Pubertal timing predicts adult psychosexuality: Evidence from typically developing adults and adults with isolated GnRH deficiency.

Evidence suggests that psychosexuality in humans is modulated by both organizational effects of prenatal and peripubertal sex steroid hormones, and by activational effects of circulating hormones in adulthood. Experimental work in male rodents indicates that sensitivity to androgen-driven organization of sexual motivation decreases across the pubertal window, such that earlier puberty leads to greater sex-typicality. We test this hypothesis in typically developing men (n = 231) and women (n = 648), and in men (n = 72) and women (n = 32) with isolated GnRH deficiency (IGD), in whom the precise timing of peripubertal hormone exposure can be ascertained via the age at which hormone replacement therapy (HRT) was initiated. Psychosexuality was measured with the Sexual Desire Inventory-2 (SDI-2) and Sociosexual Orientation Inventory-Revised (SOI-R). In both sexes, earlier recalled absolute pubertal timing predicted higher psychosexuality in adulthood, although the magnitude of these associations varied with psychosexuality type and group (i.e., typically developing and IGD). Results were robust when controlling for circulating steroid hormones in typically developing participants. Age of initiation of HRT in men with IGD negatively predicted SOI-R. We discuss the clinical implications of our findings for conditions in which pubertal timing is medically altered.

No evidence that hormonal contraceptive use or circulating sex steroids predict complex emotion recognition.

Relatively little is known about the effects of endogenous and exogenous steroid hormones on ecologically relevant behavioral and cognitive phenotypes in women, such as emotion recognition, despite the widespread use of steroid hormone-altering hormonal contraceptives (HCs). Though some previous studies have examined the effect of HC use, estradiol, progesterone, and testosterone on emotion recognition in women, they have been limited by cross-sectional designs, small sample sizes (total n < 100), and compromised statistical power to detect significant effects. Using data from two test sessions in a large sample of naturally cycling women (NC; n = 192) and women on HCs (n = 203), we found no group differences in emotion recognition; further, the lack of group differences in emotion recognition was not modulated by item difficulty or emotional valence. Among NC women who provided saliva samples across two sessions that were assayed for estradiol and progesterone concentrations, we found no compelling evidence across models that between-subject differences and within-subject fluctuations in these ovarian hormones predicted emotion recognition accuracy, with the exception that between-subjects estradiol negatively predicted emotion recognition for emotions of neutral valence (p = .042). Among HC women who provided saliva samples across two sessions that were assayed for testosterone, we found no compelling evidence that between-subjects differences and within-subject fluctuations in testosterone predicted emotion recognition accuracy. Overall, our analyses provide little support for the idea that circulating endogenous or exogenous ovarian hormones influence emotion recognition in women.