Personality and Individual Differences 123 (2018) 110–114

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

The effects of money exposure on testosterone and risk-taking, and the MARK
moderating role of narcissism☆
⁎
Eric P. Stenstroma, , John B. Dinsmoreb, Jonathan W. Kunstmana, Kathleen D. Vohsc
a
Miami University, USA
b
Wright State University, USA
c
University of Minnesota, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Although prior research has demonstrated that reminders of money influence motivations and behaviors, there
Money has been scant attention to whether money cues can alter physiological responses. An experiment testing male
Testosterone participants assessed whether being randomly assigned to handle money versus paper would change men's
Narcissism testosterone levels and affect financial risk-taking. Results showed that the effects of handling money on tes-
Risk-taking
tosterone levels and risk-taking depended on trait narcissism. Among men low in narcissism, handling money led
to a greater increase in testosterone levels from Time 1 (baseline) to Time 2 (post-manipulation) compared with
their counterparts in a neutral, non-money condition. Conversely, highly narcissistic men who were randomly
assigned to handle money exhibited a weaker increase in testosterone levels relative to men in the neutral
condition. The results of moderated mediation analyses suggested that money exposure affected financial risk-
taking through changes in testosterone levels. Men low in narcissism became more inclined to take risks through
an increase in testosterone levels, whereas men high in narcissism became more risk averse via a decrease in
testosterone levels.

1. Introduction
Prior research has established that reminders of money can affect
motivation, thought, and behavior (Vohs, 2015). For instance, thoughts
of money decrease prosocial behavior (Gasiorowska, Chaplin,
Zaleskiewicz, Wygrab, & Vohs, 2016; Vohs, Mead, & Goode, 2006) and
increase task performance (Boucher & Kofos, 2012; Gasiorowska et al.,
2016). Handling money renders people relatively impervious to social
exclusion and physical pain (Zhou, Vohs, & Baumeister, 2009).
The current work sought to test potential physiological changes
associated with being reminded of money in order to potentially help
account for behavioral findings. Via random assignment to condition,
some participants handled a large amount of money, whereas others
handled slips of paper. Our main goal was to assess the effects of
handling money on changes in testosterone levels and a decision
making correlate of testosterone, risk-taking.
According to the Tool Theory of money motivation, money's psy-
chological effects derive from its utility to achieve goals such as status
ascension (Kniffin, 2006; Lea & Webley, 2006). Drawing from Tool
Theory, we posit that handling money will elicit an increase in
testosterone levels, a hormone that has long been associated with status
(Archer, 2006; Geniole, Bird, Ruddick, & Carré, 2017; Mazur & Booth,
1998; Zilioli & Bird, 2017). Testosterone levels have been shown to rise
after engaging in conspicuous consumption (Saad & Vongas, 2009) and
after winning (versus losing) in a variety of competitions including
athletics (Booth, Shelley, Mazur, Tharp, & Kittok, 1989), video games
(Carré, Campbell, Lozoya, Goetz, & Welker, 2013; Zilioli & Watson,
2012), and games of chance (Apicella, Dreber, & Mollerstrom, 2014;
McCaul, Gladue, & Joppa, 1992; see Zilioli & Bird, 2017, for a review).
Given that money can serve as a means of achieving status, and that
testosterone levels are positively associated with social status, we ex-
pect handling money will result in a rise in testosterone levels.
Testosterone's links to status dovetail with an individual difference
in the desire for status, trait narcissism, which we measured as a way to
assess the status implications of handling money. Narcissism is char-
acterized by the motivation to self-enhance and gain recognition and
admiration by identifying and optimizing self-presentation events in
one's social environment (Pincus et al., 2009). In response to an ag-
gression solicitation paradigm, narcissism predicts a greater rise in
testosterone levels and more aggressive behavior in the form of white

☆
This research was supported by a Rike Consumer Research Foundation Research Grant from Wright State University. The first author acknowledges the support he received from his
Richard T. Farmer Endowed Assistant Professorship and research grants from the Farmer School of Business, the Department of Marketing, and Miami University.
⁎
Corresponding author at: Farmer School of Business, Miami University, 800 E. High St, Oxford, Ohio 45056, USA.
E-mail address: stenstep@miamioh.edu (E.P. Stenstrom).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.10.035
Received 12 July 2017; Received in revised form 25 October 2017; Accepted 26 October 2017
0191-8869/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
E.P. Stenstrom et al.
noise blasts directed at an ostensible opponent of a reaction-time game
(Lobbestael, Baumeister, Fiebig, & Eckel, 2014).
