Work Matters

The Roar of Sports Car Engines: 100% of Women — But Only 50% of Men –Respond to a Maserati With Increased Testosterone Levels

Written by

supermoxie

in

I put up what I thought was an amusing and not especially original post on Wednesday afternoon that described a study showing that men who drove a new Porsche — but not an old Camry — responded with increased testosterone levels.  It got picked up by something called Hacker News and was on the top of their list of hot items for hours (I don't really understand how this thing works). The result was that it drove 5000 or 6000 hits to my blog and generated 35 comments there. By now, after some four years of blogging, I have learned that it is impossible to know what will take off.  And although it is fun when it happens, I have learned that when I stick to what feels interesting and authentic to me, I have the most fun and learn the most.  But based on reactions to my two testosterone posts, this is clearly something people seem to be interested in and I confess the research on it intrigues and bewilders me.

So, to add to my posts here and here, I have one more study about cars and T levels to add to the mix. Following a link that appeared in one of the Hacker news comments, there was a related study described over Telegraph.com in the UK, headlined Sound of a sports care engine arouses women.  Here is how the study is described "The 40 participants listened to the recordings of a Maserati, a Lamborghini
and a Ferrari, along with a Volkswagon Polo, before having a saliva specimen
collected." I have much less information about the nuances of this research than the other two studies, but on the face of it, the evidence seems to be that women respond more strongly than men to the sound of cars and to different cars. Note this excerpt:

The results found 100 per cent of female participants had a significant
increase in testosterone secretion after listening to the Maserati, compared
to only half for men.Men fared better at the sound of a Lamborghini, with 60 per cent showing a
testosterone increase. Psychologist David Moxon, who conducted the study commissioned by motor
insurer Hiscox, said: "We saw significant peaks, particularly in women."

"The roar of a luxury car engine does cause a primeval physiological
response." He added the sound of an average car engine actually led to a decreased level
of testosterone.

I promise this is my last post on T levels for a long time.  I just couldn't resist this one.

P.S. Check out Ellie's comment. She raises excellent points about the legitimacy of this research. I am trying to contact the David Moxon to see if he can share the original data and research report with us, l hope he answers. Once again, to be clear, the other two testosterone studies were published in a top peer-reviewed journal, and while they are imperfect, they are carefully done, the authors are careful not to overstate claims, and they acknowledge flaws and alternative explanations for their findings. 

Comments

21 responses to “The Roar of Sports Car Engines: 100% of Women — But Only 50% of Men –Respond to a Maserati With Increased Testosterone Levels”

  1. Ellie Avatar
    Ellie

    Bob! Nooooooooooooooo!!!!!
    I have been doing some investigation lately into the phenomenon of advertising through the news media and this looks like a classic example to me.
    The person who got me into this sort of thing was Ben Goldacre and I strongly recommend you have a look at his excellent Bad Science blog (http://www.badscience.net) for more on this and bad science in general.
    In a nutshell, with the reduction in effectiveness of standard advertising, the agencies have hit upon the technique of making a press release in the style of a science story. “Science” journalists under more pressure to produce more words in less time than ever before don’t have the time, or the training, to investigate these stories and repeat them almost verbatim as real science breakthroughs.
    For my investigation into a recent example of this (namely a story that half of all Britons have been injured by biscuits) please see these blog entries: http://goingonabearhunt.blogspot.com/2009/09/bite.html & http://goingonabearhunt.blogspot.com/2009/09/bite-2-cookie-crumbles.html. They show just how bad the so called research behind these things can be.
    Big warning signs are short amusing news stories with no mention of primary sources. The words “studies show” is always a bad sign and stay away from any story that uses “polls”. The appearance of equations is seldom a good sign (see the biscuit story). By far the biggest alarm goes off in my mind when a story could be interpreted as beneficial for a particular manufacturer. For example, Maserati perhaps trying to prove their car has an effect on women, either to sell it directly to them, or to men wanting to impress them.
    This case has a lot of similarities with the biscuit one I investigated. For example, on first glance it does appear to be have carried out by a legitimate researcher (David Moxon, psychologist). It also wasn’t funded by the company who apparently gain the most from it, however, it does say at the bottom that it was “funded by motor insurer Hiscox”. A very bad sign indeed – it is easy to see how this article is targeted to the kind of policy holder likely to spend a lot of money and the insurence cos name appears at the bottom, linking them in the readers mind with high-end cars.
    A quick Google of “David Moxon” reveals he is very far from a legitimate researcher and in fact runs a consultancy company specializing in exactly this kind of press release. Other stories under his belt include “watching football makes you happier than a pay raise” funded by ING direct (who just happen to be big football sponsors) and “traffic jams make drivers ill” funded by Direct Line (this time the article is aimed squarely at Mr Joe Average Driver – DLs target market).
    I don’t know how widespread this problem is globally but it is HUGE in the UK. As a scientist I find at least half the articles I read fall into this category. The BBC and Guardian get honourable mentions for being less gullible than the majority, but they still fall for the occasional story.
    The bottom line is, if it looks like a science story, check and double check before you propagate it.
    I am afraid this is probably bunk.

