Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31894199›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Economic Science Association2019

The digit ratio (2D:4D) and economic preferences: no robust associations in a sample of 330 women.

Elle Parslow, Eva Ranehill, Niklas Zethraeus, Liselott Blomberg, Bo von Schoultz, Angelica Lindén Hirschberg, Magnus Johannesson, Anna Dreber

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Economic Science Association, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Elle Parslow1Department of Economics, Stockholm School of Economics, P.O Box 6501, 11383 Stockholm, Sweden.
Eva Ranehill2Department of Economics, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Niklas Zethraeus3Department of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Sweden.
Liselott Blomberg4Karolinska University Hospital, Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Sweden.
Bo von Schoultz4Karolinska University Hospital, Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Sweden.
Angelica Lindén Hirschberg4Karolinska University Hospital, Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Sweden.
Magnus Johannesson1Department of Economics, Stockholm School of Economics, P.O Box 6501, 11383 Stockholm, Sweden.
Anna Dreber1Department of Economics, Stockholm School of Economics, P.O Box 6501, 11383 Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-3989-9941

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many studies report on the association between 2D:4D, a putative marker for prenatal testosterone exposure, and economic preferences. However, most of these studies have limited sample sizes and test multiple hypotheses (without preregistration). In this study we mainly replicate the common specifications found in the literature for the association between the 2D:4D ratio and risk taking, the willingness to compete, and dictator game giving separately. In a sample of 330 women we find no robust associations between any of these economic preferences and 2D:4D. We find no evidence of a statistically significant relation for 16 of the 18 total regressions we run. The two regression specifications which are statistically significant have not previously been reported and the associations are not in the expected direction, and therefore they are unlikely to represent a real effect.

Indexed as

2D:4DEconomic preferencesExperimentTestosterone

Identifiers

PMID31894199
PMCPMC6917633

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.