The literature seems to point to two ways in which narcissism might
impact how testosterone levels change in response to handling money.
On one hand, some research suggests that handling money could lead to
a greater testosterone increase among narcissists compared to non-
narcissistic people. Narcissists are focused on their social rank and seek
opportunities to improve their rank through enhanced self-presentation
(Marshall, Lefringhausen, & Ferenczi, 2015; Sorokowski et al., 2015;
Weiser, 2015) and devaluing others (Krizan & Bushman, 2011; Pincus
et al., 2009). In romantic relationships, narcissists are more likely to
pursue short-term mating strategies (Schmitt et al., 2017), to seek ad-
miration rather than intimacy, and to target romantic partners whose
beauty or social rank can enhance their status (Campbell, 1999). Con-
sidering that narcissists are highly motivated by status concerns, one
might expect that handling large amounts of money will lead to a
greater increase in status and testosterone levels among highly narcis-
sistic men relative to those low in narcissism.
On the other hand, some literature suggests that handling money
could result in a decrease in testosterone levels among highly narcis-
sistic men. Narcissists have a grandiose self-concept (Morf &
Rhodewalt, 2001) and tend to be overconfident (Campbell, Goodie, &
Foster, 2004). However, their grandiose ego is coupled with a highly
vulnerable and fragile self-concept, producing a constant search for
external affirmation (Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001). Narcissists' quest for
status and admiration leads to a tendency to make frequent social
comparisons (Krizan & Bushman, 2011). Compared to those low in
narcissism, highly narcissistic people respond negatively to upward
social comparisons (Bogart, Benotsch, & Pavlovic, 2004; Nicholls &
Stukas, 2011). Narcissists who were instructed to handle large amounts
of money might be inclined to mentally simulate what it would be like
to possess that money and compare it to their current access to money
or wealth. This comparison may act like a threat and engender a de-
crease in testosterone levels. Given this mixed literature, we took an
exploratory approach and remained agnostic towards how narcissism
might influence the effect of money on testosterone levels.
We assessed a form of decision making associated with status,
narcissism, and testosterone, namely risk-taking. Narcissism has been
shown to be predictive of greater risk-taking (Campbell et al., 2004)
and gambling behavior (Lakey, Rose, Campbell, & Goodie, 2008). There
is also considerable evidence suggesting that testosterone levels are
positively associated with risk-taking. Although some research has
found no association between testosterone and risk-taking (Derntl,
Pintzinger, Kryspin-Exner, & Schöpf, 2014; Zethraeus et al., 2009) or a
non-linear association between these two factors (Stanton, Mullette-
Gillman, et al., 2011), many studies have revealed a positive relation-
ship between risk-taking and various indicators of testosterone, from
prenatal to circulating (Apicella et al., 2008; Apicella et al., 2014;
Stanton, Liening, & Schultheiss, 2011; Stenstrom, Saad, Nepomuceno, &
Mendenhall, 2011; van Honk et al., 2004). Based on this literature, we
expected that testosterone changes elicited by money exposure would
likely be positively associated with risk-taking.
An experiment tested how handling money, versus slips of paper (as
a non-money cue), impacts testosterone levels and subsequent risk-
taking, potentially as a function of trait narcissism. We assessed tes-
tosterone levels before and after a money exposure manipulation.
Testosterone levels in men are generally more responsive to situational
factors than are women's (Mazur & Booth, 1998; see Geniole et al.,
2017, for a meta-analysis), and therefore we tested only men. Money
exposure was manipulated by having participants either handle $1600,
a large amount of currency (money condition), or bill-sized slips of
paper (neutral condition; Supplement S1).
111
Personality and Individual Differences 123 (2018) 110–114
2. Method
2.1. Participants and procedure
One hundred and nine men participated in exchange for a $15
Amazon gift card and a chance to win additional money via a decision
making task. We followed standard salivary testosterone collection
procedures (as recommended by Schultheiss & Stanton, 2009, Zilioli &
Watson, 2014, Blascovich, Vanman, Mendes, & Dickerson, 2011, and
the Salimetrics lab that analyzed our saliva samples). After excluding
two participants for reporting an oral disease (Zilioli & Watson, 2014),
two for an insufficient amount of saliva which prevented testosterone
assaying, and one for not correctly completing the risk-taking task (who
selected not one but both of the options, rendering it impossible to
calculate a total score), the final sample consisted of 104 participants
(Mage = 20.63, SDage = 2.39).
