See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/247643575

"Feminine Protection": The Effects of Menstruation on Attitudes Towards

Women

Article  in  Psychology of Women Quarterly · June 2002

DOI: 10.1111/1471-6402.00051

CITATIONS READS
119 3,025

4 authors, including:

Tomi-Ann Roberts Jamie L Goldenberg

Colorado College University of South Florida
51 PUBLICATIONS   5,424 CITATIONS    81 PUBLICATIONS   4,606 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Tom Pyszczynski
University of Colorado Colorado Springs
234 PUBLICATIONS   28,158 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Anxiety buffer disruption theory of PTSD View project

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) / Stress / Terror management View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Tomi-Ann Roberts on 27 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26 (2002), 131–139. Blackwell Publishing. Printed in the USA.
Copyright 
C 2002 Division 35, American Psychological Association. 0361-6843/02

“FEMININE PROTECTION”: THE EFFECTS OF

MENSTRUATION ON ATTITUDES TOWARDS WOMEN

Tomi-Ann Roberts Jamie L. Goldenberg Cathleen Power Tom Pyszczynski

Colorado College Boise State University University of Michigan University of Colorado
at Colorado Springs

An experiment tested the hypothesis that reminders of a woman’s menstrual status lead to more negative reactions to
her and increased objectification of women in general. Participants interacted with a female confederate who ostensibly
accidentally dropped either a tampon or hair clip out of her handbag. Dropping the tampon led to lower evaluations of the
confederate’s competence, decreased liking for her, and a marginal tendency to avoid sitting close to her. Furthermore,
gender schematic participants responded to the reminder of menstruation with increased objectification of women
in general, an effect we view as an effort to “protect” culturally sanitized views of the feminine. These findings are
discussed from the perspective of feminist theory and a terror management perspective on the role of ambivalence
about the human body in the objectification of women.

In women are incarnated disturbing mysteries of
nature. . . In woman dressed and adorned, nature is
present but under restraint, by human will remolded
and nearer to man’s desire. A woman is rendered more
desirable to the extent that nature is more rigorously
confined (de Beauvoir, 1952, p. 84, 179).
Throughout history, stereotypes about women have been
paradoxical, because they contain both negative and seem-
ingly positive judgments. Women have been simultaneously
perceived as less competent and inherently less valuable
than men, but also are idealized as wives and mothers (e.g.,
Glick & Fiske, 1996). Feminist theorists from Simone de
Beauvoir (1952) to the present day (e.g., Tauna, 1993) have
Tomi-Ann Roberts, Department of Psychology, Colorado College;
Jamie L. Goldenberg, Department of Psychology, Boise State Uni-
versity; Cathleen Power, Department of Psychology, University of
Michigan; Tom Pyszczynski, Department of Psychology, Univer-
sity of Colorado at Colorado Springs.
Cathleen (Manly) Power was recognized with honorable men-
tion in the 2000 Association for Women in Psychology/Division
35 student research prize contest for an earlier version of this
manuscript. The authors gratefully acknowledge the invaluable
contribution of Chelsea MacLane, our intrepid tampon- and clip-
dropper, to this research.
Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Tomi-Ann
Roberts at the Department of Psychology, Colorado College,
14 E. Cache la Poudre, Colorado Springs, CO 80903. E-mail:
troberts@coloradocollege.edu
argued that these two tendencies in the way women are
viewed are tied to a very basic female characteristic—their
role in reproduction. Because of menstruation, pregnancy,
and lactation, women are perceived as more closely tied to
nature, and, at least in Western culture, this perception
has been used to distinguish them from men, and ulti-
mately to devalue them. Hence, such reproductive func-
tions become an emblem of women’s appropriate sphere—
as caregivers—but also of their supposed inferiority.
In this paper we explore another facet of the paradoxical
views many hold toward women. While women’s reproduc-
tive functions are seen as emblems of their inferiority, their
bodies are also viewed as objects of beauty and desire. The
present research provides an initial exploration of a theore-
tical proposition which argues that objectification of the fe-
male body is at least in part a response to the apparent asso-
ciation of women with nature (see Goldenberg, Pyszczynski,
Greenberg, & Solomon, 2000, for an overview of this posi-
tion). That is, if perceiving women, and women perceiving
themselves, as close to nature is threatening, then beau-
tifying and adorning the female body provides a possible
solution to this dilemma. This “objectification,” in a sense,
strips the body of its corporeal qualities by sanitizing it and
transforming it into an idealized cultural symbol. Although
there is a host of debilitating negative psychological conse-
quences for women of this objectification (cf., Fredrickson
& Roberts, 1997), we suggest that viewing women through
the lens of sexual objectification may serve the existen-
tial function of separating them from their more earthly
nature.

