Testosterone Dips for Baby-Snoozing Dads

Dads who sleep next to their babies have lower testosterone than other pops--which is probably good for the kid. 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!

New dads might expect to deal with dirty diapers or a baby's cries in the night. But how about lower testosterone levels? Previous research has shown that fatherhood can indeed cause a man's testosterone to dip. And that may be especially true for dads who sleep next to their babies, according to a new study in the journal PLoS ONE. [Lee T. Gettler et al., Does Co-Sleeping Contribute to Lower Testosterone Levels in Fathers? Evidence from the Philippines]

Researchers studied 362 Filipino fathers of the same age. They took testosterone samples in 2005 and 2009. And they found that dads who slept next to junior had a third less testosterone than before, compared to dads who dozed alone.

The researchers can't be sure that sleeping next to the baby actually causes that decline. Could be that dads with less testosterone are just more likely to cuddle with the kid. But they say disruptions in a man's sleep—a baby's cry, for example—are known to cut testosterone production.


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.


Either way, the authors say, less testosterone is probably better for baby. Because high levels of the hormone are linked with aggression, risk-taking, and less sympathy for an infant's cries—which, at three in the morning, probably won't make mom a happy camper either.

—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