Data collection took place twice, at the end of the spring and fall
2015 semesters. During the fall session we added a third condition
wherein participants handled small amounts of money (40 $1 bills),
which falls outside of the scope of the current manuscript and is re-
ported in the Supplementary Materials (the procedure and results are
reported in Supplements S2 and S3, respectively). It should be noted
that we had intended to report the two data collections as two ex-
periments. Given that they used the same procedures and tasks, we
opted to report them as one study in order to conduct higher powered
analyses and gain more accurate estimates (Cumming, 2013).
Participants were instructed to refrain from eating, drinking (except
for water), or using nicotine for one hour prior to the scheduled start of
the experiment (Zilioli & Watson, 2014). Sessions were conducted be-
tween 11:50 am and 5:30 pm. Upon arrival, participants were asked by
the experimenter when they had last eaten, drank, and consumed ni-
cotine in order to confirm that they had followed the fasting instruc-
tions.
Next, students were asked to watch 10 min of relaxing nature videos
to induce a calm state. Participants were then instructed by the ex-
perimenter to rinse their mouths with water three times before
watching another 10 min of calming videos. They were subsequently
asked to passively drool approximately 1.0 ml of saliva into a poly-
propylene vial using a Salimetrics saliva collection aid to measure pre-
manipulation testosterone levels. Saliva samples were immediately
stored in a freezer at − 20 °C.
Following the saliva sampling, participants were randomly assigned
to a money condition (a sorting task with 80 $20 bills) or a neutral
condition (sorting 80 plain pieces of paper with the same size dimen-
sions as $20 bills; Zhou et al., 2009; Supplement S1) in a between-
subjects design (see Supplement S4 for sorting task details).
Participants subsequently completed a financial risk-taking task
with real monetary outcomes (Holt & Laury, 2002; Supplement S5).
They were presented with 10 lotteries, each with a safer option and a
riskier option. The number of risky options chosen was our measure of
risk-taking (0 to 10).
Fifteen minutes after the sorting task, a second saliva sample was
taken (Mehta & Josephs, 2006). We then measured narcissism using a
reduced 28-item version of the Pathological Narcissism Inventory
(Pincus et al., 2009; Supplement S6). Responses were given on a 5-point
scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) and scores were
averaged (α = 0.89). Next, we measured the number of alcoholic
drinks consumed within the last 12 h, the number of caffeinated bev-
erages consumed that day, how much time they exercised that day, and
the number of nicotine products used that day (van Anders & Goldey,
2010; Zilioli & Watson, 2014). We also collected basic demographic
information. Last, participants were given their earnings from the risk-
taking task.
Saliva samples were packaged with dry ice and shipped overnight to
Salimetrics (Carlsbad, CA) for analysis. There, each sample was as-
sayed, in duplicate, using a sensitive enzyme immunoassay for
E.P. Stenstrom et al. Personality and Individual Differences 123 (2018) 110–114

Table 1 change, β = − 35.48, t = 3.66, p < 0.001, 95% CI [−54.70,

Descriptive statistics. − 16.26]). Among low narcissism participants (−1 SD; PNI = 2.44),
being assigned to the money condition produced a larger testosterone
Both conditions Neutral condition Money condition
(N = 104) (n = 51) (n = 53) increase from Time 1 to Time 2 compared with being assigned to the
neutral condition (Mmoney = 13.16, Mneutral = − 3.32), β = 16.48,
M SD M SD M SD t = 2.19, p = 0.031, 95% CI [1.54, 31.42]. For more narcissistic par-
ticipants (+1 SD; PNI = 3.54), being assigned to the money condition
Testosterone 176.08 65.31 177.86 60.83 174.36 69.89
Time 1 (pg/ led to a weaker increase in testosterone levels compared to being as-
ml) signed to the neutral condition (Mmoney = 2.76, Mneutral = 25.34),
Testosterone 185.95 70.13 189.50 65.24 182.54 75.00 β = −22.59, t = 3.01, p = 0.003, 95% CI [−37.50, −7.68]. Within
Time 2 (pg/ the neutral condition, there was a significant positive association be-
ml)
tween narcissism scores and testosterone change, β = 26.03, t = 3.84,
Testosterone 9.88 28.74 11.64 29.81 8.18 27.84
change (pg/ p < 0.001, 95% CI [12.39, 39.67], R2 = 0.23. There was no significant
ml) association between narcissism scores and testosterone change within
Narcissism (PNI) 2.99 0.55 3.01 0.55 2.97 0.56 the money condition, β = − 9.45, t = 1.37, p = 0.177, 95% CI
Risk-taking 5.08 1.98 5.57 1.71 4.60 2.12
[−23.30, 4.39].

