There are many factors to determine the performance of an individual in a competition. Besides skill, biological influence and environment influences are also the factor that able to determine the performance. However, one popular explanation has focused on the role played by individual differences, which is the hormone testosterone level that differ in every individual. Testosterone has been associated with higher performance on spatial tests (Hampson, 1990)
The predominant assumption has been that this hormone influences cognition neuroanatomically, by shaping developing brain structures and/or by activating these structures after puberty (Christiansen, 1998)
Hormone is a peptide that is secreted into the bloodstream from a gland that act on specific organ that as a chemical signal that able to manage homeostasis. There are many effect that can be done by hormones as well such the mood control and other physiological and mental respond.
The respond exerted by the hormonal are called hormonal respond, men and women share different in the type of hormone secreted, some are only found in a very little amount in women while some are found in a higher amount in men, such as the hormone testosterone. Due to this reason, different characteristic and performance in a competition of men and women are able to be observed beside the fact that the physiology aspect of women who is weaker than a men. Hormones that play the major role in controlling this respond is mainly the testosterone and cortisol.
In order to find out the out the different body physiological respond on men and women in a competition, many studies of this hormonal respond has done on a sporting event because the setting of sporting events are highly organized and also well monitored so that the measurement of the competitors performance able to be made clear, and thus the study of hormonal response works well (Archer, 2004). Testosterone levels will also be associated with different behavioural profiles among men, this including the way a men react to a challenge and also the aggressiveness of a men as testosterones play the role in controlling the male aggression. Apart from this, the hormone testosterone may also contribute to one men's self-esteem. With this, we can know that there are actually many factor that will manipulate these act like aggressiveness and self-esteem, the factor inside our body are plays an important role as well other than the real factor such as ecological condition (Archer, 2004 and Daly & Wilson, 1988).
Apart from testosterone that being the main character of this review, cortisol are another hormone that believe to have similar impact on human hormonal response in competition too.
Cortisol secretion increases in response to physical and psychological stress and it control an individual on whether is it to 'fight' or to 'flight' towards a challenge in a competition, it enable us to physically fight or run away when faced with danger. High amount of hormone cortisol in and individual will develop characteristic such as low esteem and depressed mood. This hormone act in an opposite way with testosterone as high level of cortisol may actually cause an individual to choose another style of respond towards a challenge in a competition. This is the 'tend and befriend' model of respond towards stress and it is only found in women. This is mainly due to the amount of cortisol in women during a competition are slightly different in men. While for men, testosterone will become the major hormone controlling their resction.during the fight or flight response, which is why it's sometimes called 'the stress hormone' (Booth, 1989).
According to the biosocial theory, heightened Testosterone will increases in competitiveness and dominance behaviour (Mazur & Mazur, 1998). Many research has found that the testosterone level is heightened before and after a game match in many player, the incretion of the hormone testosterone level is in related to the behaviour of aggressiveness and the willingness to win or challenged after the match has finish. Furthermore, the winning and losing of the match or the result of a match has also become one of the factor of causing this hormone testosterone to be either raised or lowered. This may relate the hormone testosterone with the self-esteem too while the player self-esteem of getting back his pride of winning.
Along the year, the role of testosterone and cortisol has involved a number of studies. Those studies include wrestling, tennis, chess, judo and rugby, as well as on competitive tasks in laboratory settings (e.g. Gladue et al., 1989 B. Gladue, M. Boechler and K. McCaul, Hormonal response to competition in human males, Aggressive Behavior 15 (1989), pp. 409-422. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (58)Gladue et al., 1989 and Mazur et al., 1997). Most of the time is to generate a theoretical model that link the status of gaining, maintaining, and losing with dominance behaviour and stress (Mazur, 1985).
The purpose of studying the human hormonal respond regarding testosterone, cotisol and some other factor will lead to the knowledge of the human biosocial model as it involve the gaining, maintaining and losing status. This is actually can be put together with a study of human physiological act towards challenges and stress.
Ego of oneself is also an issue to be concerned regarding the study of testosterone and competition behaviour. Research with humans and a wide variety of animal species suggests that individuals higher in baseline testosterone are more driven to gain and maintain status; and more responsive to information about their status in a situation. Behaviors intended to achieve, maintain, and enhance status are observed primarily among high-T animals. It is usual to observe the player in one game out-stress their opponent and dominant behaviour such as staring, gestures or speech threatening, physical aggression or making a superior play might able to be observed from these competitors. This observation between the androgens and the dominance behaviour has also become one issue to be studied as it also affected by the hormone testosterone. However, cortisol are included in the study of human hormonal respond towards competitions too. Cortisol is playing an important role of equipping a human body towards a stressful condition and the stressful condition in this context will be the competition or the stress given by opponent. Cortisol increases allow them for better action while lower cortisol level indicating more resilience to stressful situation (Stansbury & Gunnar, 1994). However, men and women are different in this responds as the level of cortisol and testosterone are different when facing stress (Jeffcoate et al., 1986 and Scaramella and Brown, 1978).
Sex differences in hormonal responses to competition involve many factors. As we can see, there are actually a number of fact that differentiate the hormonal respond on male and female in a competition. It is crucial as well in a way that the differences might seen similar from the effect of aggression but the production of hormone inside our body and also which hormone to be produced in a competition are far more different in a female from male (Taylor et al., 2000). One of it is the differences in response to challenges. Study also suggested that women adopt a different response pattern than men to challenges and stress. (Taylor et al., 2000). This different in a general way may said as a more 'defensive' way. That it is actually compromised with the effect of hormone that different in between men and women too.
In a nut shell, there are many study has described about the level of cortisol and testosterone differ during a competition and how it affect. Beside of this, how this hormone is influences the performance of a men and a women and whether higher level of the hormone present is promoting the performance in a competition will be a very interesting issue to be studied or explored and to be applied.
Testosterone and competition
Role of testosterone
A testosterone is a 17-beta-hydroxy-4-androstene-3-one chemical substance or a sex hormone produced by the testes that encourage the development of male sexual characteristics such as beard growing, deep voice and also strengthen muscle and bone mass and stimulates the activity of the male secondary sex characteristics. This is due to the effect of androgens because the testosterone is naturally occurring androgens.
Testosterone is made in small amounts by the adrenal glands in both men and women while in men, it is made in large amounts by the testicles and ovaries in women.
The testosterone in boy before puberty is normally low and it increases during the puberty and this causing them to develop a deeper voice, get bigger muscles, make sperm and get facial and body hair. The level of testosterone is much more like a graph of increasing and decreasing gradually, and it peaks at the age of 40 and gradually decreases when a men becoming older.
High testosterone levels are corresponded with aggressiveness and daring in risky behaviour, however high level of testosterones will promote good health in men on the other hand, such as lowering the risks of heart attack and high blood pressure. In women, the testosterones are made by the ovaries and they have much lesser amount of testosterone in their body in compared with men. The concentration of testosterone can have certain effects on the mood and behaviour of humans. There is evidence saying that aggression is modulated by certain biological factor, although aggression might affected by variety of influences too (Kreuz & Rose, 1972).
When interact with androgen receptors, Testosterones spontaneously will converted into 5-alpha-dihydrosterone on in other hand, interact with estrogens receptor, it change into estradial by aromatise. During development, testosterone serves to 'sensitize' particular neural circuits in the brain. This particular development period are so called as "critical time period". This sensitization however will allow the effects of testosterone which manifest in adulthood. However, the idea that testosterone leads to the establishment of "androgen-responsive system" after birth applied in male but this however for female, the story goes other way round which it is presumed that similar androgen system is set-up in females but the exposure of androgen is greater in female in order to induce the male-like fighting.(Simpson & Katherine, 2001)
In this review, however we are focus more on the role of testosterone over the effect of aggression. There are various forms of aggression which has been classified into predatory, intermale, fear-induced, irritable, territorial, maternal and instrumental (Moyer, 1968), and this however for aggression, only certain forms of androgens are found to be affected on it, for example, intermale aggression which can be illustrated by the resident-intruder test. Conversely, some other aggression responses are entirely independent of androgens such as predatory. Therefore, the forms of aggression that found to be related or facilitated by testosterone only will be discussed in this review too. While on the another hand, gender has also play a role in determining the role of this hormone that cause hormonal response on competition, as the differences in the effect induced by testosterone are apparent in between men and women. The reason of causing the differences will be discussed later in this review as well (Bermond et al., 1982).
