Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
×
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Wilson - Critical Review of Menstrual Synchrony Research

Wilson - Critical Review of Menstrual Synchrony Research

Ratings: (0)|Views: 624|Likes:
Published by vmsolo

More info:

Published by: vmsolo on Mar 30, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See More
See less

03/30/2010

pdf

text

original

 
psychon~uroendocrinology.
Vok 17. No. 6. pp. 565-591, 1992 0306-4530/92 $5.00+0.00Printed in Great Britain Pergamon Press I.~d.
A CRITICAL REVIEWOF MENSTRUAL SYNCHRONY RESEARCH
H. CLYDE WILSON
Department of Anthropology, University of Missouri - Columbia, Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.
(Received 23 July 1990; in final orm 25 July 1992)
SUMMARYTwo experiments and three studies reported a significant level of menstrual synchrony aftersubjects had been treated with applications of axillary extract from a donor subject or after subjectshave spent time together. Four studies failed to replicate these results. A comparison of the studiesshows the only consistent difference is that those studies not finding menstrual synchrony reportedproblems with subjects who had irregular cycle lengths, while those finding menstrual synchronyreported no such problems. All experiments and studies were based on the methods and researchdesign introduced by McClintock (1971). Three errors are inherent in research based on her model:(1) an implicit assumption that differences between menses onsets of randomly paired subjects varyrandomly over consecutive onsets, (2) an incorrect procedure for determining the initial onsetabsolute difference between subjects, and (3) exclusion of subjects or some onsets of subjects whodo not have the number of onsets specified by the research design. All of these errors increase theprobability of finding menstrual synchrony in a sample. One or more of these errors occurred in theexperiments and studies reporting synchrony; no significant levels of menstrual synchrony occurwhen these errors are corrected. Menstrual synchrony is not demonstrated in any of the experimentsor studies.INTRODUCTIONIN 1971 McClintock published an article reporting menstrual synchrony in pairs and groups ofcollege women who spent time together. By 1978, the date I began menstrual synchronyresearch, McClintock's article had been cited over 40 times in the scientific literature and con-tinues to be cited in professional journals, literature on biological and psychological issuesregarding women, and the popular media (e.g., Monmaney, 1987). The possibility that onewoman might influence the menstrual cycle of another has both practical and theoretical impli-cations. The practical implication is the potential of a pheromone or some other signalinfluencing the timing of ovulation that would assist in reproductive scheduling. The theoreti-cal implication is understanding synchronous ovulation as the product of natural selection inhuman biological evolution.Several types of behavior are known to influence menstrual cycles and ovulation in humans:prolonged and intensive breast feeding, loss of body fat below certain levels, psychologicalstress, and ingestion or injection of hormones. McClintock's research raises the added possibil-Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Dr. H. C. Wilson, Department of Anthropology, Universityof Missouri - Columbia, 200 Swallow Hall, Columbia MO 65211, USA.565
 
566 H.C. Wtt.soNity of pheromonal control of menstrual cycles and the timing of ovulation. Rogel (1978) citesMcClintock in her extensive review, "A Critical Evaluation of the Possibility of Higher PrimateReproductive and Sexual Pheromones," and suggests:From the research discussed in this article, it seems that the most promising area in which tosearch for pheromonal control of higher primate sexual and reproductive behavior is menstrualsynchrony, a phenomenon that suggests the action of a primer pheromone. (p. 826)Bennett (1974) pointed to "the contraceptive possibilities of pheromones" as one of theresearch areas on chemical contraceptives under study (pp. 181-182). Convincing evidencemenstrual synchrony occurs in humans would justify a major research effort to identify thepheromone or other phenomenon responsible for this effect.Confirming menstrual synchrony in humans also could contribute to the emerging body ofevidence that stresses the importance of primate females in mate choice, gestation, and infantcare. Until recently, theories in evolutionary biology have concentrated on the primate male'schoice of mates; the estrous females were considered neutral or passive in this process (Hrdy,1981, pp. 11-12). However, field studies of primates report dominance hierarchies amongfemales in many species (Hrdy, 1981). Further, these dominant females favorably competewith subordinate females for reproductive access to the males and have significantly greaterreproductive success (Drickamer, 1974; Dunbar & Dunbar, 1977). Therefore, if all femaleshave synchronized ovarian cycles, a dominant female could enhance her reproduc!ive potentialby monopolizing the sperm, consortship and protection of a dominant male. Using a differentargument, Turke (1984) suggests each male would be occupied with a female, if the femaleshave synchronous ovarian cycles and extended sexual receptivity. Thus, a female's reproduc-tive success is increased by her male's exclusive consortship and his increased parental effort.McClintock's study has been replicated twice and has received additional support from twoexperiments. Four studies failed to replicate her study. This review examines the causes forthese conflicting results. First, I review the menstrual synchrony experiments and studies andcompare the seven field studies, i.e., research in which no attempt was made to control environ-mental factors or manipulate the behavior of the subjects, on the basis of seven variables.Second, I describe and explain three errors that bias the results of menstrual synchronyresearch. And, third, I use these errors to indicate biases in the three studies and two experi-ments reporting menstrual synchrony. My conclusion is that menstrual synchrony has not beendemonstrated in any of these studies or experiments.A REVIEW OF MENSTRUAL SYNCHRONY STUDIESAll the studies and experiments are based on methods introduced by McClintock (1971). Inthe studies, subjects with no previous social contact come together in a social setting such asbecoming roommates. The absolute difference between dates of the subjects' first post-contactmenses onsets is determined. After a period of several months, the absolute difference betweenthe subjects' menses onsets dates is determined over the same number of onsets. A decreasefrom the initial to the final onset absolute difference is defined as menstrual synchrony. In theexperiments, subjects received on their upper lips scheduled application of axillary extracttaken from a donor subject. The absolute difference between the first application and the initialmenses onset of the subject is determined. The final onset absolute difference is determinedafter an equal number of applications and subjects' onsets. As before, a decrease from theinitial to the final absolute differences is defined as synchrony.
 
