Meta-analyses and p-curves support robust cycle shifts in women’s mate preferences: Reply to Wood and Carden (2014) and Harris, Pashler, and Mickes (2014).

Abstract

Two meta-analyses evaluated shifts across the ovulatory cycle in women's mate preferences but reported very different findings. In this journal, we reported robust evidence for the pattern of cycle shifts predicted by the ovulatory shift hypothesis (Gildersleeve, Haselton, & Fales, 2014). However, Wood, Kressel, Joshi, and Louie (2014) claimed an absence of compelling support for this hypothesis and asserted that the few significant cycle shifts they observed were false positives resulting from publication bias, p-hacking, or other research artifacts. How could 2 meta-analyses of the same literature reach such different conclusions? We reanalyzed the data compiled by Wood et al. These analyses revealed problems in Wood et al.'s meta-analysis-some of which are reproduced in Wood and Carden's (2014) comment in the current issue of this journal-that led them to overlook clear evidence for the ovulatory shift hypothesis in their own set of effects. In addition, we present right-skewed p-curves that directly contradict speculations by Wood et al.; Wood and Carden; and Harris, Pashler, and Mickes (2014) that supportive findings in the cycle shift literature are false positives. Therefore, evidence from both of the meta-analyses and the p-curves strongly supports genuine, robust effects consistent with the ovulatory shift hypothesis and contradicts claims that these effects merely reflect publication bias, p-hacking, or other research artifacts. Unfounded speculations about p-hacking distort the research record and risk unfairly damaging researchers' reputations; they should therefore be made only on the basis of firm evidence.

The Role of Facial and Body Hair Distribution in Women’s Judgments of Men’s Sexual Attractiveness

“…The second meta-analysis by Gildersleeve et al (2014a) reported significant effects of higher fertility on masculinity preferences when women considered short-term relationships and attractiveness ratings for unspecified relationship contexts, but not when considering long-term relationships. However, subsequent reanalyses of the data included in both meta-analyses were mixed (Gildersleeve et al, 2014b;Wood & Fig. 4 Mean proportion of hairy images (±1 SEM) selected as most attractive for very light, light, medium, and heavy chest hair for the full sample (a) and among women 30 years or younger (b).…”

“…We recognize that the use of questionnaires to determine fertility and likelihood of conception is imperfect (Harris, 2013;Harris, Chabot, & Mickes, 2013). In order to provide the best estimate of fertility in the absence of endocrine measures, accounting for length and regularity of the menstrual cycle has been recommended (Gildersleeve et al, 2013(Gildersleeve et al, , 2014b. Thus, among participants not using hormonal contraceptives, we restricted analyses to those participants reporting regular menstrual cycles to control for potential intra-cycle variability in the onset of theperiod of fertility (Wilcox et al, 2000).…”

Comment: Wood et al.’s (2014) Speculations of Inappropriate Research Practices in Ovulatory Cycle Studies

“…Gildersleeve et al (2014a), meta-analyzing the same domain, reported highly robust effects (though also gaps in understanding). Differences that drive contrasting conclusions are multiple (see Gildersleeve, Haselton, & Fales, 2014b), but are not the focus here. Wood et al (2014) found certain groups of cycle effects to be robustspecifically, on preferences for symmetry and health, the effect for masculinity preferences just falling short of significance (see also Gildersleeve et al, 2014aGildersleeve et al, , 2014b.…”

“…Differences that drive contrasting conclusions are multiple (see Gildersleeve, Haselton, & Fales, 2014b), but are not the focus here. Wood et al (2014) found certain groups of cycle effects to be robustspecifically, on preferences for symmetry and health, the effect for masculinity preferences just falling short of significance (see also Gildersleeve et al, 2014aGildersleeve et al, , 2014b. But they conclude, "The few instances in which women's preferences shifted across the cycle appeared to be largely artifacts of research practices" (p. 245).…”

Testing Evolutionary Hypotheses Regarding Individual Differences in Human Mating Strategies

“…Other research has failed to find any link between preferences for facial masculinity and preferences for perceived health (Boothroyd et al, 2005;Enlow, Moyers, & Merow, 1982). Meanwhile, current evidence regarding women's preferences for masculine faces increasing closer to ovulation is equivocal, with two competing meta-analyses published in the same year reaching separate conclusions (Gildersleeve, Haselton, & Fales, 2014a, 2014bJones et al, 2017;W. Wood, Kressel, Joshi, & Louie, 2014).…”