The main function of hormones are actually not taking part in the neural activity, but the neural activity can be modulated as a result of the presence of hormones. This can be shown by certain hormones that which able to modify the cell permeability, as a result it build a crucial impact on the membrane potential, ion concentration, synaptic transmission and this literally modifies the neural communication and the behavioural outcome as well. (Rubin, 1987) This can be shown from the effect of 5-HT (5-dyhroxytryptamine), a serotonin receptor that contain a G-protein that will inhibit aggression in function. There are experiment showing that testosterones will acts on serotonergics synapses and thus lowering the amount of 5-dyhydroxytryptamine and lowering the chances of 5-dyhroxytryptamine viability for synaptic transmission (Rubin, 1989).
Effect of Hormones in male and female
There are actually few effects induce by the hormones to our body from physiological aspects to behavioural aspects. In this review, what we are going to focus is the effects bring by the hormones on behavioural of humans toward competition. The major hormones that we are going to focus is the hormone testosterone, but in some other view, study shown another hormone also involve in bringing effect on human behaviour in competition, which is the hormone cortisol. Among birds and mammals, one widespread mechanism that increases the readiness of males to fight during phases of the life-history when reproductive opportunities are greatest is the action of testosterone on areas of the brain controlling aggressive behaviour (Archer, 1988)
In this review, the effect that we all keep mentioning around is actually the effect of aggression. This behaviour have found as the major influence towards the result of winning and losing in a competition. And furthermore, it is different in both male and female in some certain aspect. In 1849, Bertold describe behavioural changes in cockerel after castration and how this effect were replaced or said to be reversed when the testes were replaced. Studies has shown also the injection of testosterone increased the competitive or intermale aggression in rats, mice, monkeys or even humans and this were reduced by the castration (Archer, 1988).
As well as male, female do have aggression as they do produces testosterone in their body. However, the testosterone were facilitating this event were related to a dose-dependent manner. Studies show that, those which were given the daily injection of testosterone, estradiol or a placebo in a ovariectomized female rats has an increase in aggressiveness, this was measured by the frequency of fighting, and this is vice versa in those female rats that given a placebo. Generally, the aggression in both female rats and a male rats were quite similar in the way of pattern as we can see the ovariectomy without hormone replacement decreased interfemale fighting and replacement of gonadal testosterone stimulated it (Archer et al., 2005)
But this however, it is to believe from the author that hormones are not sufficient to activate the neural circuitry that is required for aggression but its persistence is required and is essential.
Relation of hormone and behaviour
The link of hormones and behaviour is very complex. Contemporary behavioural endocrinologist assume that this link is not as simple as a biological 'cause-and-effect' mechanism, while in other way round rather describe as a bi-directional association in which intrinsic individual differences in social perception, propensity for specific behaviorr, previous experience, and as well as the demand or 'press' of the social context for particular behaviour is highly dependent.
It is not true to said that hormones themselves are mechanism that cause or create behaviour. But however, it is to believe that the hormonal changes is closely related to increase the likelihood that specific behaviours will be expressed if the propensity for that behavior already exists and the expression of that behavior is consistent with social contextual demands. The 'mechanisms' linking testosterone and behavior toward personal, social, and contextual variables rather than biological processes, for examples: binding globulins, regulation of receptor subtypes and signal transduction has been focussed by this biosocial perspective. In order to understand what hormone are associated to what behaviour, first, we have to know what is the circumstances that the certain hormone will bring to out body and yet know the its effect on the changing of behaviour. In a nut shell, is to better understand how the process or reaction of the hormone effect to our body and soon changes our bahavior and understand what hormone causing what behaviour and how they link (Mazur, 1985).
This so called effect in a proper way was also known as biobehavioral response, in which how the biological change inside a body effect human's behaviour. In Mazur, it has proved that the biobehavioral responses of men and women compete in similar circumstances is different. However, the previous experiment also defined with social affiliation as concept integrally linked to individual differences in biobehavioral responses to competition. In practical way, it has revealed that under the study of different time of a day, the hormonal responses to competition might different too (Mazur, 1985).
Differences of women hormonal response in competition
Differences testosterone in women
To study the differences of the hormonal respond in a competition between men and women, we have to start the investigation from the root, which is the source that causes this respond. As we all know from previous review, testosterone is not just so called 'men hormone'. Women do produce testosterone in their body as well but just are different in some aspect. These aspect is the point the causes that differ everything such as the reaction towards the competition, the different characteristic and also the dominant behaviour in a women.
The daily production of testosterone in healthy young premenopausal women is approximately 300 g per day, about 5% of the daily production in men so women actually produce five to seven times less testosterone, a hormone that acts to develop the male brain for aggressive or dominant behavior in many species, than men (Nelson, 2000). Apart from this is that the source of testosterone of men and women are difference. Men testosterone are derived from the activation of hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis while for women, the major source of testosterone is derived from the peripheral metabolism of dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) (Parker, 1991). This became the main reason that women have a different pattern of relationship between the testosterone, cortisol and aggression in a competition than the men.
Testosterone is the most active androgen and it binds to the androgen receptor which is distributed widely throughout the body including the central nervous system, the limbic and cortical tissue. During embryonic development, the testosterone in women is involved in the differentiation of the brain and sexual organs. This differentiation however will change to the ovaries when during the puberty. While for men, the testosterone is metabolized within the male brain regionally to estradiol with the enzyme aromatase, this amoungts present higher in hypothalamus than cortex. Androgen receptors are identified in cortex, pituitary , hypothalamus, preoptic region, thalamus, amygdala and brain stem and androgen will effect the sexual behavior, libido, temperature control, sleep control, assertiveness, cognitive function, learning capacities, visual spatial skills and language fluency. So the differences in this androgen hormone on men and women are definitely will affect the responses as well too (Weinbauer et al., 1998).
Different response pattern in women
There are only one study that examined the competition and hormone change in women which is carefully controlled among other.
Along the year, numbers of study has done based on men but not women. In the Video-game contest (Mazur et al., 1997), neither the anticipatory increases nor significant reponses were reported. In sport competition such as the rugby team in (Bateup et at., 2001) and soccer players (D.A. Edwards & K. Wetzel, 2002), there were significant differences depending on winning or losing have been found. .
According to Taylor at al, the biobehavioral response to stress or challenge is different between men and women. The key to study in this issue is the primary human stress response which has been characterized as the 'fight-or-flight' response. With relation to this, in Taylor et al., 2000, they have shown an evidence that men and women share this fight-or-flight response on their psychological lever but however, they have their differences in their behavioural stress response. Apart from these findings, they suggest that when men act toward the stress or challenges, they are actually only either fight or flee. Women, on the other hand, they are not only either choosing fight or flight, but they also tend to engage in another response which is the 'tend-or-befriend' behavioural response. As mentioned before in this literature review, the tending refers to nurturing activities that happen when there is offspring nearby while befriending refers to the building and the maintenance of social relationships in order to reduce the stress, which means women actually shown enhanced social cognition as well. (Taylor et al., 2000).
On year 2002, Bateup et al has done a research on the level of testosterone and cortisol in women's competition. The behaviour relationship of the hormone testosterone and cortisol were studied by number of researcher along the year among the male competitor. This however would never find out the difference between the hormonal response between male and female as there were far less study base on female competitors. So, Bateup has done this study which was investigate base on the members of a nationally recognized college women's rugby team.
Seventeen member of a university women's rugby team ages from 18 until 22 years old has been given informed to participate in the research. All of them were the varsity players who had participated in the National Under-23 Tournament or other regional all-star competitions. They have play the rugby for at least one previous season. The player competed for the entire 80-min period for which complete behavioral and salivary data were available.
