Testosterone Levels in Women and Men Who are Single, in Long-Distance Relationships, or Same-City Relationships Sari M. van Anders and Neil V. Watson Department of Psychology, Simon Fraser University Hormones and Behaviors Volume 51, Issue 2, February 2007, Pages 286-291 Megan Gessell
Theory Relationship Status has an effect on a person’s testosterone levels
Hypothesis Relationship Orientation: T (Testosterone) should be similar in partnered individuals (regardless of physical partner presence) and lower than T levels in single people. Relationship status: T should be lower in same-city partnered individuals than single or long distance partnered individuals.
Theoretical Construct Testosterone Levels -Corresponding Operational Definition: Participants provided a saliva sample Participants identified their sexual orientation via self report and the Kinsey Scale questions of sex-directed fantasy and behavior Participants who scored 0 or 1 on both measures were categorized as heterosexuals and those who scored 2 or more on one or both the measures were categorized as non-heterosexuals Completed a brief questionnaire about their demographics, health and background, and relationship status Which included the Likert-type scale (from 1 = extremely to 7 = not at all) on questions such as level of commitment to the relationship, likelihood of being together with partner “forever”, and level of sexual attraction to partner over the past month.
Kinsey Scale 0- Exclusively heterosexual with no homosexual 1- Predominantly heterosexual, only incidentally homosexual 2- Predominantly heterosexual, but more than incidentally homosexual 3- Equally heterosexual and homosexual 4- Predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual 5- Predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual 6- Exclusively homosexual
Design
Study and Subjects ANOVA (analyses of variance), ANCOVA (analyses of covariance), or independent t-test when appropriate * Group differences were evaluated using LSD (Least Significant Difference). Correlations were evaluated using Pearson’s Product Moment Correlations. Subjects included 67 women (mean age = 20.79 years, min = 17 years, max = 32 years) and 48 men (mean age = 21.47, min = 17 years, max = 40 years) all which were either from the undergraduate psychology participant pool and from the community through a poster advertisement all where prescreened for exogenous hormone use. After they identified their sexual orientation via self-report and Kinsey questions it resulted in 43 heterosexual women, 24 non-heterosexual women, 28 heterosexual men, and 10 non-heterosexual men. 27 women and 21 men were single and not currently seeing anyone, 15 women and 12 men were same-city partnered, 17 women and 11 men were in a long distance relationship All had graduated from high school The majority (n=112) were currently students but (n=51) were employed in diverse occupations They were diverse ethnically
Independent Variable Relationship Status 3 levels (same-city, long-distance, and single Sex 2 levels (males and females)
Dependent Variable Testosterone level
Results
Main Effect Participants in long-distance relationships spent an average of 70 days per year together and participants that were in a same-city relationship spent on average of 243 days together this was a significant difference, t (37) = 5.01, p<.001
Testosterone Levels Differences = women =men * Indicates a significant Difference at p<.05 < indicates a trend with p < .10
Discussion
Partnered men displayed lower T than single men (same result for both same-city and long-distance partnered individuals). Same-city partnered women displayed lower T than long-distance or single women. Most same – city relationships did not live together.
What I would change: Larger sample size I would have taken sample from all over not just one place Had more participants that weren’t college students Found out about how long the couples had been together Not as many ANCOVA test and independent t-test done on different variables, made the study hard to fallow