Study analysis · Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews · 2018
Your testosterone might influence your risk-taking, but not in the way you think!
A major analysis of dozens of studies shows that higher testosterone and estradiol are linked to slightly more risk-taking, but the stress hormone cortisol has no effect.
Overview
What the study found
The study in plain English — the bottom line, every takeaway we extracted, and what to do with them.
In simple terms
This study combined many smaller studies to see if certain hormones in your body are linked to taking risks. It found that people with more testosterone or estradiol tend to take a bit more risks, but it doesn't prove that those hormones make you take risks. It's like noticing that people with umbrellas are more likely to be outside in the rain, but the umbrellas don't cause the rain.
What’s the bottom line?
Researchers combined many studies to see if hormone levels are linked to risk-taking behavior. They found that people with higher testosterone or estradiol (a type of estrogen) tend to be slightly more willing to take risks, but cortisol (the stress hormone) doesn't seem to matter.
How strong is this study?
The researchers did a thorough job collecting many studies, but the studies were not experiments, so we can't be sure if the hormones cause the behavior. Also, the studies were different in many ways, so the results might not be very precise. So, we should trust the findings a little, but not too much.
40 / 100
- COI disclosure+40/40
- Data availabilitydata not shared
- Code availabilitycode not shared
0 / 100
- Randomizationrandomization unclear
- Blindingblinding unclear
- Control groupno control group
- Sample sizeno sample size reported
- Follow-upno follow-up reported
100 / 100
77 / 100
- P-values+15/15
- Effect size+20/20
- Confidence intervals+15/15
- Pre-registrationnot pre-registered
Each component is scored out of 100 and then capped by the study design — a case series cannot reach the ceiling a randomised trial can, however well it is reported.
Where it sits
RCT reviewsReviews of RCTs (Meta-analyses)
Max 100Randomized TrialsRandomized Trials
Max 90Reviews of Cohort StudiesReviews of Cohort Studies
Max 85Cohort StudiesCohort Studies
Max 72Reviews of Case-Control StudiesReviews of Case-Control Studies
Max 63Case-Control StudiesCase-Control Studies
Max 58Cross-Sectional & Case SeriesCross-Sectional & Case Series
Max 50Expert OpinionExpert Opinion
Max 547 / 100
Probability of being correct
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of cohort studies. They sit above a single cohort study but below a single randomized trial, because the underlying evidence is still observational.
This design cannot establish causation — the findings describe an association, not a cause. This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies (primarily cross-sectional correlational studies). These studies cannot establish cause-effect relationships because they lack randomization and temporal sequencing. The associations between hormones and risk-taking could be due to reverse causality, confounding factors, or other unmeasured variables.
No Conflicts
No conflicts of interest identified
No conflicts of interest or funding information provided in the available text; the study appears to be an independent academic meta-analysis.
The available text does not include a conflict of interest or funding statement. Based on the provided content, there are no apparent conflicts of interest.
Key takeaways
- 01
For every 100 people, those with higher testosterone are a bit more likely to take risks, and the same goes for estradiol.
- 02
But cortisol has no effect on risk-taking.
- 03
The effects are small but consistent across many studies, meaning they are real but not huge.
- 04
They suggest hormones play a minor role in why some people take more risks than others.
Surprising findings
- Cortisol shows no association with risk-taking.Many believe stress hormones increase risk-taking, but this meta-analysis finds no link for trait cortisol levels.
- The effects of testosterone and estradiol are only small.The study challenges the common notion that testosterone is a strong driver of risk-taking; the average correlation is only 0.12.
Practical takeaways
Don't use your hormone levels as an excuse for risky behavior; the effects are small.
Correlation is not causation, and the small effect size means many other factors are at play.
medium confidenceIf you're interested in your risk-taking tendency, focus on other factors like personality and environment rather than hormone levels.