Four-item scale of aggressive competitiveness were derived. We derived a four-item scale of aggressive competitiveness. Two items asked subjects to rate the degree to which they agreed or disagreed with the following statements: "I play rugby because I enjoy aggressive contact" and "I play rugby because I enjoy competing." One question asked them to indicate the kind of person they were by deciding where they fall on a pair of contradictory characteristics: "very aggressive/not at all aggressive." In another item, players were asked to rate how they felt about contact during the game on a five-point scale, ranging from "I love contact situations/I always look for them during the game" to "I'm very uncomfortable in contact situations/I often avoid them." Appropriate items were reverse-coded so that higher scores represented more aggressiveness. Bonding was assessed from a five-point agree-disagree item that stated "I play rugby because I enjoy having teammates and bonding." Seventy percent of the players strongly agreed with the statement. Those who strongly agreed were coded 1, others, 0. Potential challenge posed by the opposing team was obtained from the team captain and was based on past performance of the team with respect to other opponents as well as the challenge they posed to the team we studied. Athlete's skill was marked by player rank and number of seasons played. Player rank was determined by the team captain in consultation with the coach. Higher numbers represented lower rank.
Pregame mental state was obtained from the following questions: "Rate how much the following statements describe your current state. I am focused and concentrating on the match. I am excited and looking forward to playing. I am fearful and anxious about playing." Players scored themselves as follows: 1=not at all, 2=a little bit, 3=somewhat, 4=quite a bit, and 5=a lot.
Postgame perception was also obtained immediately following the game. The following question was responded by the players assessed their performance: (1) "Regardless of the outcome, how would you rate your performance today compared to what it usually is? A lot better than I usually play, Somewhat better than usual, About the same, Not quite as good, A lot worse than I usually do?" Personal contribution to the game was assessed with the question: "How much do you feel that your play contributed to or caused the outcome of the match? Not very much at all, a little bit, quite a bit, or a lot?" We measured the players' estimate of the challenge created by the opponent during the game on a three-point scale: "Was your opponent as good as you thought they would be? (1) They gave us more of a struggle than we expected, (2) they played at the level we expected, (3) they were not as challenging as we thought they would be."
The sample were collected by giving the player to chew piece of sugarless Original Flavor Trident gum and expectorate through a plastic straw into a 20-ml collection vial. Saliva samples were collected immediately after, 24 hour before the "baseline", and 15 min before after five league games. Samples were transported on ice to the Penn State Behavioral Endocrinology Laboratory and stored frozen at -20 C until assay. On the day of testing, all samples were centrifuged at 3000 rpm for 10 min to remove mucins. The clear sample was pipetted into appropriate testing wells or tubes. Samples were screened for problems with low pH; samples testing outside the pH range of 4-9 were diluted in PBS to correct pH prior to testing (Schwartz et al, 1998). All samples were assayed for salivary cortisol using a highly sensitive enzyme immunoassay and assayed for salivary testosterone using a double antibody radioimmunoassay for total serum testosterone, following (Granger, D, Schwartz, E., Booth, A. and Arentz, M., 1999. Salivary testosterone determination in studies of child health and development. Hormones and behavior 35, pp. 8-27.Granger et al, 1999).
Result shown that both the testosterone and cortisol levels were increased during the anticipation of matches and during the postgame stage, both testosterone and cortisol were higher than the pregame stage.
The study found that the relation between the testosterone and cortisol production are in response to aggressive and physical competition among women. There are actually some similarity in both men and women that their level of the testosterone and the cortisol are actually related to their performance. This however, they different when men's rise tempered by the magnitude of the threat posed by the opponent. Moreover, men and women differ in their hormonal response to winning and losing. There are also many but not all male winner experience increase in the testosterone and mean while the loser shown decresed in this hormone.
Women however experience rise in the hormone testosterone during the competition which is greater than men's. They found that this actually doesn't related to neither self-evaluation of performance nor winning and losing while conversely, the changes of cortisol are related to the outcome of contest, in which the female winner shows lower cortisol than the loser. This does not occur among friend. Taylor et al. (2000). This suggest that the lower level of cortisol associated with winning in females show a better managing of challenges in competition effectively so that high cortisol level doesn't interfere with the conciliatory behaviour during the match with other teammates of opponent.
The parental investment may lead the women to choose the different response pattern than a men during toward challenges and stress. Taylor suggest that women's response to challenges may be more defensive in nature than men's, which they characterize as a "tend-and-befriend" strategy to differentiate it from the "fight-or-flight" response attributed to men. The fight in this context in mean by putting their offspring in danger, flight in another hand is interfering their offspring, this effect often is concede by the pregnancy. The tending in the 'tend-and-befriend' is the nurturing activities that intended to protect and also give the offspring a better habitat while befriending is by building and also maintaining a good networks that will provide the source of food and the protection of itself and their offspring as well. Taylor suggest that the typical low levels of testosterone in an adult females state that the androgens are actually no necessarily the factor of organizing the formation of tend-and-befriend response. (Taylor et al., 2000)
Apart from the study of Taylor, in which stated that women will have another response pattern which is the 'tend-and-befriend'. In a recent study done by Stroud et al. has gained me new information about the differences responses on men and women towards competition. In their study, they have found the mechanism that actually is the main contribution the the differences of hormonal response in men and women towards competition. The mechanism mean is the HPA responses and in their study, they have included not only the stress or challenges as an aspect of stressors, but also the social rejection. This is mainly due to the result that they found women actually apart from demonstrating responses to stress, one of the different from men responses is they demonstrating greater increases in cortisol when responses to social rejection challenges. (Stroud et al., 2002)
In the study of Stroud et al., they examined the sex differences in the HPA responses of men and women towards the social rejection and the achievement stress healthy subjects as preliminary investigation into HPA stress responses. They found that the male subject basically show greater differences in the adrenocortical responses to achievement challenge. The increases of cortisol on responses to challenges also showed higher than women. (Stroud et al., 2002)
In another study done by Cyranowski and Taylor, they found that the actually some other factors such as the depression and interpersonal consequences are actually contributing in the sex differences responses as well (Cyranowski & Taylor, 2000).
In the study of Stroud et al., suggested that physiologically, women are more reactive to negative interpersonal events than men and this greater reactivity of rejection challenge also explain their high rates of depression which in 2 to 3 times to those of men, it has been characterised as a pattern of extreme sensitivity to interpersonal rejection by American Psychiatric Association 1994. This suggests that women may not only use interpersonal strategies to cope with stress but also show greater physiologic responses to interpersonal events. (Stroud et al., 2002)
The study of Kirschbaum also shown an apparent differences in men and women hormonal responses in the way that the level of cortisol produced when they are facing challenges. However, it is not only men's greater increases in cortisol in response to the achievement stressor becoming the main reason that differs the sex differences hormonal response, but women's minimal response to this potent stressor and the lack of variability in their responses (Kirschbaum, 1999).
To explain the point that the study of Stroud where women demonstrating greater responses to social rejection challenges is that the stressors in Stroud is different from the examination done by Kirschbaum in the way Stroud stressors in witnessed by only one experimenter and an audio tape which allowed female subjects to disengage from the tasks while the Kirschbaum stressors is performing in front of three judges with a video camera, less disengagement are allowed. Study show that male subject in another way, withdrawn more interaction than female, they way that female subjects responses to achievement stressor and male subjects responses to the rejection stressor are basically might due to the variability in cortisol responses (Kirschbaum, 1993).
Apart from this, women's greater interpersonal orientation and men's greater instrumental orientation has emerged as one of the most consistent findings in the literature on sex differences in personality. In the study of my review by Feingold, he state that women has a higher tender-mindedness and extroversion, which is quite similar to the statement of Taylor's 'tend-and'befriend' response pattern (Feingold, 1994). Similary another study by Cross and Madson also suggested that men are more to maintain an independent self-construal, in which their unique abilities and the distinguishing of self from others, whereas women tend to maintain an interdependent self-construal, in which stress largely on their relationships and pursuit of harmony (interpersonal concerns) (Cross & Madson, 1997).
Hormonal response in competition
Relation of testosterone and cortisol to hormonal response
View Within Article
From the figure 3 above showing the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) and hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal (HPG) axes; structures involved, hormonal cascades and their functional interrelations makes it easier to understand that, the hormone cortisol and also the hormone testosterone has their different way of acting direction. During a stressful event, the HPA axis is activated. The adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) are produced and secreted in the pituitary gland. This production and secretion is initiated by the hormones released in the hypothalamus which is the Corticoltropin-releasing hormone (CRH) and arginine vasopressin (AVP). The production and secretion of adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) in the pituitary gland will facilitates the production of glucocorticoids and also the main character which is the cortisol hormone in the adrenal gland.