131
132
In a controlled experiment, we explored the role that
women’s “nature” plays in societal attitudes and behaviors
toward them. Specifically, we hypothesized that being re-
minded of a woman’s menstrual status would lead both men
and women to evaluate her competence less favorably, like
her less, and physically distance themselves from her com-
pared to when they were reminded of some aspect of her
femininity that is not tied to nature. We also hypothesized
that the menstrual status prime would lead to greater ob-
jectification of women in general.
Women’s Nature in Historical and
Anthropological Perspective
Historically, conceptions of women have emphasized
women’s connection to nature as a primary source of female
inferiority (see Tauna, 1993). Philosophical and religious
perspectives have long emphasized the “mind” and the
“soul” as the defining characteristics that elevate humans
above the status of animals. Women, in contrast to men,
have been viewed as being ruled by their physical bodies
and emotions, and therefore often perceived as more distant
from the gods and closer to the status of the other animals.
For example, Plato (1973) claimed that men who failed to
exert rational control over their emotions were reincarnated
as women, and that continued inability to exert control re-
sulted in reincarnation as an animal. Aristotle (1984) con-
nected this supposed inferiority specifically to menstrual
blood, which he thought was inferior and less pure than
semen in men. In general then, women’s generative pow-
ers were purported to reduce women’s perfection, intellect,
and soul by tying them more closely to nature.
Anthropologically, there is much evidence that women’s
menstruation has been feared, considered disgusting, and
subjected to cultural taboos and concealment norms.
Delaney, Lupton, and Toth (1988) claim that primitive
man’s fear of menstrual blood was greater than their fear
of death, dishonor, or dismemberment. To avoid contami-
nation from menstrual blood, many non-Western cultures
have required and still require women to remove them-
selves from the community, often by staying in menstrual
huts for the duration of their menstrual periods. Further-
more, menstrual taboos, most commonly surrounding food
and sex, have been instituted in many cultures to prevent
contact and contamination (Delaney et al., 1988). Food
taboos restrict menstruating women from growing, preserv-
ing, cooking, and serving food, and contacting men’s hunt-
ing tools. Other taboos restrict sexual contact during men-
struation. From the Judeo-Christian Bible to the Islamic
Koran, religious writings forbid intercourse with women
during menstruation: “If a woman have issue, and her issue
in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and
whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even”
(Leviticus, 15:19).
Further, turn-of-the-century medical professionals in
the U.S. and Western Europe encouraged women to in-
ROBERTS ET AL.
vest their energy towards reproduction at the expense of
education. The prevailing medical opinion suggested that
women were built around, and mercilessly affected by,
their ovaries. Medical professionals reported that women
risked problems with their sexual organs as well as men-
tal instability if their energy was put toward intellec-
tual pursuits (Cayleff, 1992). Remnants of ancient food
and sex taboos could still be seen; respected medical
doctors in the 19th century wrote that a menstruat-
ing woman could spoil a ham and that men could con-
tract gonorrhea through sexual contact with menstruating
women (Delaney et al., 1988). Studies were conducted
that revealed that “menotoxins” in menstrual blood re-
tard and kill plants (interestingly, these studies neglected
to use control fluids, such as nonmenstrual blood; Whelan,
1975).
Reactions to Menstruation in Contemporary
Western Culture
Although contemporary medical professionals no longer
subscribe to such far-fetched beliefs, contemporary an-
thropologists who study menstrual myths still find evi-
dence that people view menstruating women as polluting
(Buckley & Gottlieb, 1988). For example, one-half of re-
spondents in a survey of over 1,000 Americans believed
that women should not have intercourse while menstru-
ating (The Tampax Report, 1981). And although Western
culture does not and never has confined women to men-
strual huts, advertisers market menstruation as a “hygienic
crisis” that must be effectively managed with their products
to avoid soiling, staining, embarrassment, and odor (Havens
& Swenson, 1988). Accordingly, women in this culture go to
great lengths to hide evidence of their menstrual periods,
from carrying menstrual products in disguising packaging to
using euphemisms to disguise discussion about menstrua-
tion. Studies of adolescent girls’ attitudes toward menstrua-
tion show that one of their main concerns is concealing san-
itary products from others (Kissling, 1996; Williams, 1983).
Research also shows that women fear being “discovered,”
and thus humiliated, through odor or staining their clothes
(Kissling, 1996; Lee, 1994; Ussher, 1989). According to Lee
(1994), staining becomes a visible emblem of women’s con-
tamination and shame, and symbolizes a lapse in the cul-
turally mandated responsibility of all women to conceal evi-
dence of menstruation and to prevent the embarrassment
of others.
In addition to hiding evidence of their contamination,
there is a strong societal stigma that teaches women and
adolescent girls not to talk about menstruation in pub-
lic, and particularly not with men (Brooks-Gunn & Ruble,
1982; Williams, 1983). Euphemisms used to disguise discus-
sion about menstruation are overwhelmingly negative—for
example, “the rag” and “the curse” (Kissling, 1996). Talk-
ing about menstruation is also difficult for parents, often
causing them to delay discussing menstruation with their
Effects of Menstruation
pubescent daughters (Whisnant & Zegans, 1975). Girls
