Baby Makes Daddy Lose Testosterone

Men in their 20s had lower levels of testosterone after fathering children than they did before becoming dads. Christopher Intagliata reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


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.


For men hunting for a partner, testosterone’s a good thing. It boosts competitive behavior, and increases men's attractiveness to women. But the hormone has its drawbacks. Men with more of it have more marital problems and divorces. One study even suggested that guys with high testosterone have less sympathy for crying infants.

But there’s good news. Because having a kid appears to cut testosterone levels—essentially priming men to be better dads. So says a study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. [Lee Gettler et al., "Longitudinal evidence that fatherhood decreases testosterone in human males," PNAS 2011]

The researchers sampled testosterone levels of over 600 21-year-olds in 2005, and again in 2009. And they quizzed them on their relationships in the interim.

Single guys with high testosterone had better luck finding mates by the study’s end, and were more likely to have become fathers. But their testosterone plunged, compared to peers who stayed single. And the more hours a day they spent with their kids, the lower their testosterone levels fell.

Which suggests that being a nurturing dad may have ancient evolutionary roots—and that men are biologically wired to shift from alpha-male to tender caregiver when bringing up baby.


—Christopher Intagliata

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]   

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