The production of the testosterone in another hand, involves the HPG axis, in the reproductive and immune systems. Testosterone production are induced by the luteinizing hormone (LH) and the follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) that has been transported to the gonads, the production and secretion of this two hormones are stimulated by the Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) thas is secreted in the hypothalamus that transported to the pituitary gland where the two hormones produced. (Johnson et al., 1992)
As shown as figure above, testosterone inhibits HPA functioning at the hypothalamic level by decreasing AVP functioning (Viau, 2002), while cortisol has inhibits all the three levels of the HPG axis.
During a sport event, an individual might put themselves under a stress condition. Such condition might include the activity of the sympathetic nervous system that involve the reaction of fight-or-flight reaction. This reaction is actually a major aspect in preparing the individual for physical activity that is going to be useful in determining the performance during the competition.
Along with the activity of sympathetic nervous system, the HPA axis plays a role as well. The CRH produced by the HPA maintain this reaction of sympathetic nervous system that stimulates the preparation.
The so called preparation are actually the autonomic arousal such as, perspiration (measured with skin-conductance), increase of heart-rate, potentiated startle reflexes, widening of the pupils, and down-regulation of the gastrointestinal systems. (Johnson et al., 1992). The end product which is the cortisol hormone are here to help the restoration homeostasis after this stress-response. The sigh of stress and anxiety are basically seen as the sign of heighten endogenous levels of this hormone. (Brown et al., 1996).
Apart from this, both testosterone and cortisol are bind to the steroid-responsive center in the emotional processing structure in the brain which is the amygdala (Wood, 1996), where it able to facilitates the behaviour in the competition which is approaching (e.g. fight) that facilitate by testosterone hormone or avoidant (e.g. flight) that facilitates by the cortisol hormone (Schulkin, 2003).
To know and specify the relation of the hormonal respond of testosterone and cortisol, we must firstly know how and where these hormones work on. The causes of the respond during the competition in either men or women are basically involving many aspects such as individual skill, individual cognitive, environment atmosphere and most importantly the hormonal changes. From the information above, we clearly know that the behaviour in a competition are actually managing by this two hormones that act simultaneously over the physical and also the mental of one individual.
In year 1999, Suay et al has done a study to investigate the effects of sports competition and its outcome on hormonal response, comparing it with those displayed in situations involving non-effort and non-competitive effort. 28 male judo fighters who were recruited with technical level ranged between brown belt and 3rd Dan black belt and they trained daily for an average of 2 hours.
Subjects participated in three testing sessions (control, judo fight, and ergometry) which were carried out on different days but at the same hours from 9.00am to 12.00 pm to control for the circadian variation. All testing for an individual subject was conducted at the same time of day which always 30 min between pre- and post-sample for every subject. Blood samples were collected between 09.30am and 12.30 pm in each session. The session involving judo fights (FIGHT) was our main interest, the other two sessions being designed to compare competition-induced hormonal changes with the ones produced in non-effort (control) and non-competitive effort (ergometry) situations. The control (Cont) was carried in order to let the subjects to familiar with the method of research. In this session, subjects provided blood samples to measure hormones in a non-effort situation and completed some pencil-and-paper tests in order to give information about psychological variables and sports history. Pairs of subjects, who had previously been matched according to body weight and competitive level, provided two venous blood samples in the same order as they would compete in the next session (FIGHT).
The competitive session (FIGHT) was carried out a week later the previous session and friend and members also present in this competition, judo fights were also videotaped in order to analyse more deeply the behaviour shown, offensive and defensive tactics, in relation to hormonal responses. Venous blood samples were provided 10 min before and 10 min after the judo fight; this time interval was selected on the basis of the reported positive effects of outcome on hormones ( Suay et al., 1999).
The non-competitive effort session (ERG) was carried in groups of two to four persons during the following 3 weeks. This session was designed to replicate the physical effort developed by each subject in FIGHT. Ten min before and 10 min after the ergometric test, venous blood samples were collected, while capillary blood samples by ear lobe punction were obtained in minutes 1 and 3 of the recovery period.
Six 10-ml blood samples from the antecubital vein was provided by each subject to obtain the serum. Testosterone and cortisol was analysed by radioimmunoassay by adding 125I tracer to the highly specific antibodies provided by the commercial kit (125I-Testosterone Coatria Kit of Bio-Mrieux, France) and with fluorescence polarization technology using immunoassay methodology (TDx of Abbott Laboratory Diagnostic Division, Chicago, IL) respectively.
Furthermore, testosterone level in the competitive situation is less increase than expected if compared to the non-competitive effort situation, this was related to the situational stress or elevated basal level (Suay et al., 1999). According to some other study done by Jeffcoate et al in 1986, the elevated testosterone level we found to be related to the high rank position in men ( Jeffcoate et al., 1986).
The level of cortisol shows similar rise in the competitive and non-competitive effort session, but not in the non-effort session. Winner shows higher level of cortisol than loser. This result was similar to a study done on 1981, by Elias in which higher post-competition cortisol level in winner was found in compare to loser. Other than cortisol level, basically there hormonal response between winner are higher than loser but not so significant except that before the competition, the winners showed higher self-efficacy than losers and they presented a higher appraisal of their performance and more satisfaction with the outcome obtained than losers. According to the biosocial theory created by Mazur and Mazur, heighten testosterone level increases in competitiveness and dominace behaviour (Mazur and Mazur, 1980). This theory support the result that higher level of testosterone found in winner.
In overall, the level of testosterone is increase during a competitive situation in both winner and losers while the level of cortisol showed higher level in winner than in losers during all the competition. Besides, this study done by Suey et al also showed that motivation and self-efficacy play ane important role in testosterone and cortisol responses. (Suey et al., 1999)
The study of hormonal response in competition was then done by Salvador et al on year 2001, this study proved the anticipatory rise of cortisol, testosterone and psychological response as well to judo competition in young men. The study compare the anticipatory hormonal response and psychological response on 17 male judo. Although the anticipatory testosterone response was not significant in this study but ine group of subject did showed increase of testosterone and cortisol level, with higher motivation and obtained better outcome.
An ergometric cycling test was carried out by 17 male judo fighter at the beginning of this study in order to findout their fitness status of the subjects. Afterwards, eight resting sessions (RSs), one every fortnight, were held during the second part of the sports season (February-June), apart from the competitive sessions. No physical activity 24 hours before and after each RS carried out. In each RS, two saliva samples were taken to determine the level of testosterone and cortisol. Approximately in the middle of this study, a judo competition was participated by these 17 male judoist with similar schedule to that of the RSs and saliva sample were taken out at 9.50 and 10.20h which is 30-40min before each subjects first combat. Comp-T1 for T and Comp-C1 for C were named for first samples and Comp-T2 and Comp-C2 for second samples. Weighed were taken subjects between both salivary samples for selection of weight fighting category, and they warmed up after the second salivary sample was collected.
Saliva was collected directly from mouth to tube (Unitek R). All the samples of every subject were run in duplicate in the same assay. Hormonal determinations were made by RIA in the Hormone Laboratory at hospital La Fe (Valncia, Spain).
Testosterone levels measured in the RSs varied in a range of 128.56-311.20 pmol/l (202.8834.32 pmol/l). Cortisol level oscillated between 4.84 and 16.74 nmol/l (9.491.24 nmol/l), which was within salivary cortisol reference values (Aardal and Holm, 1995. E. Aardal and A.C. Holm , previous termCortisolnext term in saliva. Reference ranges and relation to previous termcortisolnext term in serum. Eur. J. Clin. Biochem. 33 (1995), pp. 927-932. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (123)Aardal and Holm, 1995). samples (T2 or C2) for subsequent analyses.
Individual will their cortisol level rise more than 15% from the baseline are to be considered as cortisol-responder as proposed (Kirschbaum and Hellhammer, 1989). No similar criteria have been proposed to define a testosterone response which would permit the discrimination between responders and non-responders. So, for testosterone, those subjects who experienced increase larger than 15% of baseline was considerd as testosterone responder and in the 17 male subject, 6 subject found to be the testosterone responder which displayed higher Comp-C2 levels (F1,16=5.41; p<0.03) and showed marginally more interest in winning the contest (F1,16= 4.17; p<0.06) than the other 11 subjects.