receive conflicting societal messages surrounding menar-
che. Although some girls experience positive feelings as-
sociated with their periods, feelings of shame and secrecy
abound (Ussher, 1989).
To date, psychological research on menstruation has fo-
cused, almost exclusively, on the “symptomatology” of men-
struation and women’s own experiences of their menstrual
cycles. What remains largely unexplored are questions con-
cerning menstruation’s meaning in the culture, and the ex-
tent to which attitudes toward women are influenced by
their menstrual status. Recently, Rozin, Haidt, McCauley,
Dunlop, and Ashmore (1999) conducted a study which in-
volved participants contacting a variety of items designed
to elicit disgust and revulsion. Among these items was a
new unused tampon. The tampon was unwrapped in front
of the participants, who were asked to put it to their lips
and put the tip in their mouth. The authors found that 46%
of their male and female participants refused to touch it
to their lip, and 69% refused to put the tampon in their
mouth; 3% would not even touch it. These findings sug-
gest that both men and women view menstruation with dis-
gust. And similar to other disgusting stimuli, menstruation
has been viewed as having properties of pollution or conta-
gion (Haidt, McCauley, & Rozin, 1994). Just as people are
unwilling to eat a bowl of their favorite soup stirred by a
never-used fly swatter (Rozin, Fallon, & Mandell, 1984),
there are taboos surrounding contact with menstruating
women.
Objectification of Women
We have argued that the bodily functions associated with
menstruation serve as an emblem of women’s inferiority.
The measures that women take to conceal and control men-
struation, and hence their association with nature, thus can
be argued to become their passage to civilization. Further,
not only is menstruation concealed, but at least in West-
ern culture, a “civilized” female body is defined by ide-
als of beauty. Women spend enormous amounts of time
and money transforming their physical bodies into ideal-
ized bodies through the use of a mind-boggling array of
methods, from makeup and fashion, to dieting and even
cosmetic surgery (cf., Wolf, 1991). Thus, the objectified
body becomes a means of fleeing the biological—and hence
inferior—body.
Societal reactions to women’s breasts provides an illus-
tration of this dual response to women’s bodies. A woman
who breast feeds her child in public and does not “cover
up” is judged as indecent (Ussher, 1989; Yalom, 1997), yet
when sexually objectified, her breasts are acceptably used
to sell all manner of consumer products. Interestingly, when
breasts are commodified, it is the nipples that must be scan-
tily clad or concealed with “X’s” or tassels. Similarly, women
must hide their menstrual cycles and the marketing of prod-
133
ucts that allow them to do so emphasize an ideal of super-
femininity (Coutts & Berg, 1993).
Objectification has been shown to lead to a host of psy-
chological problems for women themselves, such as dimini-
shing their ability to concentrate and attain peak emo-
tional experiences because they are taught to see themselves
from the perspective of an external viewer or mirror image
(Fredrickson, Roberts, Noll, Quinn, & Twenge, 1998; see
Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997, for a thorough review). We
suggest that the cultural practice of objectifying women’s
bodies may serve to deny women’s connection to nature.
Consistent with this framework, Roberts (2000) recently
showed that women who tend to objectify their own bod-
ies report more negative attitudes—including disgust and
shame—towards menstruation.
Those who subscribe more fully to social standards are ar-
gued to be more “disgust prone,” meaning that they demon-
strate a negative reaction to violations of cultural norms of
cleanliness and decorum (Rozin & Fallon, 1987). As well,
people who identify highly with traditional gender role ide-
ology appear to be more invested in upholding a strict social
standard of appropriate gender-related behavior (e.g., Bem,
1981; Hudak, 1993). It is therefore plausible that those who
adhere to societal gender role ideology more strongly would
be more likely defend against the failure of women to up-
hold standards of appearance.
Present Study
It follows from this analysis that if menstruation is perceived
as a creaturely body function that serves as an emblem of
women’s inferiority, women whose menstrual status is re-
vealed would be viewed as less competent and also would
be liked less and physically avoided. Further, if the ob-
jectification of women’s bodies is a response to women’s
creatureliness, we would expect that people who have been
reminded of a woman’s menstrual status would be espe-
cially prone to adhere to a sexually objectifying perspec-
tive on women’s bodies. In addition, based on predictions
concerning the greater investment in cultural standards of
gender-appropriate behavior held by those who are them-
selves highly gender-typed, we also included a measure of
gender schematicity so that we could examine the possi-
ble moderating role of it on objectification of women as
a response to the menstrual prime. We included an equal
proportion of males and females in the sample so that gen-
der differences could be examined. Although one might ar-
gue that males, but not females, would show the expected
effects because they do not menstruate, men and women
have been socialized in the same culture. Further, research
suggests that women too are often disgusted by menstrua-
tion and feel ashamed and embarrassed about it (e.g., Lee,
1994; Roberts, 2000). Therefore, we predicted that men
and women would respond similarly to a menstrual status
prime.
134
METHOD
Participants
Participants were 65 university students, 32 females and
33 males, enrolled in an introductory psychology class at a
university in Colorado. The participants ranged in age from
