A new meta-analysis of experimental and observational studies, led by Anna Dreber and her colleagues, helps to shed light on that. They ultimately concluded that testosterone has minimal influence on men’s economic choices. This study brings some thrilling new findings to light. It takes a deep dive into understanding how hormones affect the economic decision making process. Now researchers from the Stockholm School of Economics have published a study based on a randomized controlled trial with men. They were particularly interested in how one dose of intranasal testosterone changed the participants’ economic preferences.
The researchers randomly assigned participants to get either an 11-milligram dose of testosterone (AndroGel) or a placebo. In a double-blind trial, participants and researchers alike were unaware of which subjects received which treatment. After being given the hormone, the participants waited half an hour to allow it to start working. Next, they engaged in a series of decision-making games and economic preference tasks.
Study Methodology
The execution of this study was done according to the best scientific practices, to avoid bias at all costs. The men as participants were carefully chosen, or screened for lack of a better term, and randomly assigned to one of two different groups. One group was given testosterone injections, while the other group received placebo injections. We took this approach to mitigate any biases that may result from self-selection and/or third-party influence.
These were the primary outcomes of the study, with the primary aim being to assess the impact of testosterone on nine economic outcomes. These results ranged from increased risk-taking behavior to an increase in trust, a competitive preference and more. The researchers meticulously recorded participants’ choices during the decision-making tasks, ensuring a comprehensive assessment of testosterone’s impact on these behaviors.
The methodology was rigorous, but the results were clear. Testosterone had no meaningful effect. These results held for each of the nine primary outcomes tested. This finding raises the possibility that testosterone might not be as central of a player on the economic decision-making stage as once assumed.
Implications of Findings
The policy implications of this research are huge, both for economic theory and practical application. The reason is that most previous research found a positive relationship between testosterone and aggression or risky behavior in both humans and animal models. Dreber’s study at first glance seems to turn those assumptions on their heads. In sum, it provides compelling evidence that a single dose of testosterone does not alter men’s economic decision-making.
Additionally, the results highlight the need to rethink how hormones are seen as influencing economically relevant behaviors. Hormones play a powerful role in shaping all aspects of human behavior. That’s not to say that their effects on economic preferences aren’t more complex than previous models predicted. This study broadens our conception of what humans often consider during decision-making. Beyond these substantive points, perhaps most importantly, it encourages further research in this space.
Research Team and Future Directions
Anna Dreber, a Professor at the Department of Economics at Stockholm School of Economics, led the research team alongside Magnus Johannesson, a Professor at the same institution. Further, Justin M. Carré from Nipissing University in Canada joined Collins in conducting the study. Their combined knowledge offered an excellent starting point for this groundbreaking study.
Researchers could examine different dosages or time of day testosterone should be administered. This analysis should help determine if these elements result in better outcomes. Future research should explore the role of other hormones or physiological condition on economic choice. This research will provide important insights into this complex relationship.