# Power Posing: Brief Nonverbal Displays Affect Neuroendocrine Levels and Risk Tolerance

- **DOI:** [10.1177/0956797610383437](https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610383437)
- **Rating:** Limited (2.9 out of 5)
- **Verdict:** A provocative embodiment experiment linking posture to hormones and risk-taking, constrained by a small lab sample and overextended practical claims.
- **Framework version:** v5.0
- **Pipeline version:** v0.4
- **Evaluation date:** 2026-08-07
- **Evaluation page:** https://www.nabu.science/paper/10.1177%2F0956797610383437

## Key claims

1. High-power posers experienced elevations in testosterone, decreases in cortisol, and increased feelings of power and tolerance for risk
   - Support: Tentative
   - Type: Primary finding
   - Basis: randomized lab results align directionally, but N=42 and outlier exclusions materially limit certainty
   - Location: Abstract, p. 2; Results, pp. 8–9
2. posing in high-power (vs. low-power) nonverbal displays caused neuroendocrine and behavioral changes for both male and female participants
   - Support: Tentative
   - Type: Secondary
   - Basis: causal identification is within-study only, with limited power and no robust replication of hormonal effects
   - Location: Abstract, p. 2
3. embodiment extends beyond mere thinking and feeling, to physiology and subsequent behavioral choices
   - Support: Tentative
   - Type: Secondary
   - Basis: theoretical inference rests on one brief experiment with immediate hormone and gambling outcomes
   - Location: Abstract, p. 2; Discussion, pp. 9–10
4. a simple 2-minute power pose manipulation was enough to significantly alter the physiological, mental, and feeling states of our participants
   - Support: Tentative
   - Type: Secondary
   - Basis: reported results support an immediate lab effect, but precision is limited by small sample and exclusions
   - Location: Results, p. 9
5. embody power and instantly become more powerful has real-world, actionable implications
   - Support: Unsupported
   - Type: Exploratory
   - Basis: real-world performance, health, and durable actionability were not measured
   - Location: Abstract, p. 2; Discussion, p. 10

## Strengths

- **Novel posture-to-physiology research question** The study tests whether high- versus low-power poses can generate changes associated with power, rather than only serving as expressions of power. This creates a clear conceptual extension of embodied cognition into hormone and risk-taking outcomes.
  - Dimension: contribution
  - Location: Introduction, p. 5
- **Manipulation pretested for perceived power** The selected poses were pretested for perceived power and checked for comfort, difficulty, and pain. This helps separate the intended power-related contrast from obvious discomfort or task-difficulty confounds.
  - Dimension: methodological rigour
  - Location: Method, Power Poses, pp. 6–7
- **Hormone collection protocol clearly described** The Methods specify sampling times, diurnal control, sample handling, shipment to Salimetrics, duplicate enzyme immunoassay, and assay coefficients of variation. These details make the biological measurement procedure comparatively assessable.
  - Dimension: methodological rigour
  - Location: Method, Saliva Collection and Analysis, pp. 7–8

## Limitations

- **Small sample for variable hormone outcomes** The primary study includes 42 participants, with effective hormone analyses reduced further by outlier exclusions. That scale is thin for estimating brief-manipulation effects on testosterone and cortisol, which the paper reports with sizable effects.
  - Dimension: methodological rigour
  - Location: Method, p. 5; Results, pp. 8–9; Notes, p. 18
- **Practical claims exceed measured outcomes** The Discussion moves from immediate laboratory hormone, self-report, and gambling outcomes to claims about interviews, public speaking, performance, health, and wellbeing. Those outcomes were not directly measured in the study.
  - Dimension: contribution
  - Location: Discussion, p. 10
- **Additional study reported selectively** The Discussion cites an additional N=49 study to address whether the effect is pose-specific, but reports only powerful feelings and risk-taking. Hormonal outcomes are not reported for that additional study, even though hormones are central to the article’s headline claim.
  - Dimension: positioning
  - Location: Discussion, p. 10

## Reliability checks

Caveats (4 of 4 checks).

- **Internal coherence:** Noted. The primary experiment’s reported directions and statistics are internally coherent, but the Discussion uses an additional N=49 study as support while reporting only powerful feelings and risk-taking outcomes, not hormonal outcomes. This creates a selective-reporting watch-out rather than a demonstrated contradiction.
- **Research conduct:** Noted. The study involved human participants and biological sample collection, but the supplied text does not report ethics approval or consent procedures. No suspicious data-availability claim or conflict signal is present in the text.
- **Reference integrity:** Clean. 33 of 33 checkable references verified
  - 35 references in manuscript
  - 2 have no canonical index record — counted, but not index-checkable
  - 3 references confirmed by manual review
  - References not verified automatically are resolved manually within 24 hours.

## Post-publication record

- **Status:** Clean
- **Summary:** No retraction or expression of concern found in Crossref (includes Retraction Watch).
- **Last checked:** 2026-10-17