17 to 36 years old with a mean age of 19.62 (SD = 3.30).
Each student was awarded extra credit for participating in
the study. Eighty-one percent of the sample was Caucasian,
9% Hispanic American, 4% African American, and 6%
other or unspecified ethnicities.
Procedure
Individuals were recruited to participate in an experiment
on “group productivity.” They were told that they would
be working together with another person, a “partner,” on a
problem-solving task. Participants were tested one at a time
with a partner, who was a 20-year-old female confederate,
in 40-minute laboratory sessions. Upon arrival, the experi-
menter, a 21-year-old female, told the participant that their
partner had already arrived and they should take a seat op-
posite her at a table in a small lab room. The confederate
was seated at the table and her handbag was placed on the
table next to her.
The participants were then provided with a cover story
stating that organizations are interested in heightening
group productivity, and that there are many factors, such
as characteristics of the different people in the group, ca-
pabilities of the people involved in the group, and attitudes
towards other group members and people in general, that
can affect group productivity. They (the participant and the
confederate) were then asked to fill out two packets of ques-
tionnaires that ostensibly pertained to each of these differ-
ent factors. The naive participant and the confederate were
given Packet 1 of questionnaires pertaining to factors about
themselves. When they were finished filling this out, the ex-
perimenter collected them and left to get the second packet.
While the experimenter was out of the room, the ex-
perimental manipulation was performed. The confederate
reached into her handbag to get some lip balm, and instead
she fumbled out either a wrapped tampon or a hair clip
onto the table. She then replaced the object into her bag
and proceeded to get the lip balm and apply it to her lips.
The lip balm was then returned to her bag. Participants
were randomly assigned to either the tampon or hair clip
condition prior to arrival for the session. The experimenter
was blind to the experimental condition. The confederate
was trained to behave in the same way, with a blank expres-
sion on her face, when dropping either the hair clip or the
tampon. After practice to perfect this behavior, pilot par-
ticipants were run through the procedure and interviewed
regarding the confederate’s behavior. These interviews re-
vealed that the confederate did indeed behave in the same
way across conditions.
ROBERTS ET AL.
The experimenter then returned with the Packet 2 set
of questionnaires. Upon completion of the material, the
experimenter asked both “participants” to take a seat in the
hall while she set up the problem-solving task. Five chairs
had been set up previously, and the confederate, who sat
closer to the door and therefore walked out of the lab room
first, always sat in the first chair. The number of chairs be-
tween her and the chair chosen by the naive participant was
used as an indirect measure of distancing from the confeder-
ate. The experimenter then returned, ushered participants
back into the lab room, and thoroughly debriefed them.
Premanipulation Written Materials (Packet 1)
To determine how strongly participants identified them-
selves with stereotypically masculine or feminine traits,
Spence and Helmreich’s (1978) Personal Attributes
Questionnaire (PAQ) short form was administered. Par-
ticipants rated themselves on a 5-point scale, between a
series of two opposing attributes, for example, “very gen-
tle” and “very rough” for a feminine item and “very active”
and “very passive” for a masculine item. Each subscale was
comprised of eight gender-typed and eight gender-neutral
items. Cronbach’s alphas of .85 and .82 for the Masculine
and Feminine subscales have been obtained in previous
research (Spence & Helmreich, 1978). This measure was
followed by two filler measures that were innocuous and
chosen to lend credence to the cover story.
According to Spence and Helmreich, the median scores
for the masculinity and femininity subscales for college stu-
dents are 21 and 23, respectively. Therefore, these cutoffs
were used to form three categories: masculine (21 or higher
on the M scale, but lower than 23 on the F scale), feminine
(23 or higher on the F scale, but lower than 21 on the M
scale), and androgynous/undifferentiated (both the M and
the F scales either above or below 21 and 23). For our
purposes we were interested in comparing individuals who
conform to traditional gender roles with those who do not.
Therefore, we created two categories: gender schematic
versus gender aschematic. Masculine men and feminine
women were grouped together as the “schematic” group,
and cross-typed (masculine women, feminine men), an-
drogynous (high in both), and undifferentiated (low in both)
individuals were grouped together as the “aschematic”
group (cf., Bem, 1981).
Postmanipulation Written Materials (Packet 2)
Expectations rating form. An expectations rating form
was designed for this study to assess participants’ percep-
tions of the competence of their partner as well as first im-
pressions of liking for their partner. Participants first rated
their partner and then themselves on a series of 7-point
scales assessing competence. Specifically, they were asked
to rate their partner and themselves on competence, intel-
ligence, leadership, and focus. For example, items read “I
Effects of Menstruation
expect my partner will be highly competent at this task,”
and “I expect I will be highly competent at this task.” The
items assessing first impressions of liking were, “I find my
partner friendly,” “I find my partner likable,” “I find my
partner pleasant,” and “I would enjoy spending social time
with my partner.” All items were responded to on 7-point
scales, ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree
