We also omitted nonhuman studies unless they are especially
pertinent. While the nonhuman literature is large and instructive,
and is a good source of hypotheses, it is difficult to extrapolate
to humans because of cultural, social, cognitive and physiological
I agree that due to looking at testosterone in humans it is best to
stick to studying humans due to the vast differences to other humans,
and even within humans it is best to stick to looking at the "norm"
rather than those who differ to the general population, because these
differences may affect dominance. But I do think that perhaps it is
interesting to look at testosterone and dominance in monkeys, because
their genetic make up is 99% the same as humans. So their may be
similarities or interesting comparisons to make.
A related issue is whether paper and pencil tests adequatley measure
dominance behaviour. Our view is that usually they do not;
therefore, we have discounted several published failures to link T
to dominance as measured by such tests. Obviously, giving more
credence to these tests weakens our case for the T-behaviour link.
I agree with Mazur on the adequacy of pencil and paper tests
to measure dominance behaviour. Throughout the course here at
Southampton, in Stats lectures and when doing practicals, the
literature on using self-report metods of measurement always says how
it is not as reliable as more objective measures. Subjects may give
socially desireable answers, want to please the experimentor etc.
Therefore behavioural measures may be more appropriate. But, saying
that, one of the commentries reported about the development of the
"Big Five Persionality Test" which can be reliably and validly
measured. There is less variability due to experimental/random error
than behavioural measures. But will it prevent subjects reporting
socially desirable answers?
In the basal model, we hypothesize that T related behaviour may be
muted and rarely accompanied by aggression when there is heavy
parental investment early in the individuals life as was suggested
by Archer. Early parental investment may be a pivotal factor in
explaining why many men with high T have succesful marriages and
careers. That is they handle challenges with equinamity and
pro-social behaviour rather than dominance. Part of the reason they
are successful is that they properly read the social cues, a trait
related to early parental investment.
I agree that heavy parental investment may explain why many men with
high T have successfiul marriages and careers. But, how heavy is
heavy parental investment? Most parents put in a lot to their child,
particularly their first child, teaching them rights from wrongfs and
how to act in social situations. Children may learn from their
parents. Despite this heavy invetsment, they may watch their parents
who may be aggressive and dominan and copy them. Their parents may
have put in alot of parental investment, but if they taught their
child to be dominant, then they probably will be. Or if the child
had passive parents, he may still end up being dominant, rebelling
against his passive parents (I'm not qiute sure if I've got the
wrong end of the stick about the term 'parental investment').
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Feb 13 2001 - 16:23:21 GMT