← Back to Claims
InterpretationPreliminary

Adopting expansive postures causes hormonal changes (lower cortisol / higher testosterone) and increased risk tolerance

Weak-link patterns

Brief §8's named failure modes, computed from this claim's own paper roles and status -- not a single weakness score. Patterns B and E aren't implemented yet (need dependency-graph machinery, docs/BASIC_ROADMAP.md Phase 11).

No pattern fires on this claim.

Evidence map

Position shows direction, circle area shows citation count. Click a paper for the reason its role was assigned.

INTERPRETATIONCLAIMPreliminaryOriginal Power Posing 868 citationsCarney 2010868 citesIndependent replication — failure Assessing the Robustness of Power Posing 242 citationsRanehill 2015242 citesIndependent replication — failure Winners, losers, and posers: The effect of power poses on testosterone and risk-taking following competition 45 citationsSmith 201645 citesReview / meta-analysis CRSP special issue on power poses: what was the point and what did we learn? 52 citationsCesario 201752 cites
SupportsDisconfirmsSynthesisCircle area ∝ citation count

Evidence dimensions

Eight independent 0–5 judgments, each with a written rationale. Deliberately never summed into one score.

Evidence strength

Original result rests on one small-sample (n=42) study; larger independent tests have not supported the core hormonal/behavioral claim.

Replication (any kind)

Multiple independent groups have tried.

Independent replication

The two independent direct replications found null results on the original hormonal/behavioral claim.

Methodological triangulationscored retroactively

Both independent replications sit in the original experimental paradigm; no materially different design has tested it.

Methodological quality

Original study's small sample and flexible analysis were specifically flagged by a published p-curve critique; Ranehill's replication was well-powered and preregistered by contrast.

Predictive success

A narrower sub-claim - subjective felt power - has somewhat more consistent support than the hormonal/behavioral claims.

Consensus

Consensus, including from one of the original authors, moved toward skepticism on the hormonal/behavioral effects.

Alternative explanations ruled out

Small-sample false positive and flexible/underpowered original analysis are well-articulated alternatives.

Scored by human.

Why this status

The derivation rule, evaluated top to bottom, first match wins. This is the rule itself — not a confidence score standing in for one.

  1. 1
    Unknown — unexplored

    4 paper rows (needs <3) and evidence_strength=1 (needs <=1); both required

  2. 2
    Unknown — conflicting evidence

    (a) 2 failure vs 0 success rows -> no; (b) 1 review rows — opposite-verdict test is a human judgment, not a count; (c) 0 conceptual failure vs 0 conceptual success, 1 original -> no

  3. 3
    Unknown — underdetermined

    alternative_explanations=1 (needs <=1) AND evidence_strength=1 (needs >=3)

  4. 4
    Established

    independent_replication=1 (>=4), evidence_strength=1 (>=4), consensus=1 (>=4)

  5. 5
    Strong, domain-limited

    evidence_strength=1 (>=4) AND independent_replication=1 (>=3), plus a written scope limit (human judgment)

  6. 6
    Active consensus, incomplete

    consensus=1 (>=4) AND (methodological_quality=1 <=3 OR alternative_explanations=1 <=2)

  7. 7
    Plausible, under active investigation

    independent_replication=1 (needs ==2) AND evidence_strength=1 (needs 2-3), plus recent activity (human judgment)

  8. 8
    Speculative

    2/4 rows are empirical (needs 0) AND evidence_strength=1 (needs <=1)

  9. 9
    Preliminarymatched

    4 non-theoretical row(s) exist AND independent_replication=1 (needs <=1)

Recorded rationale

v3 rule 9: a non-theoretical row exists and independent_replication = 1 (<= 1). Rule 2 does not fire - only one review row, and replication counts are 2 failures vs 0 successes. Naive citation-only guess was 'established'; divergence material. Pilot 1.