(7). Internal reliability for the four competence and the
four liking items revealed Cronbach’s alphas of .84 and .90,
respectively.
Objectification of women. We modified the Self-
Objectification Questionnaire (SOQ; Fredrickson et al.,
1998; Noll & Fredrickson, 1998) to determine how strongly
participants adhere to objectifying standards in evaluating
females in general. The SOQ is used to assess the extent
to which participants have a primarily attractiveness-based
versus competence-based physical self-concept. This scale
asks participants to rank order the importance of 10 dif-
ferent body attributes to their own physical self-concept:
five pertain to physical attractiveness (i.e., “weight,” “sex
appeal,” “physical attractiveness,” “firm/sculpted muscles,”
and “measurements”) and five reflect physical competence
(e.g., “health,” “physical coordination,” “strength,” “energy
level,” and “physical fitness level”). For the revised scale,
participants ranked the same 10 body attributes, from
most to the least important in affecting their evaluation
of women’s bodies in general. Following Fredrickson et al.
(1998), a score was calculated by summing the rankings of
the competence items and subtracting it from the sum of
the ranking of the appearance items. Scores range from –25
to 25, with higher scores indicating greater emphasis on ap-
pearance. Noll and Fredrickson (1998) have demonstrated
satisfactory construct validity of the original SOQ.
RESULTS
Competence
A 2 (condition: tampon vs. hair clip) X 2 (male, female)
ANOVA was conducted on the partner and self-competence
items of the Expectations Rating Form. As predicted,
a main effect was found for condition on the partner’s
competence, F (1, 61) = 4.38, p = .041, with those in the
tampon condition rating their partner’s competence signifi-
cantly lower (M = 4.99, SD = 1.24) than those in the hair
clip condition (M = 5.53, SD = .64). No main effect or in-
teraction with gender was found, indicating that men and
women were influenced equally by the manipulation. The
ANOVA conducted on the “self” competence items re-
vealed no main effects or interactions for condition or gen-
der, indicating that despite the fact that the participants
rated their partner’s competence lower when she dropped
the tampon as compared to the hair clip, they rated them-
selves the same regardless of whether she dropped the tam-
135
pon or hair clip (a difference between self and partner of
zero in the hair clip condition, versus .46 in the tampon
condition). In other words, the manipulation affected how
participants viewed the confederate but not themselves,
a finding interpreted in other studies as representing a
kind of psychological “distancing” from the partner (e.g.,
Pyszczynski, Greenberg, Solomon, Sideris, & Stubing,
1993).
We repeated the ANOVAs for partner and self-
competence, replacing sex with gender-schematicity in or-
der to explore any possible effects of gender role orienta-
tion, as opposed to sex per se. The results of the 2 (gender
schematic vs. gender aschematic) X 2 (condition: tampon
vs. hair clip) ANOVAs revealed that there were no main
effects of gender schematicity, nor did gender schematicity
interact with condition for competence.
Liking
A 2 (condition: tampon vs. hair clip) X 2 (male, female)
ANOVA was conducted on the liking items of the Expec-
tations Rating Form. The results revealed only a main ef-
fect for condition, F (1, 61) = 4.19, p = .045. Specifically,
it was found that, in addition to perceiving the woman
who dropped the tampon as less competent, she was liked
less (M tampon = 4.27, SD = 1.16 vs. M hair clip = 4.77,
SD = .85). The 2 (gender schematic vs. gender aschematic)
X 2 (condition: tampon vs. hair clip) ANOVA revealed that
there was no main effect or interaction involving gender
schematicity on liking.
Objectification of Women
As in the preceding analyses, the 2 (condition: tampon vs.
hair clip) X 2 (male, female) ANOVA on the objectifica-
tion of women measure revealed that there were no main
effects of gender nor did it interact with condition. How-
ever, the 2 (gender schematic vs. gender aschematic) X 2
(condition: tampon vs. hair clip) ANOVA revealed a signifi-
cant interaction, as predicted, between gender schematicity
and condition, F (1, 61) = 13.13, p < .001, as well as a main
effect for condition, F (1, 61) = 5.33, p = .025. Overall, in-
dividuals in the tampon condition objectified women to a
greater extent than did individuals in the hair clip condition
(M = 7.06, SD = 13.55 vs. M = 3.06, SD = 16.16, respec-
tively). Further, pairwise comparisons confirmed that it was
the gender schematic participants who responded to the
tampon condition with increased objectification of women
( p < .005), whereas the aschematic participants were not
affected by the manipulation. These means are reported
in Table 1. Additionally, a separate t test showed that mas-
culine men and feminine women (both classified here as
gender schematic) did not differ in their reactions to the
manipulation.
136
Table 1
The Effect of Gender Schematicity (Schematic vs.
Aschematic) and Condition on the Tendency
to Objectify Women
Gender Schematicity
Schematic Aschematic
Condition M SD N M SD
Tampon 16.47a 10.18 13 −.78b 10.82
Hair Clip 1.26b 14.42 16 5.92b 18.90
Note. Objectification scores range from −25 to +25. Positive scores indi-
cate a greater tendency to objectify women. Scores that are different are
indicated by different letters.
Physical Distancing
Finally, a chi-square analysis was conducted on the physical
distancing measure (number of chairs between participant
and confederate during waiting period). Because all the
participants sat with either zero or one chair between them
and their partner the chair measure was converted into a
categorical variable (there appeared to be a significant social
demand on participants not to choose to sit further away).
The analysis revealed a trend in the predicted direction: in