The study doesn't rule out hormones entirely, just that they have a small role.
medium confidenceWhy this study matters
Testosterone and risk-taking: Small but real link
The meta-analysis of 49 studies with over 9,000 participants found a small but significant correlation between testosterone levels and risk-taking propensity, impulsivity, sensation seeking, and novelty seeking (r = 0.12). This means that people with higher testosterone tend to take slightly more risks, but the effect is modest.
It challenges the common belief that testosterone is a major driver of risky behavior; the effect is small.
Estradiol also matters
Estradiol, often considered the 'female' hormone, also showed a small positive correlation with risk-taking (r = 0.10) based on 17 studies with about 2,900 participants. This suggests that both sex hormones play a role, not just testosterone.
It's often overlooked in discussions of risk-taking, which focus on testosterone.
Cortisol: Not a player
The stress hormone cortisol showed no significant association with risk-taking (r = -0.01) based on 27 studies. This is surprising given the popular belief that stress makes people more impulsive or risk-prone.
It contradicts the stereotype of the cowboys who are calm under pressure; it suggests trait cortisol levels don't predict risk-taking.
High variability across studies
There was significant heterogeneity (I² = 74% for testosterone, 55% for estradiol, 84% for cortisol), meaning the results vary a lot across different studies. This suggests other factors like age, sex, or measurement tools might influence the link.
It shows that the hormone-risk relationship isn't uniform; context matters.
Implications for understanding human behavior
These findings suggest a biological foundation for individual differences in risk-taking, but the effects are small. It also highlights the need for more research on moderators and the dual-hormone hypothesis.
It shifts the conversation from 'testosterone makes you reckless' to a more nuanced view.
Want the whole report?
Detailed mode opens the full scientific breakdown — every score component, the methodology, conflicts of interest, the evidence analysis behind each claim, and the raw study data.
Overview
What the study found
The study in plain English — the bottom line, every takeaway we extracted, and what to do with them.
Not medical advice. For informational purposes only. Always consult a healthcare professional. Terms
Researchers combined many studies to see if hormone levels are linked to risk-taking behavior. They found that people with higher testosterone or estradiol (a type of estrogen) tend to be slightly more willing to take risks, but cortisol (the stress hormone) doesn't seem to matter.
Research results
For every 100 people, those with higher testosterone are a bit more likely to take risks, and the same goes for estradiol. But cortisol has no effect on risk-taking.
What this means - more context
The effects are small but consistent across many studies, meaning they are real but not huge. They suggest hormones play a minor role in why some people take more risks than others.
To quantitatively synthesize evidence on the association between endogenous testosterone, estradiol, and cortisol levels and risk-taking-related constructs (risk-taking propensity, impulsivity, sensation seeking, novelty seeking).
Meta-analyses revealed small but significant positive correlations between testosterone (r = 0.12) and estradiol (r = 0.10) with risk-taking, while cortisol showed no significant association (r = -0.01). High heterogeneity across studies suggests moderators influence these relationships.
Methods Used
Systematic literature search and three independent meta-analyses integrating 108 effect sizes from 49 studies (N=9112) for testosterone, 48 effect sizes from 17 studies (N=2900) for estradiol, and 60 effect sizes from 27 studies (N=3880) for cortisol.
Main Finding
Testosterone and estradiol are weakly but reliably associated with risk-taking, whereas cortisol is not. Effect sizes: testosterone r=0.12 (95% CI: 0.08-0.16), estradiol r=0.10 (95% CI: 0.02-0.18), cortisol r=-0.01 (95% CI: -0.11 to 0.09).
Confidence Level
High confidence in the meta-analytic results, but significant heterogeneity (I² = 74% for testosterone, 55% for estradiol, 84% for cortisol) warrants caution in interpreting the pooled estimates.
Study Flags
Red Flags
- •High heterogeneity across studies (I² > 50%)
- •Possible publication bias not assessed
- •Limited number of studies for estradiol (k=17)
No biological mechanisms were identified in this study. This may be an epidemiological, observational, or survey-based study that reports associations rather than proposing causal biological pathways.
