Reply to Gangestad’s (2016) Comment on Wood, Kressel, Joshi, and Louie

Emotion Review 8 (1):90-94 (2016)


Wood, Kressel, Joshi, and Louie’s meta-analysis of menstrual cycle influences on mate preferences identified three artifacts that influenced study findings: imprecise estimates of the fertile phase, decline over time, and publication effects. These artifacts also were evident in another recent meta-analysis by Gildersleeve, Haselton, and Fales. This consistent evidence of artifacts is not challenged by Gildersleeve et al.’s failure to find another artifact–chasing significance levels. In addition, Wood et al. correctly coded the findings of Gangestad and colleagues’ research, given the variation in their reporting formats and inclusion criteria, which in some studies included only 54% of the sample. The controversy over menstrual cycle effects could be beneficial in increasing interest in publishing null results as well as in identifying evolutionary models that build on women’s capacity to regulate reproduction according to societal roles.

Download options


    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 72,879

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library


Added to PP

9 (#959,112)

6 months
1 (#386,016)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Reply to Wood.Silvio Gaggi - 2000 - Film-Philosophy 4 (1).
Sellars, Roy Wood (1880—1973).Richard McDonough - 2014 - Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Reply.A. Wood - 1992 - Bulletin of the Hegel Society of Great Britain 25:34-50.
A Reply to Critics.Wood Meisksins Ellen - 2007 - Historical Materialism 15 (3).
A Reply to Critics.Ellen Meiksins Wood - 2007 - Historical Materialism 15 (3):143-170.
In a Dark Wood.Paul Wood - 1998 - Environmental Ethics 20 (2):215-218.