The science of Superbowl fandom: why your testosterone level is up

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American



On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Are you a Giants fan? Are you feeling good today? It could be the testosterone boost you got from vicariously participating in the Giants' miraculous late-game win in Sunday's Super Bowl. This effect has been known about for quite some time -- a 1998 paper by University of Utah researchers Berhardt et al. demonstrated that beyond its effects on mood and self esteem, watching your team win not only boosts your testosterone level, but also decreases the levels of circulating testosterone in the fans of the losing team. Because testosterone, long linked to violence, now appears to have much more to do with social dominance -- here's an article I wrote on the subject last year -- it's hardly surprising that these changes in hormone levels can affect not only a fan's post game euphoria (or depression) but also their future behavior. Indeed, competitors who lose a contest and subsequently experience a drop in their testosterone levels are less likely to challenge their foe again, according to a paper in the December 2006 issue of Hormones and Behavior, by Robert Josephs and Pranjal Mehta. All of this should remind students of the work of Robert Sapolsky, who studies social dominance hierarchies in troops of baboons, of the ways in which tests of strength and / or fighting ability help determine pecking orders in everything from crayfish to humans. originally posted at 60 Second Science -- Edited by christopher.mims at 02/04/2008 3:15 PM

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe