Look across the evidence
Compare papers.
The same rubric, side by side. A comparison of claim support—not a contest between fields.
| Criterion | Power posing: the hormone-and-risk claim lacks robust support |
|---|---|
| Overall claim grade | F 30/100 |
| Claim examined | Brief expansive poses reliably increase testosterone, decrease cortisol and increase risk tolerance relative to contractive poses. |
| Claim support40% weight | 1/5 The original package is not sustained by the larger replication; a 2024 study reports only limited, mixed support. [2, 4] |
| Methods & controls20% weight | 2/5 A small original experiment and sensitivity to analytical choices weaken confidence in the endocrine inference. [1, 3] |
| Independent checks20% weight | 1/5 The main hormone/risk result did not replicate in Ranehill; later mixed findings do not restore the whole claim. [2, 4] |
| Transparency10% weight | 3/5 Published methods and a later reanalysis permit scrutiny; the replication also released data and materials. This is not a complete audit of original materials. [2, 3] |
| Claim calibration10% weight | 2/5 The original practical causal interpretation was stronger than the selected follow-up evidence supports. [1–4] |
| Evidence status | Replication challenged |