    Reply
  2. Ellie Avatar
    Ellie

    Bob! Nooooooooooooooo!!!!!
    I have been doing some investigation lately into the phenomenon of advertising through the news media and this looks like a classic example to me.
    The person who got me into this sort of thing was Ben Goldacre and I strongly recommend you have a look at his excellent Bad Science blog (http://www.badscience.net) for more on this and bad science in general.
    In a nutshell, with the reduction in effectiveness of standard advertising, the agencies have hit upon the technique of making a press release in the style of a science story. “Science” journalists under more pressure to produce more words in less time than ever before don’t have the time, or the training, to investigate these stories and repeat them almost verbatim as real science breakthroughs.
    For my investigation into a recent example of this (namely a story that half of all Britons have been injured by biscuits) please see these blog entries: http://goingonabearhunt.blogspot.com/2009/09/bite.html & http://goingonabearhunt.blogspot.com/2009/09/bite-2-cookie-crumbles.html. They show just how bad the so called research behind these things can be.
    Big warning signs are short amusing news stories with no mention of primary sources. The words “studies show” is always a bad sign and stay away from any story that uses “polls”. The appearance of equations is seldom a good sign (see the biscuit story). By far the biggest alarm goes off in my mind when a story could be interpreted as beneficial for a particular manufacturer. For example, Maserati perhaps trying to prove their car has an effect on women, either to sell it directly to them, or to men wanting to impress them.
    This case has a lot of similarities with the biscuit one I investigated. For example, on first glance it does appear to be have carried out by a legitimate researcher (David Moxon, psychologist). It also wasn’t funded by the company who apparently gain the most from it, however, it does say at the bottom that it was “funded by motor insurer Hiscox”. A very bad sign indeed – it is easy to see how this article is targeted to the kind of policy holder likely to spend a lot of money and the insurence cos name appears at the bottom, linking them in the readers mind with high-end cars.
    A quick Google of “David Moxon” reveals he is very far from a legitimate researcher and in fact runs a consultancy company specializing in exactly this kind of press release. Other stories under his belt include “watching football makes you happier than a pay raise” funded by ING direct (who just happen to be big football sponsors) and “traffic jams make drivers ill” funded by Direct Line (this time the article is aimed squarely at Mr Joe Average Driver – DLs target market).
    I don’t know how widespread this problem is globally but it is HUGE in the UK. As a scientist I find at least half the articles I read fall into this category. The BBC and Guardian get honourable mentions for being less gullible than the majority, but they still fall for the occasional story.
    The bottom line is, if it looks like a science story, check and double check before you propagate it.
    I am afraid this is probably bunk.

