The common wisdom on testosterone is that it contributes to risky and aggressive behavior, but new research reveals a different pattern. In a study, 121 women were dosed with testosterone or a placebo and then played the ultimatum bargaining game (see Chapter 3 of SuperFreakonomics for more than you ever wanted to know about Ultimatum). The results were counterintuitive: women given testosterone actually made higher initial offers in the bargaining game, resulting in less conflict and more efficient social interactions. The researchers attributed the results to “a desire of the testosterone group to maintain their images — by avoiding rejection — aligning with the so-called social status hypothesis.” [%comments]
Testosterone and the Ultimatum Game
TAGS: women
and 
. You can also watch it on 
So…If it comes out as suspected it confirms the old theory…if it doesn’t we have a reasonable explanation.
Therefore, the theory holds!!!!
Unbelievable that this stuff should even get into print.
I wish all those MBA grads who were taught the Ultimatum Game in class and went on to Wall St or leadership positions in the Republican Party would APPLY IT when thinking about executive compensation and tax policy. If they don’t start making a reasonable offer on both and rein in wealth inequality, we’re going to end up in some ugly political disaster instead of a moderate course correction.
What about the really interesting result of the study? If they thought that they’d been given testosterone, they behaved in a manner exactly opposite of the statement you’ve made there, because of the cultural perceptions behind it. Being able to test four categories (received testosterone/did not receive testosterone combined with thought did/thought didn’t) resulted in strong evidence of social perception on our biological processes.
In both categories, those who thought they had been given testosterone and those who were uncertain, those given testosterone made the larger initial offer. However, those who thought they were given testosterone in both comparisons behaved less fairly.
The strong, opposite perceived effect of testosterone, tested directly against its actual effect, is at least as interesting.
As far as Eli’s comment… the researchers eventually came up with a reasonable explanation for a result that ran counter to prevailing dogma, and I’m having trouble seeing a problem with that in the scientific sense. It’s a wonderfully simple and powerful result, for both perception and biology affecting our behavior.
What kind of women accept testosterone for an economics experiment? This isn’t cancer research. I would raise questions as to whether this group represents a random sample of society. Also, as the book brings up, would they behave similarly if they were not being watched?
The results seem pretty straightforward: testosterone makes women more fair and reasonable. Apparently, lack of testosterone is the answer to the musical question:
Why can’t a woman be more like a man?
Men are so honest, so thoroughly square;
Eternally noble, historically fair.
Who, when you win, will always give your back a pat.
Why can’t a woman be like that?
Giving more money = better odds of being perceived as generous = indicator of higher income and status = better chance of getting laid.
Welcome to manhood, ladies.
*throws wad of 100′s up in the air*
The most parsimonious interpretation of the data:
1. Women who received testosterone made offers that were more fair and reasonable.
2. Women who did not receive testosterone continued to make offers that were unfair.
3. Women who received testosterone were no more likely to accept offers from other women because, as newly reasonable people, they rejected the unfair offers that other women continued to make..
4. Women who thought they had received testosterone made offers that were even less fair than usual, because women (being unreasonable) incorrectly perceive men as being unfair; hence, they adjusted their behavior to conform to their incorrect perception.
I suppose what we need to know, in order to complete the circle, is whether women who received testosterone were more likely to accept offers made by women who received testosterone than by women who had not.
Which may explain why it takes a group of men about 10 seconds to figure out where to grab a drink, whereas with women…..something in the range of two hours.