience anxiety when
that status is threatened or taken away. Such anxiety, while
evolutionarily beneficial for re-gaining status in nature, can be
distracting for re-gaining status through cognitive means. Some of
the effects of testosterone on status sensitivity and cognitive
performance are personality type dependent and might be manipulated
by consciously appraising the situation and employing different
coping strategies.
This article was originally published August 12, 2005 at
http://www.mindandmuscle.net)
References
- Frye CA, Seliga AM. Testosterone increases analgesia,
anxiolysis, and cognitive performance of male rats. Cogn Affect
Behav Neurosci. 2001 Dec;1(4):371-81.
- Cherrier MM, Matsumoto AM, Amory JK, Asthana
S, Bremner W, Peskind ER, Raskind MA, Craft S. Testosterone
improves spatial memory in men with Alzheimer disease and mild
cognitive impairment. Neurology. 2005 Jun 28;64(12):2063-8.
- Newman ML, Sellers JG, Josephs RA.
Testosterone, cognition, and social status. Horm Behav. 2005
Feb;47(2):205-11. Epub 2004 Dec 19
- Wood RI. Reinforcing aspects of androgens.
Physiol Behav. 2004 Nov 15;83(2):279-89.
- Josephs RA, Newman ML, Brown RP, Beer
JM. Status, testosterone, and human intellectual performance:
stereotype threat as status concern. Psychol Sci. 2003
Mar;14(2):158-63.
- Wolf OT, Preut R, Hellhammer DH, Kudielka BM,
Schurmeyer TH, Kirschbaum C. Testosterone and cognition in
elderly men: a single testosterone injection blocks the practice
effect in verbal fluency, but has no effect on spatial or verbal
memory. Biol Psychiatry. 2000 Apr 1;47(7):650-4.
- Schultheiss OC, Rohde W. Implicit power
motivation predicts men's testosterone changes and implicit
learning in a contest situation. Horm Behav. 2002
Mar;41(2):195-202.
- Salvador A. Coping with competitive
situations in humans. Neurosci Biobehav
Rev. 2005 Feb;29(1):195-205. Epub 2004 Dec 13.
© 2005 Par Deus Inc. All Rights Reserved. Reprinted with
permission. |