Another recent study which was done on 2006 by Anders et al shows a more precise prove on hormonal respond in competition. The study described in two goal of determining whether the competition effect occurs in both men and women and whether ability is a requisite. In this study, it clearly showed the outcome of the hormone and ability in a competition.
A novel laboratory competition paradigm was develop in this study that leads to higher testosterone level in winners relative to losers that is relevant to students, and does not show sex differences in performance to maximize the possibility of finding the effect, especially in women. The development of such a paradigm would provide more practical, reliable, and controlled ways of furthering our understanding of the effects of previous termcompetitionnext term on sex hormones. Two different studies were conducted, in the first one, participants won or lost the competition leased on their own ability to meet our predetermined cut-off while second one, the participants were randomly assigned to win or lose regardless of their ability. With this, the winning or losing in competition is whether affected by testosterone or not was tested out.
In the first experiment, the goal was to examine whether women and men who won the competition by their own ability would show higher testosterone post-test relative to those who lost by their own ability. There was 75 participant consist of 39 participants with English as their first language and 36 participants whose first language was another language
Participants were tested individually in a small room by one of two white female experimenters in their mid-20's. Participants were not aware that the study involved a competition prior to arriving and only knew that they would be completing a task on the computer, and questionnaires, and providing saliva samples. Each session took no longer than 30min, and all sessions took place between 1400 and 1800hour to control for diurnal T rhythms.
The first baseline testosterone saliva sample were produced by participants after the consent has signed. The procedure were only then be told after the first sample has taken. The competition was a computer task, when task has completed by the participants, the experimenter told the losers "Too bad, you lost" and the winners "Congratulations, you won." . Questionaire was given after the task has completed. Then, the second saliva sample (PostComp T) was collected either after all questionnaires were completed, or at 25min from the session's start (whichever came first). Debriefing forms and their participation credit were then given to participants. The sample was tested by radioimmunoassay.
View Within Article
The result found no significant differences between participants with English or another language as their most comfortable language in Baseline T, PostComp T, or Pre-Post T. Thus, any differences between winners and losers were not due to possible ethnic or nationality differences in T. There was also no significant correlation between the time elapsed between the two saliva samples and the change in T, indicating that any differences in T between winners and losers were not due to any differences in time between samples. As expected, there were large and significant differences between men and women in Baseline T, t(40)=15.99, p<0.001, and PostComp T, t(45)=19.43, p<0.001, so analyses on competition outcomes and T were conducted separately by sex.
For men, the winners showed a smaller decrease in T levels than did losers. At Baseline, men who would go on to win had significantly lower T than men who would go on to lose, t(35)=-2.42, p=0.021. There was a trend for men who won to have significantly lower PostComp T than men who lost, t(35)=-1.70, p=0.098. However, men who won had a significantly smaller Pre-Post T than men who lost, t(35)=-2.13, p=0.041.
It is unlikely that this effect of losers showing a larger decrease in T than winners is due simply to the higher baseline T in losers. Losers showed a larger decline in T as a percentage of their baseline T (11.83%) than winners (3.41%). In addition, losers showed a decrease in T over time, paired t(9)=2.21, p=0.055, that was nearly significant even with the small subsample, while there was no effect of time in winners that approached significance. Indeed, women showed a significant decrease over time, paired t(37)=2.28, p=0.029. So, all participants showed a significant (or nearly so) decrease in T over time except for male winners, further suggesting that winning attenuated a decrease in men's T.
View Within Article
In second experiment done by Anders et al, the goal was to see if participants assigned to win regardless of their ability, would show higher testosterone parameters compared to participants assigned to lose. This study also examined whether, in the present study, winners who would have won (Would-Be winners) in Experiment 1 by their own ability differed in their post-test T levels from winners who would have lost (Would-Be losers) in Experiment 1.
Seventy-four participants were recruited consisting 38 participants with English as their first language and 36 participants whose first language was another language. The competition task from experiment 1 was used in this experiment except that the test was programmed such that participant either won or lost as predetermined before they arrives. The result was obtained as follow.
In men, there were no significant differences by outcome (win/loss) in Baseline T, PostComp T, or Pre-Post T. Thus, there was no effect of randomly assigned competition outcome on T.
While in women, there were no significant differences between winners and losers in Baseline T or PostComp T. There was a marginal trend for losers to have a greater Pre-Post T than winners, t(37)=1.73, p=0.092.
This study involving two experiment suggest that that good performance such as the ability alone does not mediate the competition effect in men, nor does external recognition like win outcome alone; instead, the competition effect relies on a good performance being externally recognized with an appropriate outcome. However, this study did proved the effect of competition on hormonal response as well as the outcome of hormonal response on the result of competition (Anders et al., 2006)
The role and outcome of testoterone and cortisol response to challenge increase aggression
To know and specify the relation of the hormonal respond of testosterone and cortisol, we must firstly know how and where these hormones work on. The causes of the respond during the competition in either men or women are basically involving many aspects such as individual skill, individual cognitive, environment atmosphere and most importantly the hormonal changes. From the information above, we clearly know that the behaviour in a competition are actually managing by this two hormones that act simultaneously over the physical and also the mental of one individual.
As stated, HPA is heavily involved in the maintenance and instigation of the fight-or-flight response, in which either to face the challenges in a competition or 'flight' which is giving up to challenges. A high level of cortisol which is the end product of this axis brings anxious depression and anxiety. (Bohus et al., 1982, Johnson et al., 1992 and Schulkin, 2003) with the statement given in these journals, it is indeed that high level of cortisols are contribute in the decision of choosing flight.
High levels of testosterone inhibits the HPA activity, subsequently the autonomic responses to threat challenges are lesser as the cortisol is the end product of this event. Thus, high levels of testosterone with low cortisol ratios are predicted to have motivation over reward sensitivity. The motivation is these stances are mean by the individual are more likely to confront the treat, challenges which eventually might result in aggressiveness behaviours too. This are mainly psychological issue with regarding of the effect of testosterone on human hormonal response to competition. (Van Honk et al., 1999)
Testosterone affect performance by status gaining behavior
Sporting events may be seen as formalized contests for status. Whether in team or individual competition, outcome of competition will determine status of an opponent.
Testosterone will fluctuate in a competition. There were a lot of literature indicates that higher level of testosterone are related to higher status as there was a number of animal species with the level of testosterone positively related to social rank and dominant behaviours. (Beaver and Amoss, 1982, Cavigelli and Pereira, 2000, Coe et al., 1979, Collias et al., 2002, Elofsson et al., 2000, Kraus et al., 1999 C. Kraus, M. Heistermann and P.M. Kappeler, Physiological suppression of sexual function of subordinate males: a subtle form of intrasexual competition among malesifaka (Propithecus verreauxi)?, Physiol. Behav. 66 (1999), pp. 855-861. Article | http://www.sciencedirect.com/scidirimg/icon_pdf.gifPDF (111 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (59)Kraus et al., 1999, Oliveira et al., 1996 and Wingfield et al., 1990). As for human, testosterone is associated with constructs closely linked to status, such as aggression, social dominance, implicit power motive, and attention to status threats as well (Archer, 2006, Archer et al., 1998, Cashdan, 1995, Grant and France, 2001, Josephs et al., 2006, Mazur and Booth, 1998, Sellers et al., in press, Schultheiss et al., 2005 and Van Honk et al., 1999).
On year 2006, a study done by Mehta et al based on short-term testosterone changes and status-related behaviours and also has uncovered several important variables that predict testosterone changes after wins and losses. The study extended from previous studies by including the investigation of the factors that influence post-competition testosterone changes.
The study design was simple, the initial testosterone and cortisol level was measured and then was rigged a dyadic competition to ramdomly assigned individual to get the result of winning asn losing. The level of testosterone and cortisol was measured again after the competition ended. Apart from this, the subjects was asked on whether wanted to compete again in order to know the effect of testosterone after the competition and how the hormonal response changes according to subjects status.