the tampon condition, 53% of participants sat with a chair
between them and the confederate, versus 32% sat with one
chair between them in the hair clip condition. However,
this difference between conditions fell short of statistical
significance, X 2 (2) = 2.80, p = .09. There was, however a
main effect for gender, X 2 (1) = 4.76, p = .03, which may
have overridden a possible tampon condition effect, as men
sat further away than women from their partner regardless
of condition.
DISCUSSION
The present research showed that college students ex-
hibited negative reactions to a woman who inadvertently
dropped a tampon from her handbag. Specifically, she was
viewed as less competent, less likeable, and tended to be
both psychologically and physically avoided relative to a
woman who dropped a less “offensive” but nonetheless
highly feminine item—a hair clip. This effect was equally
strong among both male and female participants. It appears,
then, that women’s widespread concern about concealing
their menstrual status is at least somewhat justified.
The finding that reminders of menstruation led to lower
evaluations of the female confederate’s competence is per-
haps not really so surprising. After all, arguments that
women should be barred from public office, military ser-
vice, or other positions of responsibility because of the sup-
posed impact of menstruation on their ability to think ra-
tionally abound in the media and contemporary political
discourse. However, the effects of the menstrual reminder
ROBERTS ET AL.
were not limited to perceptions of competence. After drop-
ping the tampon, the female confederate was viewed as less
likeable and participants tended to physically distance from
her by sitting further away from her while waiting for a sec-
ond phase of the experiment. This suggests dropping the
tampon may have elicited a disgust reaction similar to that
found by Rozin et al. (1999). If this disgust was associated
with the confederate, it would explain why she was liked less
N and physically avoided when she reminded participants of
menstruation.
18 Perhaps most surprising is that the negative reaction to
18
the tampon was generalized beyond the confederate who
dropped it to women in general. Participants in the tampon
condition viewed women in general in a more objectified
light. That is, they viewed women’s physical appearance
as especially important relative to health and functioning
in evaluating female bodies. This is especially interesting
if one considers that the control item, a hair clip, is in-
tuitively more associated with objectification, since it is a
commonly used item for beautifying women’s hair. Impor-
tantly, this effect emerged especially among participants
high in gender schematicity, and among such participants,
it emerged regardless of whether they were masculine or
feminine in their gender role orientation. Participants who
were less gender role stereotyped were unaffected by the
presence of the tampon in terms of their objectification of
women. This suggests that gender schematicity may play an
important role in the objectification of women under certain
conditions. Whereas highly gender stereotyped individuals
respond to reminders of women’s physical nature with in-
creased objectification, those who are undifferentiated or
androgynous do not.
Why would hints about a woman’s menstrual status lead
to increased objectification among any of the participants
in our study? More generally, why would menstruation be a
problem in the first place? There are at least two perspec-
tives that may shed light on these questions. Feminist theo-
rists of the body (e.g., Martin, 1992; Rich, 1976) have argued
that in patriarchal cultures, women’s inferiority is defined
by what separates them, or makes them different, from
men. Similar to an ethnocentric perspective on cultural dif-
ferences, a patriarchal perspective on gender differences
argues that since men hold the power to name, they de-
fine their own bodies and behavior as “normal” and “good,”
whereas features that differentiate women from men are
viewed as inferior. Clearly, women’s reproductive systems
are different from men’s. Consequently, the bodily func-
tions associated with this system (e.g., menstruation, lac-
tation, childbirth) become emblems of women’s inferiority
and the subjects of derogation. From this perspective, then,
reminders of menstruation lead to reduced perceptions of
competence, reduced liking, physical distancing, and in-
creased objectification of women in general because they
accentuate one important difference between women and
men. Given the status difference inherent in patriarchy, ac-
centuating this important biological difference between the
Effects of Menstruation
genders leads to the negative association with women’s char-
acteristics. Consistent with this view, Gloria Steinem once
admonished that if men (those with the power to name)
menstruated, “it would become an enviable, boast-worthy,
masculine event . . . men would brag about how long and
how much” (1983, p. 338).
Another theoretical perspective, recently outlined by
Goldenberg et al. (2000), suggests that human beings are
inherently troubled by that which reminds them of their
creaturely corporeal nature. Rooted in terror management
theory (Greenberg, Pyszczynski, & Solomon, 1986),
Goldenberg et al. argue that people are threatened by their
physical bodies because they remind them of their animal
nature and vulnerability to death. People, therefore, are of-
ten ambivalent towards their bodies and bodily functions.
Following the framework laid out by terror management
theory, Goldenberg et al. suggest that we cope with the
threat inherent in the body by imbuing it with symbolic
meaning, such as by transforming it from its animal-like
stature to an object of beauty. Thus cultures objectify some
features of the female body and conceal others as a way of
coping with the reminder of their animal nature provided
