The article for critique is titled Carney, Cuddy, & Yap (2010) Power Posing: Brief Nonverbal Displays Affect Neuroendocrine Levels and Risk Tolerance. The study states that by adopting a nonverbal ‘high power’ pose, this would create changes within the endocrine system mainly within levels of testosterone and cortisol of both male and female participants, and that would in turn create changes in behavioral aspects of the participants. Carney et al (2010) attempted to establish if the adoption of high-power poses would create power in the individual and looked at four aspects to determine whether their hypothesis was in fact true. They stated that four concepts were considered when attempting to answer the questions and included the effects of power poses on:- feelings of power, the elevation in the hormone testosterone, the lowered stress hormone cortisol and the increased tolerance of risk. The research questions are clearly outlined within the introduction
The paper sets out the intentions of the study with clear questions being asked within the introduction. “Can posed displays cause one to feel more powerful? Does one’s mental and physiological systems prepare one to be more powerful? The goal of this research was to test whether high-power (vs. low-power) poses produce power.” (Cuddy et al, 2010, p 1363). The hypothesis is quantifiable in that previous research on hormones and powers suggests ……….
The theory outlined on the levels of both testosterone and cortisol appear to support their findings
idenfity three outcome measures
The paper also makes reference to no previous research completed on whether the adoption of high-power poses and the generation of power itself, but does acknowledge evidence of bodily movements effecting emotional states.
The method outlined within the article is descriptive to some degree however it is felt that it lacked the detail required to make an informed decision about the robustness of the methods used. The subsequent study completed by Ranehil, Dreber, Johannesson, Leiberg, sul & Weber (2015) gave more indication about the controls used within Carney, et al (2010) including elements such as
The experimenter in Carney et (2010) ‘manually configured participants’, I would question whether the potential effects of this were considered in the variables and also that ‘as needed the experimenter provided verbal instructions. Was the touch from the experimenter considered when looking at changes in the hormone levels of the participant? Ranehil et al (2015) did not replicate the study in this way, but instead the investigator was blinded to the conditions of the participants and the instructions were delivered to the participants via a computer which eliminated to some degree the potential for experimenter effects.
Carney et al (2010) sample size was also small (N=42) in comparison to Ranehill et al (2015) where the sample size was N=200 (98=women 102=men), and with the significantly larger sample size there was a failure to reproduce or support any of the findings or claims in the original study.
The measure of risk taking, and powerful feelings has limitations in that there is no indication of consideration to personal attributes of each of the test subjects prior to
During the study there is reference to one other additional study with a sample size N=49 which relates to power poses
It is felt the experimental design was lacking in some areas in terms of the research question
Testing of the measure of risk taking appears to lack a solid base to provide significant results. There appears to be a limited amount of consideration for any pre-existing thought pattern, behaviours or personality traits in relation to risk taking behaviour meaning the extraneous variables could be overlooked.
Confounding variables have not been considered in the measure of risk-taking behaviours, Also the fact that the money was not theirs in the first place may have played a role. Further confounding factors within the risk taking measure is the failure to include consideration of demographic factors including age- reswarch has show that adolesecnts are more likely to engage in risk taking behaviours (REFR) psychosocial maturity
8. analise the other studies – comaprrisonsq
9 do I think they did the experiments correctly
10- how do the results relate tot eh questions
Whilst the report has been cited over 800 times (REFER) there has been further attempts to replicate the study impact factor