The experiment was done on 57 participant and consist of three phase which is pre-competition, competition and post-competition phase. In pre-competition phase, the participant was lead by the experimenter to a separate room to obtaind consent and the first saliva sample. The samples were immediately brought to a nearby freezer for storage and were later analyzed for T and cortisol concentrations using enzyme immunoassay. In competition phase, both participants were brought into the same room and seated at two desks facing opposite walls sat facing away from each other in order to minimize participants' suspicion with the win/loss manipulation. Thecompetition adopted in this study was the Number Tracking Task; it's a series of puzzle. Saliva was collected after the match.
On the post-competition phase, participants were escorted to separate rooms after the competition and completed the Positive and Negative Affectivity Schedule (PANAS) (Watson et al., 1988). The PANAS asks participants to indicate the extent to which they are feeling each of 20 mood descriptors on a scale of one ("very slightly or not at all") to five ("very much"). Two independent dimensions of affect emerge: positive affect and negative affect. The positive affect dimension consists of items such as "alert", "determined", and "inspired", and the negative affect dimension consists of items such as "distressed", "upset", and "irritable". Scores on these two dimensions may range from one to five.
After completing the PANAS, participants were asked to work on a filler task (a word search). Fifteen minutes after the competition had ended (approximately 30 to 35min after the first saliva sample), Second saliva was collected. Following the second saliva sample, participants completed the choice questionnaire, which asked them to choose the next experimental task. They were asked to choose one of two options: (a) compete again on six new puzzles of the Number Tracking Task against the same participant or (b) complete a questionnaire on food, music, and entertainment preferences. The choice questionnaire indicated that option (b) would take about as long to complete as the Number Tracking Task. Participants made their choice by circling (a) or (b). After completing the choice questionnaire was asked, another short questionnaire were filled out by participants, which included three questions to check for suspicion. These questions were: "What did you think this study was about?", "Was there anything about the study that you thought was odd? If yes, what?", and "During the study, did you at any point feel that you were being misled? If yes, when and how?" Participants' open-ended responses to these questions were later coded for suspicion associated with the win/loss manipulation. Immediately after filling out this questionnaire, participants were debriefed as to the true nature of the study and were dismissed. The entire experiment took approximately 1 hour to complete. The saliva samples were analyzed for testosterone and cortisol concentrations using enzyme immunoassay kits purchased from Salimetrics (State College, PA, USA).
Descriptive statistics for raw hormone measures and affect
- Post-competition testosterone minus pre-competition testosterone.
- Means and standard deviations were calculated from the untransformed pre-competition cortisol distribution.
- Means and standard deviations were calculated from the untransformed post-competition cortisol distribution.
- Means and standard deviations were calculated from the untransformed change in cortisol distribution (post-competition cortisol minus pre-competition cortisol).
- Positive Affect subscale of PANAS (Watson et al., 1988); scores can range from one to five.
- Negative Affect subscale of PANAS (Watson et al., 1988); scores can range from one to five.
Descriptive statistics for raw testosterone, cortisol, and affect are reported in Table 1. The change in cortisol distribution (post-competition cortisol minus pre-competition cortisol) was negatively skewed. Therefore, change in cortisol were calculated as log-transformed post-competition cortisol minus log-transformed pre-competition cortisol, which yielded a normal distribution. All statistical analyses with cortisol reported below employ these log-transformed distributions. The pre- and post-competition T distributions were not skewed and thus did not require transformation. Change in T was calculated as post-competition T minus pre-competition T. All statistical analyses with T reported below employ raw T data.
Loser who rose in testosterone level were more likely to choose to compete again than loser who showed a drop in testosterone. This study suggested that testosterone changes after a status loss will seek for status-seeking behaviour as winner with no rise in testosterone did not show prediction to compete again while loser who rise in testosterone shown prediction to compete again, This study supported previous studies by proving that testosterone will increase after and during a competition, moreover the hormone testosterone will actually affects the decision of a player in order to win the competition as well (Mehta et al., 2006).
On year 2005, Edward et al also done an experiment on intercollegiate soccer to study the relationship of testosterone to status and social connectedness as well. In this study done by Edward et al, changes during the game in testosterone were positively correlated with variables such as team-mate and outcome in men, but not before-game. For women, before the game testosterone was positively related to each of these variables, but during the game changes in testosterone were not.
The participant in this study was consist of University men's and women's varsity soccer teams whose all age from 18 to 22 years. Saliva was collected for three coach-selected home games near the end of the season. Samples were collected for a single home gamea 1-0 double-overtime victory for men. For the women, samples were obtained for two home games played 2 weeks apart. The first was a 1-2 loss and the second was a 5-0 victory, with both games finished in regulation play. Collection before each game was done immediately prior to warm-up, approximately 1 hour before the start of the game. Saliva samples were collected after the game was finished and assayed for result.
From the result, women who play and win in the competition show higher testosterone and cortisol level in compared to those loss in the match. While for men, similar result also obtained in both testosterone and cortisol as well. Both hormones were increase anticipatory with competition. In a nut shell, this study showed that the saliva testosterone and cortisol are correlated with the competition in winner who will put effort in a game to gain status.
Another study was done by Newman et al on year 2004 also suggest that testosterone level may affect an individual performance in a competition with the reason in order to maintain their status. This study showed individual with high testosterone level in lower status will try hard to win back while high testosterone level in high status will not distracted by the result as they have already gained status. This proposed statement was similar and support the statement proposed from study by Mehta et al in 2006. (Newman et al., 2004)
Two cognitive measures (mental rotation and verbal fluency), in a 2 (T Level: High or Low) by 3 (Status: high, low, or control) between-subjects, quasi-experimental design were completed by a group of 36 male and 52 female college students. Status was manipulated by giving people the impression they would take part in a group task, as either the "leader" (high status), the "follower" (low status), or neither (control). Testosterone levels were collected at the beginning, and blood pressure was measured throughout. Participants completed all tasks individually, but under the impression that a second participant was in another room in order to put social status stress on them. Baseline testosterone was then obtained from salivary samples.
The procedure was modified from Brown et al. (2000). the purpose of the experiment was told to all participants that to investigate "the effects of individual variables on group functioning." Towards this end, they were told that they would complete a number of individual tasks, followed by a group task with another person. In reality, all participants were alone. They were told that each "group" would receive a total score, which would be a combination of their individual tasks, their partner's individual tasks, and their group performance on the final task. As an incentive, participants were also told that the highest-scoring group each week would be entered into a drawing for a pair of $50 gift certificates to a local record store. All participants were actually entered into this drawing.
High status, low status, or control condition were randomly assigned to the participants following this cover story. Participants in the two status conditions were told that based on a pretest measure, one of them will be identified as a good leader (high status) or follower (low status) for the upcoming group task. However, they were also told that their scores on the cognitive tests will be observed to verify their assignment to leader or follower. This was done to ensure that their performance would have implications for their status in the group.
However, participants in the control group were not given any information about their status in the upcoming group task. This group was informed of the group scoring procedure, and completed the cognitive measures described below. The leader/follower information was omitted to ensure that their performance would not have implications for their status within the group.
Following the status manipulation, all participants completed two tests of cognitive ability, a mental rotation test, and a verbal fluency test. After the test, a complete short questionnaire containing a manipulation check was given, is was to indicate the role they played.
At the end of the experiment, testosterone samples were analyzed using enzyme immunoassay kits provided by Salimetrics, LLC.
In this experiment, males performed significantly better in the rotational test while there were no sex differences on the verbal test. Sex did not interact with T levels or status condition on either test (P's between 0.10 and 0.85), so all analyses were performed collapsing across sex.
On the mental rotation test, as hypothesized, high-T participants performed significantly worse than low-T participants in the low-status condition [t (28) = 2.30, P = 0.02; d = 0.58]. Also as predicted, high-T participants performed significantly better in the high-status than the low-status condition [t (27) = 2.35, P = 0.01; d = 0.78].
On the verbal fluency test, as hypothesized, high-T participants performed significantly worse than low-T participants in the low-status condition [t (28) = 2.79, P = 0.01; d = 0.71]. Also as predicted, high-T participants performed significantly better in the high-status than the low-status condition [t (27) = 2.37, P = 0.03; d = 0.61].