testosterone. The average intra-assay coefficients of variation was

7.34% and the inter-assay coefficients of variation averaged across low 3.3. Risk preferences
and high controls was 5.48%.
We tested whether testosterone change, money condition, trait
narcissism, or the interaction of condition and trait narcissism predicted
3. Results risk scores using the PROCESS macro for model 8 (Hayes, 2013;
N = 104). There was not a significant effect of testosterone change on
3.1. Manipulation check risk preferences, although it's worth noting that there was a positive
trend, β = 0.01, t = 1.75, p = 0.083, 95% CI [0.00, 0.03], and that a
Total sorting time did not differ significantly between conditions significant direct effect of the mediator on the dependent variable is not
(nneutral = 51; Mneutral = 356.04 s, SDneutral = 83.60; nmoney = 53; required to establish mediation (Zhao, Lynch, & Chen, 2010, p. 204).
Mmoney = 370.42, SDmoney = 73.48), t = 0.93, p = 0.353, 95% CI There was not a significant association between narcissism scores and
[−44.96, 16.21]. The equivalency across conditions suggests that any risk preferences, β = − 0.23, t = 0.65, p = 0.514, 95% CI [−0.92,
differences in outcomes were not a function of task difficulty. 0.46], nor was there a significant interaction between condition and
narcissism, β = 1.30, t = 1.78, p = 0.077, 95% CI [− 0.14, 2.75].
3.2. Testosterone change There was a significant main effect of condition on risk scores, such that
those in the money condition were more risk aversive than those in the
Mean Time 1 (baseline) and Time 2 (post-manipulation) testos- neutral condition, β = − 0.93, t = 2.48, p = 0.015, 95% CI [−1.68,
terone levels were 176.08 pg/ml (SD = 65.31) and 185.95 pg/ml − 0.19], R2 = 0.06.
(SD = 70.13), respectively (see Table 1 for descriptive statistics). Time
1 testosterone levels were not significantly associated with narcissism
scores, r = 0.048, p = 0.734 (see Table 2 for intercorrelations among 3.4. Moderated mediation
variables). There were no significant differences in Time 1 testosterone
levels as a function of experimental condition, t = 0.27, p = 0.786, Prior to testing for moderated mediation, we tested two simple
95% CI [− 22.03, 29.02]. Likewise, narcissism scores did not sig- mediation models (an indirect effect of money on risk preferences
nificantly differ between conditions, t = 0.44, p = 0.664, 95% CI through testosterone changes, and an indirect effect of narcissism on
[−0.17, 0.26]. Testosterone change was calculated using standard risk scores via testosterone changes), neither of which yielded a sig-
practices, by subtracting each participant's Time 1 testosterone level nificant indirect effect (Supplement S7). We subsequently tested a
from their Time 2 level (Apicella et al., 2014; Zilioli & Watson, 2014). moderated mediation model in which trait narcissism (Mod) moderated
We tested if trait narcissism moderated an effect of money condition the effect of money condition (X) on testosterone change (Med), and in
on testosterone change using the PROCESS macro for model 1 (Hayes, which this interaction helped predict risk-taking scores (Y). The
2013; version 2.15; continuous predictors were mean centered prior to PROCESS macro for model 8 (Hayes, 2013; Krishna, 2016; N = 104)
all regression analyses; N = 104). There was not a significant effect of showed a significant moderated mediation pattern (index of moderated
condition on testosterone change, β = − 3.05, t = 0.58, p = 0.566, mediation = − 0.44, SE = 0.23, 95% CI [− 0.95, − 0.09]).
