MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001762103 · doi:10.1098/rspb.2011.0764

Men with elevated testosterone levels show more affiliative behaviours during interactions with women

2011· article· en· W2001762103 on OpenAlexaff
Leander van der Meij, Mercedes Almela, Abraham P. Buunk, Tim W. Fawcett, Alicia Salvador

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEvolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCourtshipCONTESTPsychologyAffect (linguistics)Developmental psychologyEye contactStimulus (psychology)Testosterone (patch)Social psychologyEndocrinologyMedicineCommunicationZoologyCognitive psychologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Testosterone (T) is thought to play a key role in male-male competition and courtship in many vertebrates, but its precise effects are unclear. We explored whether courtship behaviour in humans is modulated and preceded by changes in T. Pairs of healthy male students first competed in a non-physical contest in which their T levels became elevated. Each participant then had a short, informal interaction with either an unfamiliar man or woman. The sex of the stimulus person did not affect the participants' behaviour overall. However, in interactions with women, those men who had experienced a greater T increase during the contest subsequently showed more interest in the woman, engaged in more self-presentation, smiled more and made more eye contact. No such effects were seen in interactions with other men. This is the first study to provide direct evidence that elevating T during male-male competition is followed by increased affiliative behaviour towards women.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations78
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Royal Society B Biological SciencesSame topicEvolutionary Psychology and Human BehaviorFrench-language works237,207