The results of this experiment further prove the relationship of hormonal response in a competition that testosterone gives. In the control condition, there were no differences in cognitive performance between high- and low-T participants, for either spatial or verbal ability. Apart from this, the result was in consistent with the challenge hyphotheses by Wingfield's, an effect of testosterone on cognitive performance was observed only when high-T participants were in a high- or low-status position. When high-T participants were in a high-status position, they performed better on tests of spatial ability and verbal fluency than when they were in a low-status position. This showed that high testosterone individual will actually not only seek for higher status when their status is low but also will maintain their status when they are already in a higher status. (Newman et al., 2004)
Interpreting sex difference in hormonal response in competition
The link of hormones and behaviour is very complex. Contemporary behavioural endocrinologist assume that this link is not as simple as a biological 'cause-and-effect' mechanism, while in other way round rather describe as a bi-directional association in which the intrinsic individual differences in social perception, propensity for specific behaviour, previous experience, and as well as the demand or 'press' of the social context for particular behaviour is highly dependent.
Hormones themselves are not a mechanism that cause or create behaviour. But however, it is to believe that the hormonal changes is closely related to increase the likelihood that specific behaviours will be expressed if the propensity for that behavior already exists and the expression of that behavior is consistent with social contextual demands. The 'mechanisms' linking testosterone and behavior toward personal, social, and contextual variables rather than biological processes, for examples: binding globulins, regulation of receptor subtypes and signal transduction has been focussed by this biosocial perspective. In order to understand what hormone are associated to what behaviour, first, we have to know what is the circumstances that behaviour. In a nut shell, is to better understand how the process or reaction of the hormone effect to our body and soon the certain hormone will bring to out body and yet know the its effect on the changing of changes our bahavior and understand what hormone causing what behaviour and how they link.
This so called effect in a proper way was also known as biobehavioral response, in which how the biological changes inside a body effect humans behaviour. In Mazur, 1985, it has prove that the biobehavioral responses of men and women compete in similar circumstances is different. However, the previous experiment also defined with social affiliation as concept integrally linked to individual differences in biobehavioral responses to competition. In practical way, it has revealed that under the study of different time of a day, the hormonal responses to competition might different too.
As part of the idea to get the result of the effect of competition in human behaviour and attitude, Kivlighan et al, 2004 has done a study for obtaining this objective.
The experiment studied was run as competitive ergo meter rowing method in order to study this behavioural effect caused by the hormone. This method is an ideal context to study including the aspect from gender, experience, cognitive activity, performance, and hormone production. This study done by Kivlighan et al, 2004 describe three basic questions.
First, the sex differences in hormone production thoughout the course of a competition of a competitive event was described. Kivlighan predict that the cortisol production in both sexes will be in a similar pattern while testosterone production will be different during a competition. Second, they also studied that the extent where novice competitor will show a more active cortisol response and less testosterone production in compared with the varsity rowers. Third, they also examined the links between hormones and the individuals use of the various pre-competition mental preparation strategies in determining the individual performance. A higher testosterone response throughout the course of competition in individual with more dominant and competitive is expected and men's and women's hormonal response to competition were differentially influence by bonding were predicted as well in this study by Kivlighan. Higher testosterone and lower cortisol levels following the race was associated with better performance and the degree of pre-competition mental preparation in the ergometer competition (Kivlighan et al., 2004).
All the rowers that joined in this study are ranked according to race time with the fastest achieving first place. They are subdivided into three rankings, which is the brief (6-8min), intense because it is not uncommon for a rower to collapse following a race, furthermore provide a window into the individual performance of an athlete who usually competes as a member of team.
In this experiment, 1ml of saliva of each rowers were collected from the from these event from without exogenous stimulation, before warm-up, 20-min and 40-min after the competition. All the pre-race saliva samples collected not more than 1.5h prior to race time and before warm-up. Three 'baseline' samples (1ml) were collected on a non-exercise, non-competition day, matched to the collection times of the samples from each competition day. Passive drool was collected through a short plastic straw into a 5ml collection vial and soon assayed for testosterone and cortisol (Bateup et al., 2002).
Salivary cortisol and testosterone were assayed in all samples using an enzyme immunoassay kit (Salimetrics, State College, PA).
A short behaviour and attitudinal questionnaire was designed for participants to complete during the time of recruitment. This is to able the measuring yield a more precise result as it enabled to assess the individual differences in dominance, competitiveness, and the team bonding. From the questionnaire they have derived scales in order to represent 4 major scales of 'Dominance', 'Competitiveness', and "Bondings with Teamates' and from this pre-competition questionnaire, there was a fourth scale was derived into index differences in 'Mental Preparation for Competition'.
With according to the result of the immunoassay of the salivary cortisol and testosterone collected. A positive skewed distribution of the hormone data examination was revealed. Therefore, log transformations were used to establish approximately normal distributions prior to analyses. log-transformed hormone values were used in all analyses; however, non-transformed data are reported in the tables, figures, and text to facilitate interpretation.
As for Novice men, the result of incretion and decrement were about the same, just in the way of level, the testosterone level was much more lower than a Varsity men, 300(pg/ml) and the incretion from Pre-competition to 20-minutes Post were more steep and steeper from 20-Minutes Post decrease to 40-Minutes post, from about 230(pg/ml) until about 180(pg/ml).
The result of Varsity women and Novice women were said to be totally vice versa to the result of men as the level of testosterone of Varsity women show much more lower than a Novice women, and instead of decrease from the Baseline, it increase slightly and derease gradually after the Pre-competition period. On the another hand, the Novice women shown higher level of testosterone during the Time-line baseline and had a steep decrement while going to the Pre-competition period, below 150(pg/ml) and it remain stable all the way until the end of 40-minutes Post.
In overall, this experiment done by Kivlighan shown that winning basically has no relation with testosterone level but an increase in the level of cortisol are shown in losing individual. Both sex shows similar in the increase and decrease of the level of cortisol production but different in the level of testosterone production. Furthermore, novice shows more increase in the level of cortisol and lower level of testosterone than varsity, this can be explain by the low confident of a novice in a competition and the dominant behaviour of a winning individual as cortisol may cause the behaviour of mild depression.
Another study that has been done by Stroud et al, 2002 also describe the sex difference in hormonal response in men and women. In this study, Stroud describe the sex difference in the response to stress and challenges is actually the contribution of the mechanism of HPA responses that different in male and female. There are preclinical research has shown that the consistent sex differences in the HPA responses and similarly when response to stressors, female rats shown greater increase in corticosterone than the male rats (Stroud et al., 2002). Recent research in a journal that i have studied also shown sex differences in central components of the HPA responses to stress including dendritic atrophy of the CA3 pyramidal neurons and expression of corticosteroid receptors. (Galea and Karandrea, 1994).
In this study done by Stroud et al., they hypothesized that most of the stressors in the human HPA stress are achievement oriented and this is found more salient in male than a female.
Twenty-seven men and 31 women ranging in age from 17 to 23 years reported that is in good physical and mental health were refrained from food and drink (besides water) for 2 hours before the examination started. Participants slept an average of 6.52 hours (SD = 1.47) the night before the stress session and 7.12 hours (SD = 2.00) 2 nights before the stress session, with no significant differences in hours of sleep before the stress session by gender or condition (t (48) < .85, p = ns). With menstrual phase approximated using date of last period and typical cycle length, there were no significant differences in numbers of women in follicular and luteal phases by condition (χ2 (1) = .41, p = ns).
Six saliva samples were taken from each participant over the course of the stress session. Two samples were taken approximately 7 minutes apart at baseline, two during stress (one following each stressor) and two during the poststress period (at 15-min intervals) and all samples from each individual subject were tested in the same assay run.
Apart from the general cortisol level measures, the study included the mood scales. Based on the results of a principal components analysis of the 20 mood adjectives, Stroud et al. created two affect scales: negative affect (NA) and positive affect (PA). The NA scale included tense, defeated, stressed, powerless, hopeless, tense, worthless, distressed, anxious, challenged, out of control, depressed, angry, annoyed, and sad. The PA scale included energetic, happy, relaxed, alert, and in control.