95% CI [− 13.58, 7.47]), nor was there a significant association be- Among low-narcissism participants (− 1 SD; PNI = 2.44), being in
tween narcissism scores and testosterone change, β = 7.95, t = 1.64, the money, versus neutral, condition evinced a significant positive ef-
p = 0.104, 95% CI [−1.66, 17.55]. However, there was a significant fect on risk-taking through an increase in testosterone levels (condi-
interaction between condition and narcissism scores on testosterone tional indirect effect = 0.20, SE = 0.13, 95% CI [0.02, 0.54]). That is,
for participants low in narcissism, their increased risk-taking from
Table 2 being assigned to the money, versus neutral, condition was partly ex-
Intercorrelations among variables. plained by a rise in testosterone levels.
Among highly narcissistic participants (+ 1 SD; PNI = 3.54), being
Variable 1 2 3 4 5
in the money, compared to the neutral condition, revealed a significant,
1. Testosterone Time 1 (pg/ml) 1 negative effect on risk-taking through a decrease in testosterone levels
2. Testosterone Time 2 (pg/ml) 0.912⁎ 1 (conditional indirect effect = − 0.28, SE = 0.16, 95% CI: −0.84,
3. Testosterone change (pg/ml) − 0.046 0.367⁎ 1
− 0.06). That is, among participants high in narcissism, a drop in tes-
4. Narcissism (PNI) − 0.146 −0.074 0.152 1
5. Risk-taking 0.138 0.179 0.123 −0.024 1 tosterone levels helped to explain a pattern of greater risk aversion
among participants in the money, compared to neutral, condition.
⁎
p < 0.001.

112
E.P. Stenstrom et al.
4. Discussion
The findings of an experiment suggest that exposure to money elicits
changes in testosterone levels and risk-taking in men, and that the di-
rection of these effects depends on trait narcissism. Among men low in
narcissism, handling money resulted in a greater increase in testos-
terone levels compared with handling paper. To our knowledge, this
testosterone increase is the first direct evidence of a physiological re-
sponse to money exposure. Furthermore, considering the established
association between testosterone and status (Mazur & Booth, 1998), our
finding that handling money elicited a rise in testosterone levels among
non-narcissists may lend support to the Tool Theory of money moti-
vation, which posits that responses to money are derived from evolved
instincts such as status seeking (Kniffin, 2006; Lea & Webley, 2006).
Testosterone and risk-taking responses to status-related cues may have
been selected for by promoting fitness in ancestral environments.
For more narcissistic men, handling money surprisingly led to a
significantly weaker increase in testosterone levels relative to handling
paper. Since narcissists have a vulnerable and fragile self-concept (Morf
& Rhodewalt, 2001), frequently make social comparisons (Krizan &
Bushman, 2011), and respond negatively to upward comparisons
(Bogart et al., 2004; Nicholls & Stukas, 2011), handling large amounts
of money might have led to aversive upward status-related compar-
isons. To the extent that this may have occurred, a weak testosterone
response to handling large amounts of money may have been the result.
Moreover, the moderated mediation results suggest the effects of
money exposure on testosterone levels have downstream effects on
decision making. Handling money, relative to handling paper, led to
heightened risk-taking through increased testosterone levels among
men low in narcissism. Considering the positive relationship between
testosterone and status motives (Archer, 2006; Zilioli & Bird, 2017), the
rise in testosterone levels in response to handling money among non-
narcissistic men might have motivated them to take financial risks in
hopes of gaining status through monetary rewards. In contrast, among
more narcissistic men, handling money resulted in less risk-taking via
reduced testosterone levels. While these findings are in line with re-
search showing a positive relationship between testosterone changes
and risk preferences (Apicella et al., 2014), they are the first to suggest
that money exposure can lead to shifts in risk-taking. Future research
could investigate if some of the established effects of money reminders
on motives, thoughts, and behavior might also be mediated by testos-
terone changes. For instance, given the research linking testosterone to
status motives (Archer, 2006; Zilioli & Bird, 2017), and that perfor-
mance may serve as a means of gaining status, researchers could test if
the effects of money cues on task persistence and performance (e.g.,
Gasiorowska et al., 2016) could be partly explained by shifts in tes-
tosterone levels.