    Reply
  3. Ellie Avatar
    Ellie

    Bob! Nooooooooooooooo!!!!!
    I have been doing some investigation lately into the phenomenon of advertising through the news media and this looks like a classic example to me.
    The person who got me into this sort of thing was Ben Goldacre and I strongly recommend you have a look at his excellent Bad Science blog (http://www.badscience.net) for more on this and bad science in general.
    In a nutshell, with the reduction in effectiveness of standard advertising, the agencies have hit upon the technique of making a press release in the style of a science story. “Science” journalists under more pressure to produce more words in less time than ever before don’t have the time, or the training, to investigate these stories and repeat them almost verbatim as real science breakthroughs.
    For my investigation into a recent example of this (namely a story that half of all Britons have been injured by biscuits) please see these blog entries: http://goingonabearhunt.blogspot.com/2009/09/bite.html & http://goingonabearhunt.blogspot.com/2009/09/bite-2-cookie-crumbles.html. They show just how bad the so called research behind these things can be.
    Big warning signs are short amusing news stories with no mention of primary sources. The words “studies show” is always a bad sign and stay away from any story that uses “polls”. The appearance of equations is seldom a good sign (see the biscuit story). By far the biggest alarm goes off in my mind when a story could be interpreted as beneficial for a particular manufacturer. For example, Maserati perhaps trying to prove their car has an effect on women, either to sell it directly to them, or to men wanting to impress them.
    This case has a lot of similarities with the biscuit one I investigated. For example, on first glance it does appear to be have carried out by a legitimate researcher (David Moxon, psychologist). It also wasn’t funded by the company who apparently gain the most from it, however, it does say at the bottom that it was “funded by motor insurer Hiscox”. A very bad sign indeed – it is easy to see how this article is targeted to the kind of policy holder likely to spend a lot of money and the insurence cos name appears at the bottom, linking them in the readers mind with high-end cars.
    A quick Google of “David Moxon” reveals he is very far from a legitimate researcher and in fact runs a consultancy company specializing in exactly this kind of press release. Other stories under his belt include “watching football makes you happier than a pay raise” funded by ING direct (who just happen to be big football sponsors) and “traffic jams make drivers ill” funded by Direct Line (this time the article is aimed squarely at Mr Joe Average Driver – DLs target market).
    I don’t know how widespread this problem is globally but it is HUGE in the UK. As a scientist I find at least half the articles I read fall into this category. The BBC and Guardian get honourable mentions for being less gullible than the majority, but they still fall for the occasional story.
    The bottom line is, if it looks like a science story, check and double check before you propagate it.
    I am afraid this is probably bunk.

    Reply
  4. Ellie Avatar
    Ellie

    Bob! Nooooooooooooooo!!!!!
    I have been doing some investigation lately into the phenomenon of advertising through the news media and this looks like a classic example to me.
    The person who got me into this sort of thing was Ben Goldacre and I strongly recommend you have a look at his excellent Bad Science blog (http://www.badscience.net) for more on this and bad science in general.
    In a nutshell, with the reduction in effectiveness of standard advertising, the agencies have hit upon the technique of making a press release in the style of a science story. “Science” journalists under more pressure to produce more words in less time than ever before don’t have the time, or the training, to investigate these stories and repeat them almost verbatim as real science breakthroughs.
    For my investigation into a recent example of this (namely a story that half of all Britons have been injured by biscuits) please see these blog entries: http://goingonabearhunt.blogspot.com/2009/09/bite.html & http://goingonabearhunt.blogspot.com/2009/09/bite-2-cookie-crumbles.html. They show just how bad the so called research behind these things can be.
    Big warning signs are short amusing news stories with no mention of primary sources. The words “studies show” is always a bad sign and stay away from any story that uses “polls”. The appearance of equations is seldom a good sign (see the biscuit story). By far the biggest alarm goes off in my mind when a story could be interpreted as beneficial for a particular manufacturer. For example, Maserati perhaps trying to prove their car has an effect on women, either to sell it directly to them, or to men wanting to impress them.
    This case has a lot of similarities with the biscuit one I investigated. For example, on first glance it does appear to be have carried out by a legitimate researcher (David Moxon, psychologist). It also wasn’t funded by the company who apparently gain the most from it, however, it does say at the bottom that it was “funded by motor insurer Hiscox”. A very bad sign indeed – it is easy to see how this article is targeted to the kind of policy holder likely to spend a lot of money and the insurence cos name appears at the bottom, linking them in the readers mind with high-end cars.
    A quick Google of “David Moxon” reveals he is very far from a legitimate researcher and in fact runs a consultancy company specializing in exactly this kind of press release. Other stories under his belt include “watching football makes you happier than a pay raise” funded by ING direct (who just happen to be big football sponsors) and “traffic jams make drivers ill” funded by Direct Line (this time the article is aimed squarely at Mr Joe Average Driver – DLs target market).
    I don’t know how widespread this problem is globally but it is HUGE in the UK. As a scientist I find at least half the articles I read fall into this category. The BBC and Guardian get honourable mentions for being less gullible than the majority, but they still fall for the occasional story.
    The bottom line is, if it looks like a science story, check and double check before you propagate it.
    I am afraid this is probably bunk.

