Not giving up: Testosterone promotes persistence against a stronger opponent
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent research suggests that when we lack a sense of control, we are prone to motivational failures and early quitting in competitions. Testosterone, on the other hand, is thought to boost competitiveness. Here we investigate the interaction between these factors, testing the testosterone's potential to enhance persistence in a competition against a stronger opponent, depending on experimentally manipulated perceived control. Healthy participants were administered a single dose of testosterone or placebo. They first underwent a task designed to either induce low or high perceived control and then entered a costly competition against a progressively stronger opponent that they could quit at any time. In the placebo group, men with low perceived control quitted twice as early as those with high perceived control. Testosterone countered this effect, making individuals with low control persist in the competition for as long as those with high perceived control, and did so also despite raising participants' explicit awareness of the opponents' advantage. This psychoendocrinological effect was not modulated by basal cortisol levels, CAG repeat polymorphism of the androgen receptor gene, or trait dominance. Our results provide the first causal evidence that testosterone promotes competitive persistence in humans and demonstrate that this effect depends on the psychological state elicited prior to the competition, broadening our understanding of the complex relationships between testosterone and social behaviors.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".