Abstract

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.