    Reply
  5. Ellie Avatar
    Ellie

    Bob! Nooooooooooooooo!!!!!
    I have been doing some investigation lately into the phenomenon of advertising through the news media and this looks like a classic example to me.
    The person who got me into this sort of thing was Ben Goldacre and I strongly recommend you have a look at his excellent Bad Science blog (http://www.badscience.net) for more on this and bad science in general.
    In a nutshell, with the reduction in effectiveness of standard advertising, the agencies have hit upon the technique of making a press release in the style of a science story. “Science” journalists under more pressure to produce more words in less time than ever before don’t have the time, or the training, to investigate these stories and repeat them almost verbatim as real science breakthroughs.
    For my investigation into a recent example of this (namely a story that half of all Britons have been injured by biscuits) please see these blog entries: http://goingonabearhunt.blogspot.com/2009/09/bite.html & http://goingonabearhunt.blogspot.com/2009/09/bite-2-cookie-crumbles.html. They show just how bad the so called research behind these things can be.
    Big warning signs are short amusing news stories with no mention of primary sources. The words “studies show” is always a bad sign and stay away from any story that uses “polls”. The appearance of equations is seldom a good sign (see the biscuit story). By far the biggest alarm goes off in my mind when a story could be interpreted as beneficial for a particular manufacturer. For example, Maserati perhaps trying to prove their car has an effect on women, either to sell it directly to them, or to men wanting to impress them.
    This case has a lot of similarities with the biscuit one I investigated. For example, on first glance it does appear to be have carried out by a legitimate researcher (David Moxon, psychologist). It also wasn’t funded by the company who apparently gain the most from it, however, it does say at the bottom that it was “funded by motor insurer Hiscox”. A very bad sign indeed – it is easy to see how this article is targeted to the kind of policy holder likely to spend a lot of money and the insurence cos name appears at the bottom, linking them in the readers mind with high-end cars.
    A quick Google of “David Moxon” reveals he is very far from a legitimate researcher and in fact runs a consultancy company specializing in exactly this kind of press release. Other stories under his belt include “watching football makes you happier than a pay raise” funded by ING direct (who just happen to be big football sponsors) and “traffic jams make drivers ill” funded by Direct Line (this time the article is aimed squarely at Mr Joe Average Driver – DLs target market).
    I don’t know how widespread this problem is globally but it is HUGE in the UK. As a scientist I find at least half the articles I read fall into this category. The BBC and Guardian get honourable mentions for being less gullible than the majority, but they still fall for the occasional story.
    The bottom line is, if it looks like a science story, check and double check before you propagate it.
    I am afraid this is probably bunk.

    Reply
  6. Ellie Avatar
    Ellie

    Bob! Nooooooooooooooo!!!!!
    I have been doing some investigation lately into the phenomenon of advertising through the news media and this looks like a classic example to me.
    The person who got me into this sort of thing was Ben Goldacre and I strongly recommend you have a look at his excellent Bad Science blog (http://www.badscience.net) for more on this and bad science in general.
    In a nutshell, with the reduction in effectiveness of standard advertising, the agencies have hit upon the technique of making a press release in the style of a science story. “Science” journalists under more pressure to produce more words in less time than ever before don’t have the time, or the training, to investigate these stories and repeat them almost verbatim as real science breakthroughs.
    For my investigation into a recent example of this (namely a story that half of all Britons have been injured by biscuits) please see these blog entries: http://goingonabearhunt.blogspot.com/2009/09/bite.html & http://goingonabearhunt.blogspot.com/2009/09/bite-2-cookie-crumbles.html. They show just how bad the so called research behind these things can be.
    Big warning signs are short amusing news stories with no mention of primary sources. The words “studies show” is always a bad sign and stay away from any story that uses “polls”. The appearance of equations is seldom a good sign (see the biscuit story). By far the biggest alarm goes off in my mind when a story could be interpreted as beneficial for a particular manufacturer. For example, Maserati perhaps trying to prove their car has an effect on women, either to sell it directly to them, or to men wanting to impress them.
    This case has a lot of similarities with the biscuit one I investigated. For example, on first glance it does appear to be have carried out by a legitimate researcher (David Moxon, psychologist). It also wasn’t funded by the company who apparently gain the most from it, however, it does say at the bottom that it was “funded by motor insurer Hiscox”. A very bad sign indeed – it is easy to see how this article is targeted to the kind of policy holder likely to spend a lot of money and the insurence cos name appears at the bottom, linking them in the readers mind with high-end cars.
    A quick Google of “David Moxon” reveals he is very far from a legitimate researcher and in fact runs a consultancy company specializing in exactly this kind of press release. Other stories under his belt include “watching football makes you happier than a pay raise” funded by ING direct (who just happen to be big football sponsors) and “traffic jams make drivers ill” funded by Direct Line (this time the article is aimed squarely at Mr Joe Average Driver – DLs target market).
    I don’t know how widespread this problem is globally but it is HUGE in the UK. As a scientist I find at least half the articles I read fall into this category. The BBC and Guardian get honourable mentions for being less gullible than the majority, but they still fall for the occasional story.
    The bottom line is, if it looks like a science story, check and double check before you propagate it.
    I am afraid this is probably bunk.

