A recent study reports US male voters view elections as tests of strength and dominance with which they self-identify. US women voters are much less emotional, and are more concerned with results. Therefore, because voting laws require one to be an adult, and males who vote are acting like adolescent soccer hooligans, males should be forbidden from voting.
(I kid. )
But, one could draw the conclusion that males are much more personally involved in politics as a demonstration of self-identity and domination, than are females. At least that’s my take-away from a recent study measuring testosterone levels of voters on election night, of the 2008 US presidential elections.
Nearly a year ago, while everyone else was tuned-in to the magic precinct- touch-screen on cable, a group of opportunistic researchers were taking saliva samples from voters watching election returns. The saliva samples were tested for testosterone levels. These levels were graphed out as a function of time, and also as a function of gender, and who the subjects voted for.
In general, males who voted for the losers — McCain/Barr (the libertarian candidate) — had a drop in testosterone level when they found out their candidates lost. Males who voted for the winner — Obama — had no change in testosterone level after they found out Obama won. (The graph is below.)
Time-course of salivary testosterone (in pg/mL) in U.S. Presidential election voters on November 4th, 2008.
In Panels A & C, times depicted correspond to T1 through T4 as described in the paper. Testosterone residual change scores from T1 to T4 in men (Panel B) and women (Panel D) who voted for the winner (Obama) or the losers (McCain or Barr). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0007543.g001
The election data is consistent with previous data on soccer games. Previous research demonstrated that male soccer fans increased testosterone when their teams won, and decreased when they lost. Thus, politics is viewed as a dominance match, and one in which males seem to take personally. More on the “herding” instinct another time, but team sports seem to be influential both as a mechanism of bonding, and as a mechanism of dominance. No wonder wrestlers seem to run for office.
No wonder women at the national level have such a tough go. As an aside, it is interesting that the RNC selected Gov. Palin — she’s like a cheerleader. (Sorry gov.)
The US constitution now looks even more amazingly accurate: individual rights are protected. This has extra significance if you consider the natural/neural bias toward dominance displayed in elections.
Two confounding factors:
One, McCain/Barr women had a higher starting rate of testosterone (panel C in the figure above). Were the females present with male McCain/Barr voters in a group and was this something of an emotional contagion?
Two, testosterone drops at night — and the election results came in at night (looks like 8pm PST). Although testosterone didn’t dial down for the winners (as it should have done in the evening), not dropping was viewed as a proxy for an actual increase had the test been during the day. I wonder, though, if there is a correlation with circadian rhythm with McCain/Barr voters vs. Obama voters. For instance CLOCK single nucleotide polymorphism rs6832769 is associated with agreeableness and being a morning person. Are McCain/Barr people just more agreeable morning people than those pessimistic overthinking elite establishment Obama voters in their black turtlenecks reciting beat poetry at midnight? (I kid, I kid. . )
Campaign consultants: Put testosterone saliva tests in with the focus groups.
Stanton SJ, Beehner JC, Saini EK, Kuhn CM, LaBar KS (2009) Dominance, Politics, and Physiology: Voters’ Testosterone Changes on the Night of the 2008 United States Presidential Election. PLoS ONE 4(10): e7543. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0007543
I also posted about this study. One thing I noticed was that all the candidates were male – if the candidates had been female, maybe the women subjects testosterone would have changed and the male’s wouldn’t? its easier to identify with McCain if you’re a guy, I’d imagine.
I thought this study was great — interestingly (and I don’t have the citation off hand) people who study suicide bombers and terrorist organizations say they have this same “team spirit” for politics. So there’s an important thing going on as far as bonding —
With women identifying with the candidate, it may be not that clear yet, with confounding factors, alas.
Women aren’t all in support of other women in power. Among conservatives, there may be a bias against women in power even among other women . ANES Guide to Public Opinion table on women’s equal roles in society. It would be interesting to see if the men have the same reaction among two female candidates — ?
I’ve been reading up on “herding” behaviors in humans — this whole area is a good one and ripe for a whole area of studies on the biological basis for why we join groups.