Limitations of the current work suggest additional avenues for fu-
ture research. Chief among these are the unexpectedly strong increase
in testosterone levels among more narcissistic men after handling slips
of paper. We find this difficult to understand, but perhaps features of
the experiment, from the vaguely competitive nature of the sorting task
to the inclusion of a lottery in the risk-taking task, may have unin-
tentionally put them into a competitive mindset or led them to envision
winning, both of which have been shown to increase testosterone levels
(Archer, 2006; Zilioli & Bird, 2017). Another note is that all the ex-
perimenters in the current work were young women. Cross-sex inter-
actions can increase testosterone levels (e.g., van der Meij, Buunk, van
de Sande, & Salvador, 2008). However, once again, why these processes
would occur only with more narcissistic men who frankly performed a
fairly natural task, we are not certain. Future studies may investigate
how features of the experiment might influence the effects of money on
testosterone levels among narcissistic men. Additionally, future re-
search on whether money exposure elicits upward wealth comparisons
could help explain why narcissists responded to handling money with a
weaker testosterone increase compared to handling paper. Another
113
Personality and Individual Differences 123 (2018) 110–114
potential future research direction might be to explore how other
hormones might respond to money primes and/or interact with tes-
tosterone responses to impact risk preferences. For instance, given the
studies showing that cortisol interacts with testosterone to predict risk-
taking (Danese, Fernandes, Watson, & Zilioli, 2017), future research
examining testosterone responses to status cues might benefit from also
measuring cortisol.
Our findings add to the growing bodies of work investigating the
role of money cues (Tong, Zheng, & Zhao, 2013), narcissism (Hyun,
Park, & Park, 2016), and physiology in influencing consumer behavior
(Giddens, Schermer, & Vernon, 2009; Nepomuceno, Saad, Stenstrom,
Mendenhall, & Iglesias, 2016; Röder, Brewer, & Fink, 2009). Although
our research showed that money exposure results in a rise in testos-
terone levels and subsequent financial risk-taking among men low in
narcissism, it is unclear if these effects have downstream personal or
social implications. Given that testosterone levels are positively asso-
ciated with status motives (Archer, 2006; Zilioli & Bird, 2017), re-
minders of money may motivate non-narcissistic men to strive for status
by signaling their competence and generosity to others (Anderson &
Kilduff, 2009) or by engaging in conspicuous consumption (Sundie
et al., 2011). Furthermore, considering the evidence linking testos-
terone to aggression (Carré & Archer, 2018), an increase in testosterone
levels in response to money exposure might also lead to aggression or to
other nefarious behavior such as cheating, lying, or sabotaging rivals in
pursuit of rank ascension. Accordingly, future research could explore if
money exposure among non-narcissists promotes prosocial or antisocial
behavior geared at gaining status.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.10.035.
References
van Anders, S. M., & Goldey, K. L. (2010). Testosterone and partnering are linked via
relationship status for women and ‘relationship orientation’ for men. Hormones and
Behavior, 58(5), 820–826.
Anderson, C., & Kilduff, G. J. (2009). The pursuit of status in social groups. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 18(5), 295–298.
Apicella, C. L., Dreber, A., Campbell, B., Gray, P. B., Hoffman, M., & Little, A. C. (2008).
Testosterone and financial risk preferences. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29(6),
384–390.
Apicella, C. L., Dreber, A., & Mollerstrom, J. (2014). Salivary testosterone change fol-
lowing monetary wins and losses predicts future financial risk-taking.
Psychoneuroendocrinology, 39, 58–64.
Archer, J. (2006). Testosterone and human aggression: An evaluation of the challenge
hypothesis. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 30(3), 319–345.
Blascovich, J., Vanman, E., Mendes, W. B., & Dickerson, S. (2011). Social psychophysiology
for social and personality psychology. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Bogart, L. M., Benotsch, E. G., & Pavlovic, J. D. P. (2004). Feeling superior but threatened:
The relation of narcissism to social comparison. Basic and Applied Social Psychology,
26(1), 35–44.
Booth, A., Shelley, G., Mazur, A., Tharp, G., & Kittok, R. (1989). Testosterone, and
winning and losing in human competition. Hormones and Behavior, 23(4), 556–571.
Boucher, H. C., & Kofos, M. N. (2012). The idea of money counteracts ego depletion
effects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(4), 804–810.
Campbell, W. K. (1999). Narcissism and romantic attraction. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 77(6), 1254.
Campbell, W. K., Goodie, A. S., & Foster, J. D. (2004). Narcissism, confidence, and risk
attitude. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 17(4), 297–311.
Carré, J. M., & Archer, J. (2018). Testosterone and human behavior: The role of in-
dividual and contextual variables. Current Opinion in Psychology, 19(1), 149–153.
Carré, J. M., Campbell, J. A., Lozoya, E., Goetz, S. M., & Welker, K. M. (2013). Changes in
testosterone mediate the effect of winning on subsequent aggressive behaviour.
