Investigating the effects of single-dose intranasal testosterone on economic preferences in a large randomized trial of men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is conflicting evidence on whether testosterone affects economic preferences such as risk taking, fairness, and altruism, with most evidence coming from correlational studies or small testosterone administration studies. To credibly test this hypothesis, we conducted a large-scale, preregistered, double-blind randomized controlled trial with 1,000 male participants-10 to 20 times larger than typical prior studies. Participants were randomly allocated to receive a single dose of either placebo or intranasal testosterone, and carried out a series of economic tasks capturing social preferences, competitiveness, and risk preferences. We find no evidence of a treatment effect for any of our nine primary outcome measures, and no strong evidence of an association between basal salivary testosterone and economic preferences within men. These results fail to conceptually replicate previous high-impact publications reporting positive findings in smaller samples, calling into question the idea that short-term testosterone fluctuations are important drivers of men's economic preferences. Our results do not rule out the possibility that different effects might emerge under alternative dosages, administration protocols, or task timings, or that behavioral effects differ between men and women. The potential for developmental or long-term effects of testosterone also remains an open question for future research, though such effects are ethically challenging to investigate experimentally in humans.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".