Surprising Findings
Cortisol shows no association with risk-taking.
Many believe stress hormones increase risk-taking, but this meta-analysis finds no link for trait cortisol levels.
Practical Takeaways
Don't use your hormone levels as an excuse for risky behavior; the effects are small.
RCT reviewsReviews of RCTs (Meta-analyses)
Max 100Randomized TrialsRandomized Trials
Max 90Reviews of Cohort StudiesReviews of Cohort Studies
Max 85Cohort StudiesCohort Studies
Max 72Reviews of Case-Control StudiesReviews of Case-Control Studies
Max 63Case-Control StudiesCase-Control Studies
Max 58Cross-Sectional & Case SeriesCross-Sectional & Case Series
Max 50Expert OpinionExpert Opinion
Max 547 / 100
Probability of being correct
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of cohort studies. They sit above a single cohort study but below a single randomized trial, because the underlying evidence is still observational.
Human Meta-Analysis
Subject
Moderate probability
on the GRADE evidence scale
This study combined many smaller studies to see if certain hormones in your body are linked to taking risks. It found that people with more testosterone or estradiol tend to take a bit more risks, but it doesn't prove that those hormones make you take risks. It's like noticing that people with umbrellas are more likely to be outside in the rain, but the umbrellas don't cause the rain.
No conflicts of interest were detected in this study. No score impact.
Strengths
- Systematic literature search and explicit inclusion criteria
- Meta-analytic synthesis providing pooled effect sizes with confidence intervals
- Large combined sample sizes (N>9000 for testosterone) increasing statistical power
Weaknesses
- High heterogeneity (I2 values: 55%-84%) indicating inconsistency among study results
- Observational design of included studies precludes causal inference
- Possible publication bias and file-drawer effects
Methodology
Evidence Keywords
Statistical Reporting
Not medical advice. For informational purposes only. Always consult a healthcare professional. Terms
Researchers combined many studies to see if hormone levels are linked to risk-taking behavior. They found that people with higher testosterone or estradiol (a type of estrogen) tend to be slightly more willing to take risks, but cortisol (the stress hormone) doesn't seem to matter.
Research results
For every 100 people, those with higher testosterone are a bit more likely to take risks, and the same goes for estradiol. But cortisol has no effect on risk-taking.
What this means - more context
The effects are small but consistent across many studies, meaning they are real but not huge. They suggest hormones play a minor role in why some people take more risks than others.
To quantitatively synthesize evidence on the association between endogenous testosterone, estradiol, and cortisol levels and risk-taking-related constructs (risk-taking propensity, impulsivity, sensation seeking, novelty seeking).
Meta-analyses revealed small but significant positive correlations between testosterone (r = 0.12) and estradiol (r = 0.10) with risk-taking, while cortisol showed no significant association (r = -0.01). High heterogeneity across studies suggests moderators influence these relationships.
Methods Used
Systematic literature search and three independent meta-analyses integrating 108 effect sizes from 49 studies (N=9112) for testosterone, 48 effect sizes from 17 studies (N=2900) for estradiol, and 60 effect sizes from 27 studies (N=3880) for cortisol.
Main Finding
Testosterone and estradiol are weakly but reliably associated with risk-taking, whereas cortisol is not. Effect sizes: testosterone r=0.12 (95% CI: 0.08-0.16), estradiol r=0.10 (95% CI: 0.02-0.18), cortisol r=-0.01 (95% CI: -0.11 to 0.09).
Confidence Level
High confidence in the meta-analytic results, but significant heterogeneity (I² = 74% for testosterone, 55% for estradiol, 84% for cortisol) warrants caution in interpreting the pooled estimates.
Study Flags
Red Flags
- •High heterogeneity across studies (I² > 50%)
- •Possible publication bias not assessed
- •Limited number of studies for estradiol (k=17)
No biological mechanisms were identified in this study. This may be an epidemiological, observational, or survey-based study that reports associations rather than proposing causal biological pathways.