Psychoneuroendocrinology, 38(10), 2034–2041.
Cumming, G. (2013). The new statistics why and how. Psychological Science, 25(1), 7–29.
Danese, G., Fernandes, E., Watson, N. V., & Zilioli, S. (2017). Testosterone and cortisol
jointly predict the ambiguity premium in an Ellsberg-urns experiment. Frontiers in
Behavioral Neuroscience, 11, 1–9.
Derntl, B., Pintzinger, N., Kryspin-Exner, I., & Schöpf, V. (2014). The impact of sex
hormone concentrations on decision-making in females and males. Frontiers in
Neuroscience, 8, 1–11.
Gasiorowska, A., Chaplin, L. N., Zaleskiewicz, T., Wygrab, S., & Vohs, K. D. (2016).
Money cues increase agency and decrease prosociality among children: Early signs of
E.P. Stenstrom et al.
market-mode behaviors. Psychological Science, 27(3), 331–344.
Geniole, S. N., Bird, B. M., Ruddick, E. L., & Carré, J. M. (2017). Effects of competition
outcome on testosterone concentrations in humans: An updated meta-analysis.
Hormones and Behavior, 92, 37–50.
Giddens, J. L., Schermer, J. A., & Vernon, P. A. (2009). Material values are largely in the
family: A twin study of genetic and environmental contributions to materialism.
Personality and Individual Differences, 46(4), 428–431.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis:
A regression based approach. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Holt, C. A., & Laury, S. K. (2002). Risk aversion and incentive effects. American Economic
Review, 92(5), 1644–1655.
van Honk, J., Schutter, D. J., Hermans, E. J., Putman, P., Tuiten, A., & Koppeschaar, H.
(2004). Testosterone shifts the balance between sensitivity for punishment and re-
ward in healthy young women. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 29(7), 937–943.
Hyun, N. K., Park, Y., & Park, S. W. (2016). Narcissism and gift giving: Not every gift is for
others. Personality and Individual Differences, 96, 47–51.
Kniffin, K. M. (2006). Show me the status: Money as a kind of currency. Behavioral and
Brain Sciences, 29(2), 188–189.
Krishna, A. (2016). A clearer spotlight on spotlight: Understanding, conducting and re-
porting. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 26(3), 315–324.
Krizan, Z., & Bushman, B. J. (2011). Better than my loved ones: Social comparison ten-
dencies among narcissists. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(2), 212–216.
Lakey, C. E., Rose, P., Campbell, W. K., & Goodie, A. S. (2008). Probing the link between
narcissism and gambling: The mediating role of judgment and decision-making
biases. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 21(2), 113–137.
Lea, S. E., & Webley, P. (2006). Money as tool, money as drug: The biological psychology
of a strong incentive. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 29(02), 161–209.
Lobbestael, J., Baumeister, R. F., Fiebig, T., & Eckel, L. A. (2014). The role of grandiose
and vulnerable narcissism in self-reported and laboratory aggression and testosterone
reactivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 69, 22–27.
Marshall, T. C., Lefringhausen, K., & Ferenczi, N. (2015). The big five, self-esteem, and
narcissism as predictors of the topics people write about in Facebook status updates.
Personality and Individual Differences, 85, 35–40.
Mazur, A., & Booth, A. (1998). Testosterone and dominance in men. Behavioral and Brain
Sciences, 21(03), 353–363.
McCaul, K. D., Gladue, B. A., & Joppa, M. (1992). Winning, losing, mood, and testos-
terone. Hormones and Behavior, 26(4), 486–504.
Mehta, P., & Josephs, R. (2006). Testosterone change after losing predicts the decision to
compete again. Hormones and Behavior, 50(5), 684–692.
van der Meij, L., Buunk, A. P., van de Sande, J. P., & Salvador, A. (2008). The presence of
a woman increases testosterone in aggressive dominant men. Hormones and Behavior,
54(5), 640–644.
Morf, C. C., & Rhodewalt, F. (2001). Unraveling the paradoxes of narcissism: A dynamic
self-regulatory processing model. Psychological Inquiry, 12(4), 177–196.
Nepomuceno, M. V., Saad, G., Stenstrom, E., Mendenhall, Z., & Iglesias, F. (2016).
Testosterone & gift-giving: Mating confidence moderates the association between
digit ratios (2D: 4D and rel2) and erotic gift-giving. Personality and Individual
Differences, 91, 27–30.