Each participant completed both a rest and a stress session. All sessions commenced between 3 and 6 Imageto control for diurnal changes in cortisol secretion. The rest session lasted approximately 1.5 hours and was identical for all participants. Participants completed a large battery of questionnaires while listening to soft, classical music. participants either completed an achievement or social rejection stress session at least 2 days after the rest session. Both conditions included baseline, stress, and poststress periods. The baseline period lasted approximately 20 min. For the first 10 min, participants read a travel magazine while listening to soft classical music. This was followed by collection of the first VASs and saliva measures, in this sequence. For the next 5 to 7 min, participants completed a short questionnaire packet including items to verify that they had followed pre-experimental instructions. The second saliva sample followed. In the achievement condition, participants were told that the experimenters were studying the relationship between intelligence and physiologic responses. They were also told that they would be ranked on their ability to complete challenging mathematical and verbal tasks and that their peers had found the tasks to be quite easy. Participants then completed the 30-min mathematical challenge and a 15-min verbal challenge. Each challenge was followed by VASs and a saliva sample.
The social rejection condition involved two same-sex confederates. The participant and confederates were told that the experimenters were interested in how individuals get to know one another and that they would discuss two different topics while the experimenter videotaped the interactions. Participant and confederates then engaged in the two rejection challenges (weekend activities and college friendships) in which the participant was excluded by the confederates. Each challenge segment lasted 15 min. VASs and saliva samples were then taken after the completion of each interaction segment.
The poststress period was the same for the social rejection and achievement conditions. Participants completed questionnaires while listening to soft, classical music. Saliva, and affect measures were obtained at 15 min following the second stressor and then again 15 min later (or 30 min following the second stressor). Extensive debriefing followed.
As shown in figure 6 above, the pattern that show the social rejection , female subjects showed increse in cortisol (from a mean baseline of .14 to a mean peak of .39 g/dL) in responses to it.while male subjects showed minimal changes in cortisol (.158-.160 g/dL, baseline to peak). Female also showed a greater variability in the cortisol reponses with male subjects and specific sex differences in cortisol levels emerged following the first and second poststress measures.
In a nut shell, this study done by Stroud et al shows that there is actually one mechanism underlying in the gender differences in men and women towards challenges or stress response. Besides, similary with the study done on 2004 by Kivlighan et al, Stroud et al also shown that cortisol plays a role in depression as an increase of this hormone will contribute to the depression behavior. Furthermore, this study also describe that men and women have different adrenocortical response to different stressor such as the social rejection and achievement stressor. the result in above shown that women are more active in response to social rejection, while men are more active in response to achievement as the level of cortisol one men and women are different in both of this two stressor. Apart from this, Stroud's study also shown the reason of why women having higher chance of getting affective disorder because of there active response towards social rejection but not achievement like men in a competition.
Mazul et al, 1997 also done a study to investigate the sex difference response on men and women in competition. In this research, Twenty-eight males and 32 females, ranging in age from 17 to 35 years (mean = 20, median = 19), mostly undergraduates and of diverse race and nationality, were recruited. Subjects participated as same-sex pairs. Two subjects were seated on the same side of a long table so they could see a video display on the other side of the table. Privacy were allowed by separating the subjects with an opaque screen. The question "I want to trace your body chemistry while you are playing a video game. I check your body chemistry from saliva samples, so I'll ask you to give me five saliva samples over the next hour." were asked to the subjects as a protocol and allowing the subjects to know how the experiment is going to be. subjects were been told that they would compete with each other in the games only after providing the first saliva sample. The experimenter stressed that they are opponents and should seriously try to win all their games.
Third saliva sample was given by subject after completing the first game. Subjects then played until a winner was determined and then waited for two minutes to allow time for a hormonal response before giving the fourth saliva sample. Subjects were then asked to describe their feelings and to evaluate their own and their opponent's performances as well. Ten minutes after the fourth sample , and a full debriefing was followed, fifth saliva sample was gave by the subjects, completing the run.
The concentrations of Testosterone and Cortisol in saliva are highly correlated with concentrations of the respective free hormones in blood (Wang, et al. 1981, Dabbs 1990, 1991) .
The saliva samples were radioimmunoassayed .In order to control for any sex difference in the magnitude of each hormone, and to minimize between-subject variation, each subject's raw hormone values were divided by his or her highest measured level as different individual have different level of hormone (Mazur and Lamb 1980, Mazur, et al. 1992).
As for result on testosterone level,the mean testosterone level for men, across the five saliva samples respectively, is 9.5, 10.0, 9.8, 9.9 and 10.0 ng/dl (SD = 2.6-2.8). As expected, these are significantly higher, sample by sample (p = .0001), than the mean female testosterone level across the five samples: 2.6, 2.4, 2.2, 2.1 and 2.1 ng/dl (SD = 0.9-1.1). Testosterone levels tend to be fairly consistent across samples for both sexes and the between-sample correlations among men range from r = .83 to .96, and among women from r = .70 to .86 (p = .0001).
There were no tendency in both sex for winners to have higher testosterone level than loser in this experiment after the match as in samples 4 and 5 which is the sample of before and after the report of feelings and evaluate play. Generally, there was a clear sex difference in testosterone response to competition as for women, the testosterone level generally declined showing neither an anticipatory rise before the match, nor a difference between winners and losers after the match. In men, testosterone did show the expected prematch rise, however, contrary to expectation, there was no significant difference in testosterone between winners and losers after the match.
On the another hand, cortisol sample were odtain as the testosterone as well. In each saliva sampling, women have significantly higher cortisol than men (p < .01). Mean female cortisol, across the five samples respectively, is 326, 303, 268, 228 and 201 ng/dl (SD = 117-234). Mean male cortisol level across the five samples is 197, 187, 151, 123 and 116 ng/dl (SD = 80-146). Standard values for each sex are not well determined, although it is unusual for females to exceed males (Kirschbaum and Hellhammer 1994b).
For women, cortisol levels are consistent across samples, their between-sample correlations ranging from r = .73-.92 (p = .0001). Male cortisol levels are more variable, with between-sample correlations ranging from r = .19 (ns) to .88 (p = .0001).
Generally, this study done by Mazur et al shows that testosterone response to a video game competition is different in male pairs and female pairs. The testosterone response is different in both sex while conversely the cortisol is the same.
As expected, male testosterone rose before the video contest, as if in anticipation of the competition. while male winners' testosterone level was no higher than that of losers. in contrary, female testosterone level did not show difference to either the announcement of competition or the experience of winning or losing. this further prove that the hormonal response in regard of the level of testosterone and cortisol in men and women are difference.
Testosterone and cortisol level trends show parallel declines in women but not in men. This is in related with a sex difference in physiology. In women, testosterone is largely produced in the adrenal cortex, the same organ that produces cortisol while men's testosterone and cortisol are less likely to be entrained in men, who produce this two hormone in different organ(Cashdan, 1995).
Factor differ women and men hormonal response
In previous review, using different competitive situation, the effect and outcome on testosterone and cortisol response were not found in women. In the Video-game contest (Mazur et al., 1997), neither the anticipatory increases nor significant reponses were reported. In sport competition such as the rugby team in (Bateup et al., 2001) and soccer players (D.A. Edwards & K. Wetzel, 2002), there were significant differences depending on winning or losing have been found (Marcus et al., 2000)
In response to physical exercise, the majority of studies did not reveal any sex differences in salivary as well as total plasma cortisol (Friedmann & Kindermann, 1989, Kraemer et al., 1989 R.R. Kraemer, S. Blair, G.R. Kraemer and V.D. Castracane, Effects of treadmill running on plasma beta-endorphin, corticotropin, and cortisol levels in male and female 10K runners, Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. Occup. Physiol. 58 (1989), pp. 845-851. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (17)Kraemer et al., 1989 and Kirschbaum et al., 1992)
The described sex differences in HPA axis responses to stress may be due to sexual dimorphisms in brain structure and function. Beside the impact of circulating CBG levels, further prime candidates for explaining such observations are differences in the secretion of central arginine vasopressin (AVP) levels or circulating gonadal steroids with their complex effects on glucocorticoid and mineralocorticoid receptor regulation and functioning across men and women (Kirschbaum et al., 1999)