MENSTRUAL SYNCHRONYRESEARCH
567The first published replication of McClintock's study was when Graham and McGrew(1980) reported menstrual synchrony in a sample of 18 pairs of closest friends at a coeducationaluniversity in Scotland. The same year Russell
et al.
(1980) reported an experiment in whichfive women synchronized their menses onsets with an unknown donor after being treated overfour menstrual cycles with the odor of a donor's axillary secretions. The following year, in asecond replication of McClintock's study, Quadagno
et al.
(1981) reported menstrual synchronyamong close friends and roommates at a coeducational state university. Finally, in 1986 Preti
et al.
(1986), in an experiment similar to that of Russell
et al.
(1980), found that, after two men-strual cycles, a sample of 10 women experienced a significant decrease in the absolute differ-ence between the women's menses onsets and the applications of the donor's axillary secretions.However, four other studies failed to find menstrual synchrony. Pfaff (1980) did not findmenstrual synchrony in samples of roommates and close friends at a coeducational state univer-sity; Jarett (1984) reported no significant synchrony in a sample of roommates from twowomen's colleges; and Wilson
et al.
(1991) did not find menstrual synchrony in samples ofpairs and groups of subjects in a sorority and in a cooperative house on the campus of a coedu-cational state university.The experiments introduced several controls, e.g., selection of subjects with regular cycleswho were not taking oral contraceptives, scheduling of the treatment cycles, double-blind treat-ment procedures, and control groups receiving placebo treatments. The seven studies, lackingthe controls of the experiments, differ in several major variables that could have influenced theoutcome of the studies. Seven of these variables were examined to determine which, if any,might explain the conflicting results reported in the studies: (1) differences in the environmen-tal setting, e.g., coeducational university or women's college, (2) differences in the percentageof subjects using oral contraceptives, (3) differences in the length of the study period, (4) differ-ences in sample size, (5) differences in method of selecting the study sample, e.g., volunteers orselected by the investigator, (6) differences in age of the subjects, and (7) differences inreported frequency of subjects with irregular cycles or amenorrhea. The first six of these vari-ables showed no significant difference between those studies reporting significant levels of syn-chrony and those reporting no significant levels of synchrony, e.g., subjects in all the sampleswere in the same age range, and McClintock (1971) found synchrony but Jarett (1984) did notfind synchrony, though both used subjects from women's colleges. The only variable thatclearly differentiates the menstrual synchrony studies reporting positive results from thosereporting negative results is the reported frequencies of menstrual cycle irregularity and amen-orrhea. McClintock (1971), Graham and McGrew (1980), and Quadagno
et al.
(1981) foundsignificant levels of menstrual synchrony in their samples and reported no problems withsubjects having irregular cycles or amenorrhea. Pfaff (1980), Jarett (1984), and Wilson
et al.
(1991) found no significant levels of menstrual synchrony in their samples, and all of them hadto make changes in McClintock's methods to adjust for high frequencies of subjects with irreg-ular menstrual cycles or amenorrhea. The possible source of this difference is consideredbelow (Error III).THREE ERRORS IN THE STUDY OF MENSTRUAL SYNCHRONYThe methods used in experiments and studies for determining menstrual synchrony in pairsof subjects have included three types of errors: (1) failure to recognize that a probable one-halfof the pairs in a sample synchronize by chance, (2) miscalculation of the absolute differencebetween initial menses onsets, and (3) exclusion from the sample of those subjects or some

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->