Cited by 64Stress Responses and CortisolNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

Cortisol boosts risky decision-making behavior in men but not in women

Kluen, Lisa Marieke, Agorastos, Agorastos, Wiedemann, Klaus, Schwabe, Lars·2017·Psychoneuroendocrinology

Abstract

Acute stress may escalate risky decision-making in men, while there is no such effect in women. Although first evidence links these gender-specific effects of stress to stress-induced changes in cortisol, whether elevated cortisol is indeed sufficient to boost risk-taking, whether a potential cortisol effect depends on simultaneous noradrenergic activation, and whether cortisol and noradrenergic activation exert distinct effects on risk-taking in men and women is unknown. In this experiment, we therefore set out to elucidate the impact of cortisol and noradrenergic stimulation on risky decision-making in men and women. In a fully-crossed, placebo-controlled, double-blind design, male and female participants received orally either a placebo, hydrocortisone, yohimbine, an alpha-2-adrenoceptor-antagonist leading to increased noradrenergic stimulation, or both drugs before completing the balloon analogue risk task, a validated measure of risk-taking. Overall, participants' choice was risk-sensitive as reflected in reduced responding in high- compared to moderate- and low-risk conditions. Cortisol, however, led to a striking increase in risk-taking in men, whereas it had no effect on risk-taking behavior in women. Yohimbine had no such effect and the gender-specific effect of cortisol was not modulated by yohimbine. Our data show that cortisol boosts risk-taking behavior in men but not in women. This differential effect of cortisol on risk-taking may drive gender differences in risky decision-making under stress.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2017.07.240

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kluen, L. M., Agorastos, A., Wiedemann, K., & Schwabe, L.
Affiliations
  • Universität Hamburg (DE)
  • University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (DE)
Corresponding author
Schwabe, Lars
Venue
Psychoneuroendocrinology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-10
Volume
84
Pages
181-189
ISSN
0306-4530 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2734788886
Cited by
64
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 8
FWCI
3.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychoneuroendocrinology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
German Research Foundation DFG (SCHW1357/14-1)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Behavioral Neuroscience › Stress Responses and Cortisol
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Keywords
cortisol, risk-taking, risky decision making, gender differences, acute stress, noradrenergic activation, yohimbine, alpha2-adrenoceptor antagonism, Balloon Analogue Risk Task, sex differences
MeSH terms
Adult, Choice Behavior, Decision Making, Double-Blind Method, Female, Humans, Hydrocortisone, Male, Risk, Risk-Taking, Saliva, Sex Factors, Stress, Psychological, Yohimbine

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review