by childbirth and other female biological functions. From
this perspective, then, menstruation would be concealed
when possible, responded to with disgust when exposed,
and lead to increased objectification as a way of separating
women from their biological corporeal nature.
We view these theoretical perspectives as complemen-
tary in nature rather than as competing explanations for
the present findings in particular and for attitudes toward
women and men in general. The fact that the tampon
produced its various effects relative to a hair clip, which is
also a predominantly feminine object (and, notably, an item
designed to increase women’s “gaze-worthiness”) in our
culture, seems to suggest that it is more than a reminder of
the feminine that was responsible for the present findings.
It could be argued, however, that menstruation is more
uniquely feminine than hair care products, perhaps because
it is a core difference between the sexes that transcends cul-
ture and historical epoch. Indeed, virtually all perspectives
on gender differences, from evolutionary to existential to
feminist, agree that biological differences related to child-
birth played some role in the origin of inequality between
the genders. Furthermore, from both feminist and terror
management perspectives, individuals who subscribe most
strongly to cultural gender role stereotypes would be more
likely to engage in “feminine protection” by responding
to menstruation with an increase in the objectification of
women—that is, clinging to a more sanitized, deodorized,
and culturally idealized view of women’s bodies.
Before concluding, there are a couple of limitations of
this research that should be addressed. First, this research
is limited by a relatively small and homogenous sample of
primarily Caucasian men and women with a mean age of
just under 20. Further, the sample was all American, and
therefore strongly limits our ability to make generalizations
137
beyond our specific population. In some ways, however,
it is more surprising that we got these effects among
our particular sample—Western, young, and presumably
relatively “open-minded” college students—given that the
cultures in which menstruation is most rigorously confined
tend to be non-Western or conservative religious for the
most part. Nevertheless, we must be cautious about any
conclusions drawn beyond this particular population, and
indeed our study points strongly to the need for good
cross-cultural research on attitudes toward menstruation
and women’s bodies.
Secondly, although we did attempt to choose a control
condition that was similar on the dimension of femininity,
there are other differences between dropping the tampon
and hair clip that make it difficult to rule out a possible al-
ternative explanation for our findings. That is, in addition
to the association of the tampon with women’s “nature” the
two situations differ in embarrassment and inappropriate-
ness. It is therefore possible that this could account for
the effect. However, while this does seem like a possible
explanation for the finding of devaluation of women’s com-
petence, and perhaps even liking and distancing, it is harder
to imagine this difference would produce the finding of in-
creased objectification of women in general. Further, we
believe that dropping a tampon is likely embarrassing and
“inappropriate” because of its strong creaturely and repro-
ductive associations. An important question of future re-
search is whether the effects found in the present research
are unique to menstruation or would extend to other bio-
logical features of women, such as lactation and childbirth.
The queasiness often associated with breast-feeding and the
birth process suggests that other uniquely feminine biolo-
gical features might lead to similar effects.
It would also be interesting to investigate the effects
of uniquely masculine biological processes to see whether
they lead to negative perceptions of men and increased ten-
dencies to view men in a stereotyped way, perhaps empha-
sizing their strength and competence. The present study
suggests that additional investigation of the impact of re-
minders of biological sex differences on perceptions of and
reactions to both genders may be fruitful. Such research
could help to clarify whether the biological body “curses”
women more than men. That is, are women—and certainly
anthropological evidence strongly suggests that they are—
more obliged to conceal their bodies’ functions and viewed
as more socially unacceptable if they do not? If so, why?
Both the feminist and terror management perspectives of-
fer viable explanations.
In summary, the present research demonstrates the pow-
erful influence that reminders of women’s menstrual sta-
tus can have on interpersonal perceptions and behavior.
To date, research on menstruation has focused nearly ex-
clusively on the effects of the menstrual cycle on women
themselves. The present research, however, has provided
an initial exploration of the role that menstruation plays
on societal attitudes towards women. The mere presence
138
of a tampon led both men and women to view a female
confederate as less competent and likable, and to physi-
cally distance from her, and it also led highly gender-typed
participants to engage in greater objectification of women
in general. These findings suggest that the great lengths
to which many women go to avoid revelation of menstrual
status and discussion of related issues may indeed be well-
founded, for reminders of menstruation do appear to lead
to negative judgments of women. Although women are not
confined to menstrual huts in this culture, norms of secrecy
and concealment surrounding menstruation nevertheless
serve the function of keeping women’s corporeal bodies
out of the public eye. Thus, the sanitized, deodorized, and
idealized images of women’s bodies become the only ones
we encounter and accept.
Initial submission: July 25, 2000
Initial acceptance: August 9, 2001
