Men with larger testicles tend to be less involved fathers than those with smaller testes, a new study suggests.


The findings, detailed today (Sept. 9) in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, are correlational, so they can't say exactly why the trend exists but only that there is a link.


But men who produce more sperm have bigger testes, and sperm production[1] is extremely energy intensive for the body, so it may be that fathers "face a trade-off between investing energy in parenting and investing energy in mating effort," said study co-author James Rilling, an anthropologist at Emory University in Atlanta. [Sexy Swimmers: 7 Surprising Facts About Sperm[2] ]


Involved dads


Scores of studies have shown that children with involved and caring fathers[3] tend to do better emotionally, socially and educationally.


So Rilling and his colleagues were interested in understanding what makes some men stellar dads[4] and others AWOL.



A 2011 study in the Philippines suggested that men who have high testosterone levels are more likely to marry. Even so, those men who are eventually more involved in day-to-day child care duties — such as changing diapers, running the bath or kissing scraped boo-boos — see their testosterone levels drop more than men who remain aloof after having children.


But testosterone[5] has many roles in the male body, so it wasn't clear whether the drop in the male hormone occurred because men were investing more in parenting than in mating.


Rilling and his colleagues surveyed 70 married men ages 21 to 55 who had between one and four children about their involvement in caregiving. Only four of the men routinely did more caregiving than the mothers.


The researchers then used magnetic resonance imaging to scan the brains of the fathers while they looked at images of their children. The team also scanned the participants' testes to assess volume and measured testosterone levels from blood samples.


Men's testes' volume varied considerably — from a little more than a tablespoon in volume to about a quarter cup.


Men with bigger testes[6] had a more hands-off parenting style, and the reward centers of their brains activated less when the men viewed their children's pictures. These fathers also tended to have higher testosterone levels.


The findings are fascinating and provocative, said Sarah Hrdy, an anthropologist at Citrona Farms who was not involved in the study.


"For me, the take-home message is, there is this tremendous potential for nurture in human males, albeit a potential that in different cultural and social situations is not always being tapped," Hrdy told LiveScience.


But the study also raises a number of questions, added Hrdy, who is professor emerita at the University of California, Davis; associate in the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology at Harvard; and A.D. White professor-at-large at Cornell University.


For instance, no one knows how testicular volume changes over time (although testes do tend to shrink with age).


In addition, scientists aren't sure whether men who make more sperm are genetically wired to be detached dads, or whether early life experience or the act of caring for children leads men's bodies to invest less in sperm-making, thereby causing their testicles to shrink, she said.


Another possibility is that the trend reveals a trade-off that varies with men's mating strategy, said Robert Martin, a biological anthropologist and author of "How We Do It: The Evolution and Future of Human Reproduction," (Basic Books, 2013).


"A man can either invest in looking after the child of one wife, or he can invest more in sperm production[7] if he has several wives," Martin, who was not involved in the study, told LiveScience.


Follow Tia Ghose on Twitter[8] and Google+ [9] . Follow LiveScience @livescience [10] , Facebook [11] & Google+ [12] . Original article on LiveScience [13] .



Copyright 2013 LiveScience, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Also on HuffPost:




Loading Slideshow...



  • Medicine: Knuckle Cracker


    The 2009 Ig Nobel Prize in Medicine was awarded to Donald Unger for investigating a possible cause of arthritis of the fingers, by diligently cracking the knuckles of his left hand — but never cracking the knuckles of his right hand — every day for more than 60 years. He concluded that knuckle cracking does not cause arthritis.




  • Physics: Pregnant Plunge


    The 2009 Ig Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to Daniel E. Lieberman, and his fellow researchers Katherine Whitcome and Liza Shapiro, for analytically determining why pregnant women don't tip over by leaning back.




  • Medicine: Hicc-Oh!


    The 2006 Ig Nobel Prize in Medicine was awarded to four scientists who studied how to cure intractable hiccups with a digital rectal massage. Dr. Francis Fesmire during his Ig Nobel Prize acceptance speech displayed "Dr. Franz's Anti-Hiccup Kit," which comes with "gloves, KY Jelly and detailed instructions on proper finger technique."




  • Veterinary Medicine: Anonymous Cows


    The 2009 Ig Nobel Prize in Veterinary Medicine was awarded to two scientists for "showing that cows who have names give more milk than cows that are nameless."




  • Chemistry: Coca-Cola Contraceptive


    The 2007 Ig Nobel Prize in Chemistry was awarded to two American and a Puerto Rican scientists for discovering that Coca-Cola is an effective spermicide... and to three Taiwanese scientists for discovering that it is not.




  • Medicine: Finest Fake Medicine


    The 2008 Ig Nobel Prize in Medicine was awarded to Dan Ariely of Duke University and three other scientists for "demonstrating that high-priced fake medicine is more effective than low-priced fake medicine."




  • Biology: Fart-to-Fart Connection


    The 2004 Ig Nobel Prize in Biology was awarded to five scientists for showing that herrings may communicate by farting.




  • Medicine: Urine Trouble


    The 2011 Ig Nobel Prize in Medicine was awarded to Mirjam Tuk and eight others for researching how the need to urinate impacts decision-making. Tuk found that test subjects who needed to urinate were less likely to make an impulsive financial decision than those who did not need to go to the bathroom.




  • Hygiene: Pet Wash


    The 2002 Ig Nobel Prize in Hygiene was awarded to Eduardo Segura for inventing a washing machine for cats and dogs. The machine is marketed under the name Lavakan.




  • Medicine: Swallowing Swords


    The 2007 Ig Nobel Prize in Medicine was awarded to Brian Witcombe and Dan Meyer for their research on sword swallowing and its side effects.




  • Psychology: Why Sigh?


    The 2011 Ig Nobel Prize in Psychology was awarded to Karl Teigen for studying why, in everyday life, people sigh. Teigen found that people perceive others sighing in public as a sign of boredom, frustration or resignation, while private sighs were seen as reflecting sadness.




  • Physics: Pasta Pieces


    The 2006 Ig Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to three scientists for their insights into why, when you bend dry spaghetti, it often breaks into more than two pieces.




  • Medicine: Neuticles


    The 2005 Ig Nobel Prize in Medicine was awarded to Gregg A. Miller for inventing Neuticles -- artificial replacement testicles for dogs, which are available in three sizes, and three degrees of firmness.




  • Biology: Fruit Bat Fellatio


    The 2010 Ig Nobel Prize in Biology was awarded to eight scientists for scientifically documenting fellatio in fruit bats.




  • Medicine: Take One Roller Coaster


    The 2010 Ig Nobel Prize in Medicine was awarded to two Dutch scientists for discovering that symptoms of asthma can be treated with a roller-coaster ride.




  • Physics: Ponytail Forces


    The 2012 Ig Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to four scientists for calculating the balance of forces that shape and move the hair in a human ponytail.




  • Psychology: Gorilla Oversight


    The 2004 Ig Nobel Prize in Psychology was awarded to two scientists for demonstrating that when people pay close attention to something, it's all too easy to overlook anything else. After all, can you spot the gorilla in this video?