Investigating the effects of single-dose intranasal testosterone on economic preferences in a large randomized trial of men

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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2025-09-23
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2508519122
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
4.24
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Investigating the effects of single-dose intranasal testosterone on economic preferences in a large randomized trial of men

Justin M. Carré, Gideon Nave, Anna Dreber, Dylan Manfredi et al.
2 citations
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
4.24
article

Investigating the effects of single-dose intranasal testosterone on economic preferences in a large randomized trial of men

Justin M. Carré, Gideon Nave, Anna Dreber, Dylan Manfredi, Taisuke Imai, Valentina Proietti, Shawn N. Geniole, Coren L. Apicella, Magnus Johannesson, Triana L. Ortiz, Francesca R. Luberti, Pranjal H. Mehta, Erik L. Knight, Stanton Sl, Alina Zeltikova
article en
2 citations

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.

Proceedings of the National Academy of SciencesVol. 122(39)
Nipissing University (CA), Osaka University of Economics (JP), University of the Fraser Valley (CA), Oakland University (US), Stockholm School of Economics (SE), University of Colorado Boulder (US), Universität Innsbruck (AT), Institute for Social and Economic Research (GB), William P. Wharton Trust (US), University College London (GB), University of Pennsylvania (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Evolutionary Psychology and Human Behavior
4.24
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.