Nicholls, E., & Stukas, A. A. (2011). Narcissism and the self-evaluation maintenance
model: Effects of social comparison threats on relationship closeness. The Journal of
Social Psychology, 151(2), 201–212.
Pincus, A. L., Ansell, E. B., Pimentel, C. A., Cain, N. M., Wright, A. G., & Levy, K. N.
(2009). Initial construction and validation of the pathological narcissism inventory.
Psychological Assessment, 21(3), 365–379.
114
Personality and Individual Differences 123 (2018) 110–114
Röder, S., Brewer, G., & Fink, B. (2009). Menstrual cycle shifts in women's self-perception
and motivation: A daily report method. Personality and Individual Differences, 47(6),
616–619.
Saad, G., & Vongas, J. G. (2009). The effect of conspicuous consumption on men's tes-
tosterone levels. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 110(2), 80–92.
Schmitt, D. P., Alcalay, L., Alves, I. C. B., Anderson, C. A., Angelini, A. L., Asendorpf, J. B.,
... Zupančič, A. (2017). Narcissism and the strategic pursuit of short-term mating:
Universal links across 11 world regions of the international sexuality description
project-2. Psychological Topics, 26(1), 89–137.
Schultheiss, O. C., & Stanton, S. J. (2009). Assessment of salivary hormones. In E.
Harmon-Jones, & J. S. Beer (Eds.). Methods in social neuroscience (pp. 17–44). New
York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Sorokowski, P., Sorokowska, A., Oleszkiewicz, A., Frackowiak, T., Huk, A., & Pisanski, K.
(2015). Selfie posting behaviors are associated with narcissism among men.
Personality and Individual Differences, 85, 123–127.
Stanton, S. J., Liening, S. H., & Schultheiss, O. C. (2011). Testosterone is positively as-
sociated with risk taking in the Iowa gambling task. Hormones and Behavior, 59(2),
252–256.
Stanton, S. J., Mullette-Gillman, O. D. A., McLaurin, R. E., Kuhn, C. M., LaBar, K. S., Platt,
M. L., & Huettel, S. A. (2011). Low-and high-testosterone individuals exhibit de-
creased aversion to economic risk. Psychological Science, 22(4), 447–453.
Stenstrom, E., Saad, G., Nepomuceno, M. V., & Mendenhall, Z. (2011). Testosterone and
domain-specific risk: Digit ratios (2D: 4D and rel2) as predictors of recreational, fi-
nancial, and social risk-taking behaviors. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(4),
412–416.
Sundie, J. M., Kenrick, D. T., Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., Vohs, K. D., & Beal, D. J.
(2011). Peacocks, Porsches, and Thorstein Veblen: Conspicuous consumption as a
sexual signaling system. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(4), 664.
Tong, L., Zheng, Y., & Zhao, P. (2013). Is money really the root of all evil? The impact of
priming money on consumer choice. Marketing Letters, 24(2), 119–129.
Vohs, K. D. (2015). Money priming can change people's thoughts, feelings, motivations,
and behaviors: An update on 10 years of experiments. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General, 144(4), e86.
Vohs, K. D., Mead, N. L., & Goode, M. R. (2006). The psychological consequences of
money. Science, 314(5802), 1154–1156.
Weiser, E. B. (2015). # Me: Narcissism and its facets as predictors of selfie-posting fre-
quency. Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 477–481.
Zethraeus, N., Kocoska-Maras, L., Ellingsen, T., Von Schoultz, B. O., Hirschberg, A. L., &
Johannesson, M. (2009). A randomized trial of the effect of estrogen and testosterone
on economic behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(16),
6535–6538.
Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and
truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197–206.
Zhou, X., Vohs, K. D., & Baumeister, R. F. (2009). The symbolic power of money re-
minders of money alter social distress and physical pain. Psychological Science, 20(6),
700–706.
Zilioli, S., & Bird, B. M. (2017). Functional significance of men's testosterone reactivity to
social stimuli. Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology, 47, 1–18.
Zilioli, S., & Watson, N. V. (2012). The hidden dimensions of the competition effect: Basal
cortisol and basal testosterone jointly predict changes in salivary testosterone after
social victory in men. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 37(11), 1855–1865.
Zilioli, S., & Watson, N. V. (2014). Testosterone across successive competitions: Evidence
for a ‘winner effect’ in humans? Psychoneuroendocrinology, 47, 1–9.