    Reply
  7. Ellie Avatar
    Ellie

    Bob! Nooooooooooooooo!!!!!
    I have been doing some investigation lately into the phenomenon of advertising through the news media and this looks like a classic example to me.
    The person who got me into this sort of thing was Ben Goldacre and I strongly recommend you have a look at his excellent Bad Science blog (http://www.badscience.net) for more on this and bad science in general.
    In a nutshell, with the reduction in effectiveness of standard advertising, the agencies have hit upon the technique of making a press release in the style of a science story. “Science” journalists under more pressure to produce more words in less time than ever before don’t have the time, or the training, to investigate these stories and repeat them almost verbatim as real science breakthroughs.
    For my investigation into a recent example of this (namely a story that half of all Britons have been injured by biscuits) please see these blog entries: http://goingonabearhunt.blogspot.com/2009/09/bite.html & http://goingonabearhunt.blogspot.com/2009/09/bite-2-cookie-crumbles.html. They show just how bad the so called research behind these things can be.
    Big warning signs are short amusing news stories with no mention of primary sources. The words “studies show” is always a bad sign and stay away from any story that uses “polls”. The appearance of equations is seldom a good sign (see the biscuit story). By far the biggest alarm goes off in my mind when a story could be interpreted as beneficial for a particular manufacturer. For example, Maserati perhaps trying to prove their car has an effect on women, either to sell it directly to them, or to men wanting to impress them.
    This case has a lot of similarities with the biscuit one I investigated. For example, on first glance it does appear to be have carried out by a legitimate researcher (David Moxon, psychologist). It also wasn’t funded by the company who apparently gain the most from it, however, it does say at the bottom that it was “funded by motor insurer Hiscox”. A very bad sign indeed – it is easy to see how this article is targeted to the kind of policy holder likely to spend a lot of money and the insurence cos name appears at the bottom, linking them in the readers mind with high-end cars.
    A quick Google of “David Moxon” reveals he is very far from a legitimate researcher and in fact runs a consultancy company specializing in exactly this kind of press release. Other stories under his belt include “watching football makes you happier than a pay raise” funded by ING direct (who just happen to be big football sponsors) and “traffic jams make drivers ill” funded by Direct Line (this time the article is aimed squarely at Mr Joe Average Driver – DLs target market).
    I don’t know how widespread this problem is globally but it is HUGE in the UK. As a scientist I find at least half the articles I read fall into this category. The BBC and Guardian get honourable mentions for being less gullible than the majority, but they still fall for the occasional story.
    The bottom line is, if it looks like a science story, check and double check before you propagate it.
    I am afraid this is probably bunk.

    Reply
  8. Robert Sutton Avatar
    Robert Sutton

    Ellie,
    I think your warning may have some merit when it comes to the engine roar research. Perhaps I missed it but I cannot find any evidence that this research was peer reviewed, nor can I find any other reference to this particular study. Note I was careful to say that I did not know if it was credible. BUT I want to distinguish this research from the other two testosterone studies I described here, the one on status matching and on the other one on driving a Porsche vs. a Camry. I read the original peer review articles that both were based on. Both were published in a special issue of of Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, a prestigious peer reviewed that has a very high rejection rate. They both struck me as sound, although as was all research, neither study was perfect and flaws were acknowledged by the authors. Nonetheless, as I have devoted quite a bit of effort in my career to pressing for evidence-based management, your concern is on target and I echo your concern about the engine roar study. I will try to email David Moxon, the psychologist who is credited with the research, to see if he can provide us the research report.

