Back to Studies

Study analysis · Behavioral Sciences · 2026

Your hormones might be deciding whether you risk your own money for charity—and the stress hormone cortisol might be the real hero.

Men with more testosterone take bigger risks, even to help others, but men with more stress hormone cortisol play it safe—especially when helping others, and the two hormones don't interact as previously thought.

Reading level
Low certainty
Level 4 · Case seriesAssociation, not causationNo causal claims

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 is like taking a snapshot at one moment. The scientists measured hormones and behavior at the same time, so they can see if they happen together, but they can't tell if one causes the other. It's like seeing that people who carry umbrellas are more likely to have rain outside, but carrying an umbrella doesn't cause rain.

What’s the bottom line?

We wanted to see if natural testosterone and cortisol levels in men affect whether they take risks to help others. We played a game where they could gamble to win money for themselves or a charity.

How strong is this study?

The study was well-planned in some ways: they decided how many people to include ahead of time, used a careful task, and collected samples at the same time of day. But they had only a small group of men and took hormone samples just once, so the results might not be very reliable.

Reporting

40 / 100

  • COI disclosure+40/40
  • Data availabilitydata not shared
  • Code availabilitycode not shared
Methodology

7 / 100

  • Randomizationnot randomized
  • Blindingnot blinded
  • Control groupno control group
  • Sample size (n=69)+5.8/20
  • Follow-upno follow-up reported
Publication

100 / 100

Statistical

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 reviews

Max 100

Randomized Trials

Max 90

Reviews of Cohort Studies

Max 85

Cohort Studies

Max 72

Reviews of Case-Control Studies

Max 63

Case-Control Studies

Max 58

Cross-Sectional & Case Series

Max 50

Expert Opinion

Max 5
StrongerWeaker
Cross-Sectional & Case Series
Level 4
44

44 / 100

Probability of being correct

Snapshots of a population at a single point in time, or descriptions of small groups. Can identify correlations and prevalence, but cannot determine cause and effect.

This design cannot establish causation — the findings describe an association, not a cause. This is a cross-sectional observational study without randomization or a control group. Hormone levels and risk-taking behavior were measured at the same time, making it impossible to determine whether hormones influence behavior or if the relationship is due to other factors. No causal conclusions can be drawn.

No Conflicts

No conflicts of interest identified

Not Disclosed

No conflicts of interest or funding sources are disclosed in the provided text; the study appears to be an independent academic investigation without industry ties.

Undisclosed — Suspicious

The text is truncated, and no explicit conflict of interest or funding statement is visible. The study appears to be academic in nature, but without full text, confirmation is limited.

Key takeaways

  1. 01

    Men with more testosterone took more risks in both cases.

  2. 02

    Men with more cortisol took fewer risks, especially when playing for charity.

  3. 03

    There was no sign that testosterone and cortisol worked together.

  4. 04

    The effects were small but measurable.

  5. 05

    Testosterone seemed to increase risk-taking generally, while cortisol reduced it, particularly for altruistic risks.

Surprising findings

  • Higher testosterone was positively associated with prosocial risk-taking, meaning men with more testosterone were more willing to risk money for charity, not just for themselves.Common belief is that testosterone fuels egoistic, self-serving behavior. Here, it also promotes altruistic risk-taking, suggesting a link to status-seeking through heroism.
  • The dual-hormone hypothesis was not supported: no testosterone-cortisol interaction was found.Many studies and theories suggest cortisol moderates testosterone's effects, but this study found they work independently, at least in this task.
  • Cortisol's inhibitory effect on risk-taking was stronger in the prosocial condition than in the self-oriented condition.You'd think stress hormones might make you more cautious overall, but here the suppression was especially pronounced when the risk was to benefit others, not yourself.

Practical takeaways

If you're planning a charitable campaign or crowdfunding, consider that people are more risk-averse when donating. De-emphasize risk (e.g., 'guaranteed impact') and reduce perceived personal loss to encourage donations.

Study is correlational and only on young men, so individual differences vary.

medium confidence

For personal risk-taking: understand that your cortisol levels (stress) may make you overly cautious, especially in high-stakes or altruistic situations. Manage stress to avoid missing opportunities for prosocial risk-taking.

This doesn't mean you should ignore risks – it's about balance.

medium confidence

When designing risk-related tasks or games (e.g., fundraising games), note that men with higher testosterone are more likely to take risks when stakes are high. You might tailor messaging accordingly, but be careful about stereotyping.

The effect was modest and context-dependent.

low confidence

Why this study matters

Testosterone: The Risk-Taking Hormone

In a study of 69 healthy young men, those with higher baseline testosterone were more likely to gamble for both personal gains and charity donations. For every unit increase in testosterone, risk-taking increased by about 35% (b=0.353, p=0.077). This effect was strongest when the stakes were high – specifically when the probability of loss was high relative to gain. Interestingly, testosterone didn't differentiate between playing for yourself or for a charity.

Most people think testosterone only drives selfish or aggressive behavior, but here it also promotes altruistic risk-taking, just by boosting general risk appetite.

Cortisol: The Brake on Heroism

Higher cortisol levels were associated with lower risk-taking, and this was especially true in the prosocial condition (where benefits go to charity). For a given increase in cortisol, risk-taking dropped by about 1.2 units overall (b=-1.224, p=0.086), but under prosocial conditions, the effect was much stronger (b=-2.057, p=0.004).

This suggests that stress hormones might make us more cautious about risking our own resources for others, potentially explaining why people sometimes fail to act altruistically under stress.

The Dual-Hormone Hypothesis Fails Again

The study found no significant interaction between testosterone and cortisol (p=0.638), meaning they act independently, not as a team. This contradicts the popular 'dual-hormone hypothesis' which suggests cortisol moderates testosterone's effects on status-seeking behavior.

This adds to a growing body of evidence that the interplay between these hormones is context-dependent and not as straightforward as once believed.

People Are Less Risk-Taking When Playing for Charity

Across the board, participants took fewer risks when the gains would go to a charity rather than themselves (b=-0.134, p=0.080). This effect was more pronounced at higher loss-to-gain ratios, meaning when the gamble was riskier, people were especially cautious about risking money for others.

This challenges the idea that people are more adventurous when playing with 'other people's money' – here, they were more conservative when the beneficiary was a charity.

High Stakes Amplify Hormonal Effects

Both testosterone's risk-promoting effect and cortisol's risk-suppressing effect were stronger when the odds were more unfavorable (i.e., high loss-to-gain ratio). For instance, testosterone's effect was significant at moderate and high risk levels but not at low risk levels (p=0.202 at low). Similarly, cortisol's dampening effect was strongest at high loss ratios.

This suggests that hormonal influences on risk-taking are not constant but are amplified in challenging situations, which might explain why some people crack under pressure while others thrive.

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.