Final acceptance: October 25, 2001
REFERENCES
Aristotle. (1984). Generation of animals. In J. Barnes (Ed.) &
A. Platt (Trans.), The complete works of Aristotle. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of
sex typing. Psychological Review, 88, 354–364.
Brooks-Gunn, J., & Ruble, D. N. (1982). The development of
menstrual-related beliefs and behaviors during early ado-
lescence. Child Development, 53, 1567–1577.
Buckley, T., & Gottlieb, A. (1988). Blood magic: The anthropol-
ogy of menstruation. Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press.
Cayleff, S. E. (1992). She was rendered incapacitated by men-
strual difficulties: Historical perspectives on perceived in-
tellectual and physiological impairment among menstruat-
ing women. In A. J. Dan & L. L. Lewis (Eds.), Menstrual
health in women’s lives (pp. 229–235). Chicago, IL: Univer-
sity of Illinois Press.
Coutts, L. B., & Berg, D. H. (1993). The portrayal of the menstru-
ating woman in menstrual product advertisements. Health
Care for Women International, 14, 179–191.
de Beauvoir, S. (1952). The second sex. New York, NY: Random
House.
Delaney, J., Lupton, M. J., & Toth, E. (1988). The curse: A cultural
history of menstruation. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois
Press.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T. (1997). Objectification theory:
Toward understanding women’s lived experiences and men-
tal health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 173–
206.
Fredrickson, B. L., Roberts, T., Noll, S. M., Quinn, D. M., &
Twenge, J. M. (1998). That swimsuit becomes you: Sex dif-
ferences in self-objectification, restrained eating and math
performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
75, 269–284.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S.T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory:
Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512.
ROBERTS ET AL.
Goldenberg, J. L., Pyszczynski, T., Greenberg, J., & Solomon, S.
(2000). Fleeing the body: A terror management perspec-
tive on the problem of human corporeality. Personality and
Social Psychology Review, 4, 200–218.
Greenberg, J., Pyszczynski, T., & Solomon, S. (1986). The causes
and consequences of the need for self-esteem: A terror man-
agement theory. In R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), Public self and
private self (pp. 189–212). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Haidt, J., McCauley, C. R., & Rozin, P. (1994). Individual dif-
ferences in sensitivity to disgust: A scale sampling seven
domains of disgust elicitors. Personality and Individual Dif-
ferences, 16, 701–713.
Havens, B. B., & Swenson, I. (1988). Imagery associated with
menstruation in advertising targeted to adolescent women.
Adolescence, 23, 89–97.
Hudak, M. A. (1993). Gender schema theory revisited: Men’s
stereotypes of American women. Sex Roles, 28, 279–
293.
Kissling, E. A. (1996). “That’s just a basic teen-age rule”: Girls’
linguistic strategies for managing the menstrual communi-
cation taboo. Journal of Applied Communication Research,
24, 292–309.
Lee, J. (1994). Menarche and the (hetero)sexualization of the fe-
male body. Gender and Society, 8, 343–362.
Martin, E. (1992). The woman in the body: A cultural analysis of
reproduction. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Noll, S. M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). A mediational model link-
ing self-objectification, body shame, and disordered eating.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 623–636.
Plato. (1973). Timaeus. In E. Hamilton & H. Cairns (Eds.) &
B. Jowett (Trans.), The collected dialogues of Plato.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Pyszczynski, T., Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., Sideris, J., & Stubing
(1993). Emotional expression and the reduction of moti-
vated cognitive bias: Evidence from cognitive dissonance
and distancing from victims’ paradigms. Journal of Person-
ality & Social Psychology, 64, 177–186.
Rich, A. (1976). Of woman born. New York, NY: Bantam.
Roberts, T.-A. (2000). “Female trouble”: Self-objectification and
women’s attitudes toward menstruation. Paper presented
at the Annual Association of Women in Psychology Confer-
ence, Salt Lake City, UT.
Rozin, P., & Fallon, A. E. (1987). A perspective on disgust. Psy-
chological Review, 94, 23–41.
Rozin, P., Fallon, A. E., & Mandell, R. (1984). Family resemblance
in attitudes to food. Developmental Psychology, 20, 309–
314.
Rozin, P., Haidt, J., McCauley, C., Dunlop, L., & Ashmore, M.
(1999). Individual differences in disgust sensitivity:
Comparisons and evaluations of paper-and-pencil versus
behavioral measures. Journal of Research in Personality,
33, 330–351.
Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1978). Masculinity and
femininity. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Steinem, G. (1983). Outrageous acts and everyday rebellions.
New York, NY: Signet.
The Tampax Report. (1981). New York, NY: Ruder, Finn, &
Rotman.
Tauna, N. (1993). The less noble sex: Scientific, religious, and
philosophical conceptions of women’s nature. Indianapolis,
IN: Indiana University Press.
 Effects of Menstruation
Ussher, J. (1989). The psychology of the female body. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Whelan, E. M. (1975). Attitudes toward menstruation. Studies in
Family Planning, 6, 106–108.
Whisnant, L., & Zegans, L. (1975). A study of attitudes toward
menarche in white middle-class American adolescent girls.
American Journal of Psychiatry, 132, 809–814.
View publication stats
139
Williams, L. R. (1983). Beliefs and attitudes of young girls
regarding menstruation. In S. Golub (Ed.), Menarche
(pp. 139–148). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Wolf, N. (1991). The beauty myth: How images of beauty are
used against women. New York, NY: William Morrow and
Company.
Yalom, M. (1997). A history of the breast. New York, NY: Knopf.