Effect of exogenous testosterone on cooperation depends on personality and time pressure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The social heuristic hypothesis posits that human cooperation is an intuitive response that is expressed especially under conditions of time-constraint. Conversely, it proposes that for individuals given an opportunity for reflection, cooperation is more likely to be curtailed by an optimizing process calibrated to maximize individual benefit in a given situation. Notably, the steroid hormone testosterone has also been implicated in intuitive decision-making, including both prosocial and anti-social behaviors, with effects strongest in men with particular dispositional characteristics. This raises the possibility that increased testosterone may augment the effects predicted by the social heuristic hypothesis, particularly among men higher in specific dispositional characteristics (dominance, impulsivity, independent self-construal: high risk for testosterone-induced antisocial behavior). Here, in a testosterone administration study with a relatively large sample of men (N = 400), we test this possibility in a double-blind, placebo-controlled paradigm, with men randomly assigned to play a one-shot public goods game either under time-pressure (forced intuition) or with a time delay (forced reflection). Results revealed that within the placebo group, time-pressure (versus forced delay) increased cooperation among low risk men, but decreased cooperation among high risk men. Testosterone further moderated this pattern by abolishing the time-pressure effect in low risk men and-in high risk men-reversing the effect by selectively reducing offers (compared to placebo) under forced delay. This is the first evidence that testosterone and personality can interact with time-pressure and delay to predict human cooperation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".