    Reply
  9. Robert Sutton Avatar
    Robert Sutton

    Ellie,
    I think your warning may have some merit when it comes to the engine roar research. Perhaps I missed it but I cannot find any evidence that this research was peer reviewed, nor can I find any other reference to this particular study. Note I was careful to say that I did not know if it was credible. BUT I want to distinguish this research from the other two testosterone studies I described here, the one on status matching and on the other one on driving a Porsche vs. a Camry. I read the original peer review articles that both were based on. Both were published in a special issue of of Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, a prestigious peer reviewed that has a very high rejection rate. They both struck me as sound, although as was all research, neither study was perfect and flaws were acknowledged by the authors. Nonetheless, as I have devoted quite a bit of effort in my career to pressing for evidence-based management, your concern is on target and I echo your concern about the engine roar study. I will try to email David Moxon, the psychologist who is credited with the research, to see if he can provide us the research report.

    Reply
  10. Robert Sutton Avatar
    Robert Sutton

    Ellie,
    I think your warning may have some merit when it comes to the engine roar research. Perhaps I missed it but I cannot find any evidence that this research was peer reviewed, nor can I find any other reference to this particular study. Note I was careful to say that I did not know if it was credible. BUT I want to distinguish this research from the other two testosterone studies I described here, the one on status matching and on the other one on driving a Porsche vs. a Camry. I read the original peer review articles that both were based on. Both were published in a special issue of of Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, a prestigious peer reviewed that has a very high rejection rate. They both struck me as sound, although as was all research, neither study was perfect and flaws were acknowledged by the authors. Nonetheless, as I have devoted quite a bit of effort in my career to pressing for evidence-based management, your concern is on target and I echo your concern about the engine roar study. I will try to email David Moxon, the psychologist who is credited with the research, to see if he can provide us the research report.

    Reply
  11. Robert Sutton Avatar
    Robert Sutton

    Ellie,
    I think your warning may have some merit when it comes to the engine roar research. Perhaps I missed it but I cannot find any evidence that this research was peer reviewed, nor can I find any other reference to this particular study. Note I was careful to say that I did not know if it was credible. BUT I want to distinguish this research from the other two testosterone studies I described here, the one on status matching and on the other one on driving a Porsche vs. a Camry. I read the original peer review articles that both were based on. Both were published in a special issue of of Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, a prestigious peer reviewed that has a very high rejection rate. They both struck me as sound, although as was all research, neither study was perfect and flaws were acknowledged by the authors. Nonetheless, as I have devoted quite a bit of effort in my career to pressing for evidence-based management, your concern is on target and I echo your concern about the engine roar study. I will try to email David Moxon, the psychologist who is credited with the research, to see if he can provide us the research report.

    Reply
  12. Robert Sutton Avatar
    Robert Sutton

    Ellie,
    I think your warning may have some merit when it comes to the engine roar research. Perhaps I missed it but I cannot find any evidence that this research was peer reviewed, nor can I find any other reference to this particular study. Note I was careful to say that I did not know if it was credible. BUT I want to distinguish this research from the other two testosterone studies I described here, the one on status matching and on the other one on driving a Porsche vs. a Camry. I read the original peer review articles that both were based on. Both were published in a special issue of of Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, a prestigious peer reviewed that has a very high rejection rate. They both struck me as sound, although as was all research, neither study was perfect and flaws were acknowledged by the authors. Nonetheless, as I have devoted quite a bit of effort in my career to pressing for evidence-based management, your concern is on target and I echo your concern about the engine roar study. I will try to email David Moxon, the psychologist who is credited with the research, to see if he can provide us the research report.