Surprising Findings
Cortisol shows no association with risk-taking.
Many believe stress hormones increase risk-taking, but this meta-analysis finds no link for trait cortisol levels.
Practical Takeaways
Don't use your hormone levels as an excuse for risky behavior; the effects are small.
RCT reviewsReviews of RCTs (Meta-analyses)
Max 100Randomized TrialsRandomized Trials
Max 90Reviews of Cohort StudiesReviews of Cohort Studies
Max 85Cohort StudiesCohort Studies
Max 72Reviews of Case-Control StudiesReviews of Case-Control Studies
Max 63Case-Control StudiesCase-Control Studies
Max 58Cross-Sectional & Case SeriesCross-Sectional & Case Series
Max 50Expert OpinionExpert Opinion
Max 547 / 100
Probability of being correct
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of cohort studies. They sit above a single cohort study but below a single randomized trial, because the underlying evidence is still observational.
Human Meta-Analysis
Subject
Moderate probability
on the GRADE evidence scale
This study combined many smaller studies to see if certain hormones in your body are linked to taking risks. It found that people with more testosterone or estradiol tend to take a bit more risks, but it doesn't prove that those hormones make you take risks. It's like noticing that people with umbrellas are more likely to be outside in the rain, but the umbrellas don't cause the rain.
No conflicts of interest were detected in this study. No score impact.
Strengths
- Systematic literature search and explicit inclusion criteria
- Meta-analytic synthesis providing pooled effect sizes with confidence intervals
- Large combined sample sizes (N>9000 for testosterone) increasing statistical power
Weaknesses
- High heterogeneity (I2 values: 55%-84%) indicating inconsistency among study results
- Observational design of included studies precludes causal inference
- Possible publication bias and file-drawer effects
Methodology
Evidence Keywords
Statistical Reporting
Scoring
How strong is this study?
The researchers did a thorough job collecting many studies, but the studies were not experiments, so we can't be sure if the hormones cause the behavior. Also, the studies were different in many ways, so the results might not be very precise. So, we should trust the findings a little, but not too much.
40 / 100
- COI disclosure+40/40
- Data availabilitydata not shared
- Code availabilitycode not shared
0 / 100
- Randomizationrandomization unclear
- Blindingblinding unclear
- Control groupno control group
- Sample sizeno sample size reported
- Follow-upno follow-up reported
100 / 100
77 / 100
- P-values+15/15
- Effect size+20/20
- Confidence intervals+15/15
- Pre-registrationnot pre-registered
Each component is scored out of 100 and then capped by the study design — a case series cannot reach the ceiling a randomised trial can, however well it is reported.
Where it sits
RCT reviewsReviews of RCTs (Meta-analyses)
Max 100Randomized TrialsRandomized Trials
Max 90Reviews of Cohort StudiesReviews of Cohort Studies
Max 85Cohort StudiesCohort Studies
Max 72Reviews of Case-Control StudiesReviews of Case-Control Studies
Max 63Case-Control StudiesCase-Control Studies
Max 58Cross-Sectional & Case SeriesCross-Sectional & Case Series
Max 50Expert OpinionExpert Opinion
Max 547 / 100
Probability of being correct
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of cohort studies. They sit above a single cohort study but below a single randomized trial, because the underlying evidence is still observational.
This design cannot establish causation — the findings describe an association, not a cause. This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies (primarily cross-sectional correlational studies). These studies cannot establish cause-effect relationships because they lack randomization and temporal sequencing. The associations between hormones and risk-taking could be due to reverse causality, confounding factors, or other unmeasured variables.
No Conflicts
No conflicts of interest identified
No conflicts of interest or funding information provided in the available text; the study appears to be an independent academic meta-analysis.
The available text does not include a conflict of interest or funding statement. Based on the provided content, there are no apparent conflicts of interest.