1. Initial claims

2. Replication failure

3. Public attention

4. See also

5. References

The idea has been referred to as pseudoscience.^[2]

Scholars have reported being unable to replicate power posing effects in follow-up studies.^[3][4] In 2017 alone, 11 studies were published that were unable to reproduce the effect found by Cuddy.^[3] The theory has been described as an example of the replication crisis in psychology, in which initially seductive theories could not be replicated on follow-up tests.^[4]

Dana Carney, the lead author of the original article, issued a statement in 2016 abandoning the theory: "I do not believe that 'power pose effects' are real...the evidence against the existence of power poses is undeniable", while Cuddy has continued work on it.^[7][8][9]

In 2018 Cuddy, with two other authors, published additional research; the paper had been submitted in August 2016, a revised version was submitted in November 2017, and the paper published online on April 1, 2018.^[5] In the paper, they conducted expansive experiment and showed that, with statistical significance that, power pose (now referred as posture feedback) can make people feel more powerful, yet failed to prove that hormones can be altered by doing so.^[6][7]

Initial claims

The initial research on power posing was published in 2010. The authors claimed that high-power poses "produce power". The study included 42 participants, who were coached by researchers to assume a physical position of power. Hormone levels were measured before and after, and the authors stated that they found an increase in testosterone and a decrease in cortisol after posing.^[7][8]

Replication failure

A 2015 article, published in Psychological Science by Ranehill et al. refuted findings in Carney et al. (2010).^[9] Carney strongly favored the publication of the Ranehill case of failed replication in her review of the article.^[8]

The statistical methods that may have led to the original erroneous findings were reviewed by noted researchers including Uri Simonsohn and Joseph P. Simmons of the Wharton School in their 2016 paper and concluded that previous research failed to "suggest the existence of an effect once we account for selective reporting".^[10][11][12]

In the years that followed, attempts were made by various research groups to apply power posing manipulation in different contexts. The results did not support the assumptions made by Cuddy et al. In a 2016 study by Garrison et al. the effect of posture manipulation was combined with dominant vs. submissive gaze. Despite a large sample size, no effect was found on risk taking and, in contrast to original expectations, adopting an expansive pose reduced feelings of power.^[13] Deuter et al. (2016) investigated the effect of cognitive role taking and Cuddy's power posing manipulation in the Trier Social Stress Test; although role taking had an influence on the cortisol and testosterone response after stress, the posture manipulation had no effect on hormonal, behavioral or subjective measures.^[14] Where influences on hormones were found, these were sometimes opposite to the predicted direction. In a study conducted by Smith et al. in 2017, participants had to compete in a challenging task while they had to assume high or low power poses. The authors report no main effect of pose type on testosterone, cortisol, risk or feelings of power. However, they found an interaction between pose type and competition outcome on testosterone: while winners assigned to a high-power pose had small rise in testosterone levels. Yet, losers had a reduction in testosterone after holding high-power poses.^[15]

Other scientists have attempted to come up with an explanation for how the effect could have been found, by excluding factors such as gender-based differences in hormone levels.^[16]

In 2016 Carney published a statement on the University of California, Berkeley website, stating that she no longer believed the effect was valid.^{[17][18][19][20]}

Joseph Cesario, an associate professor of psychology at Michigan State University, who co-edits Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology, arranged a special issue on power posing that published in June 2017; the issue included eleven new studies, along with a meta-analyses, which found that the effect of power posing on power behaviors was not replicated.^{[10][21][22][23][24]} The published studies were designed to definitively answer whether the power-posing hypothesis was real and included high quality research features like pre-registration of endpoints.^[33] Carney co-authored the introduction to the issue, and noted that while the meta-analysis failed to find any effect in power behaviors, it did find a small effect in a feeling of power; she also wrote that the studies could not resolve whether the effect on a feeling of power was an only experimental artifact.^[25]

Public attention

The concept gained attention after a TED talk given by Cuddy in 2012, where she demonstrated the posture and argued for its benefits.^[17][26] CNN and Oprah discussed "power posing".^[17] By 2017, Cuddy's 2012 TED talk on had become "TED's second-most popular" and had been viewed by about 47 million viewers.^[17] Cuddy said that she felt that the idea appealed to her given her experience of recovering from head trauma in a car accident, which she said helped develop her interest in "studying how people can become their aspirational selves...How can you become a self that you are not now?"^[17]

An extensive series of articles on power posing replication was published by New York magazine by Jesse Singal and other contributors in its Science of Us section.^{[20][19][42][43]}

Cuddy reported experiencing harassment, including death threats, after the findings were refuted.^[27][28][29]

In 2015 it was widely noted in the UK media that some UK politicians (especially members of the UK Conservative Party) had begun to adopt an unnaturally wide stance at high-profile political events. It has been suggested by some academics and journalists that this may have been following Cuddy's 'power posing' advice, or a misunderstanding of it.^[30]

See also

• Facial feedback hypothesis
• Pathological science
• P-hacking

References

• John Osborn (politician)
• John Osborn Williams
• John O'Shea (footballer)
• John O'Shea (humanitarian)
• John O'Shea (mason)
• John O. Simonds
• John Osmeña
• John Osmond
• Johnossi
• John Ostell
• Johno Stuntz
• John O'Sullivan (Cork politician)
• John O'Sullivan (journalist)
• John Oswald
• John Oswald (activist)
• John Oswald (d. 1793)
• John Oswald (disambiguation)
• John Oswald (political revolutionary)
• John Oswald (politician)
• John Oswald Sanders
• John Oswald (Scotland)
• John Oszajca
• John Otho Marsh
• John Otis
• John Otis (Maine)