    Reply
  13. Robert Sutton Avatar
    Robert Sutton

    Ellie,
    I think your warning may have some merit when it comes to the engine roar research. Perhaps I missed it but I cannot find any evidence that this research was peer reviewed, nor can I find any other reference to this particular study. Note I was careful to say that I did not know if it was credible. BUT I want to distinguish this research from the other two testosterone studies I described here, the one on status matching and on the other one on driving a Porsche vs. a Camry. I read the original peer review articles that both were based on. Both were published in a special issue of of Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, a prestigious peer reviewed that has a very high rejection rate. They both struck me as sound, although as was all research, neither study was perfect and flaws were acknowledged by the authors. Nonetheless, as I have devoted quite a bit of effort in my career to pressing for evidence-based management, your concern is on target and I echo your concern about the engine roar study. I will try to email David Moxon, the psychologist who is credited with the research, to see if he can provide us the research report.

    Reply
  14. Robert Sutton Avatar
    Robert Sutton

    Ellie,
    I think your warning may have some merit when it comes to the engine roar research. Perhaps I missed it but I cannot find any evidence that this research was peer reviewed, nor can I find any other reference to this particular study. Note I was careful to say that I did not know if it was credible. BUT I want to distinguish this research from the other two testosterone studies I described here, the one on status matching and on the other one on driving a Porsche vs. a Camry. I read the original peer review articles that both were based on. Both were published in a special issue of of Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, a prestigious peer reviewed that has a very high rejection rate. They both struck me as sound, although as was all research, neither study was perfect and flaws were acknowledged by the authors. Nonetheless, as I have devoted quite a bit of effort in my career to pressing for evidence-based management, your concern is on target and I echo your concern about the engine roar study. I will try to email David Moxon, the psychologist who is credited with the research, to see if he can provide us the research report.

    Reply
  15. Jan Avatar
    Jan

    So women are in danger of growing a mustache when driving sports cars 😉
    Seriously, it only proves my previous point that products provokes psychological responses, which in essence is neurological responses. Music, colors, motions, all release dopamine in the brain, and probably a lot of other hormones as well. Some companies know this, maybe not explicitly, but implicitly. People in the movie business and in advertising also know this (implicitly).

    Reply
  16. Jan Avatar
    Jan

    So women are in danger of growing a mustache when driving sports cars 😉
    Seriously, it only proves my previous point that products provokes psychological responses, which in essence is neurological responses. Music, colors, motions, all release dopamine in the brain, and probably a lot of other hormones as well. Some companies know this, maybe not explicitly, but implicitly. People in the movie business and in advertising also know this (implicitly).

    Reply
  17. Jan Avatar
    Jan

    So women are in danger of growing a mustache when driving sports cars 😉
    Seriously, it only proves my previous point that products provokes psychological responses, which in essence is neurological responses. Music, colors, motions, all release dopamine in the brain, and probably a lot of other hormones as well. Some companies know this, maybe not explicitly, but implicitly. People in the movie business and in advertising also know this (implicitly).

    Reply
  18. Jan Avatar
    Jan

    So women are in danger of growing a mustache when driving sports cars 😉
    Seriously, it only proves my previous point that products provokes psychological responses, which in essence is neurological responses. Music, colors, motions, all release dopamine in the brain, and probably a lot of other hormones as well. Some companies know this, maybe not explicitly, but implicitly. People in the movie business and in advertising also know this (implicitly).

    Reply
  19. Jan Avatar
    Jan

    So women are in danger of growing a mustache when driving sports cars 😉
    Seriously, it only proves my previous point that products provokes psychological responses, which in essence is neurological responses. Music, colors, motions, all release dopamine in the brain, and probably a lot of other hormones as well. Some companies know this, maybe not explicitly, but implicitly. People in the movie business and in advertising also know this (implicitly).

    Reply
  20. Jan Avatar
    Jan

    So women are in danger of growing a mustache when driving sports cars 😉
    Seriously, it only proves my previous point that products provokes psychological responses, which in essence is neurological responses. Music, colors, motions, all release dopamine in the brain, and probably a lot of other hormones as well. Some companies know this, maybe not explicitly, but implicitly. People in the movie business and in advertising also know this (implicitly).

    Reply
  21. Jan Avatar
    Jan

    So women are in danger of growing a mustache when driving sports cars 😉
    Seriously, it only proves my previous point that products provokes psychological responses, which in essence is neurological responses. Music, colors, motions, all release dopamine in the brain, and probably a lot of other hormones as well. Some companies know this, maybe not explicitly, but implicitly. People in the movie business and in advertising also know this (implicitly).

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More posts