Psychoneuroendocrinology 24 (1999) 449 – 459

Menstrual synchrony in a sample of working

women
Leonard Weller a,*, Aron Weller b, Hagit Koresh-Kamin a,
Rivi Ben-Shoshan a
a
Department of Sociology, Bar-Ilan Uni6ersity, Ramat-Gan 52900, Israel
b
Department of Psychology, Bar-Ilan Uni6ersity, Ramat-Gan 52900, Israel

Received 2 February 1998; accepted 20 November 1998

Abstract

Menstrual synchrony has been typically studied among women who live together: dormi-
tory roommates or family members sharing a bedroom or living in the same house. The
current study examined menstrual synchrony in 51 pairs of women working together under
conditions optimally conducive to synchrony. They had been together for at least 1 year,
shared a relatively small office, worked there all day full time and contact with other people
during the day was minimal. Prospective records of three menstrual dates showed a
significant degree of synchrony for each of the 3 months. Menstrual onsets of close friends
tended to occur on the average within 3.5– 4.3 days of each other while onsets of co-workers
who were not close friends were significantly more broadly ranged (7.7 – 9.0 days of each
other). This is the first unequivocal demonstration of menstrual synchrony outside of the
household. © 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Menstrual cycles; Menstrual synchrony; Menstruation; Women; Working women

1. Introduction

Twenty-five years ago Martha McClintock (1971) published her pioneering paper
on menstrual synchrony. The author demonstrated, for the first time, that the
menstrual onset dates of college students who are roommates or close friends
converged significantly over a period of 4 months. The research continued to

* Corresponding author. Fax: +972-3-635-0995.

E-mail address: weller@mail.biu.ac.il (L. Weller)

0306-4530/99/$ - see front matter © 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 3 0 6 - 4 5 3 0 ( 9 8 ) 0 0 0 9 2 - 4
450 L. Weller et al. / Psychoneuroendocrinology 24 (1999) 449–459

examine menstrual synchrony among women living together (and to smaller extent
among close friends) with the bulk of the samples consisting of dormitory women.
In addition to the studies affirming synchrony among roommates (e.g. Weller and
Weller, 1993b,c), there are studies which did not find synchrony (e.g. Jarett, 1984;
Trevathan et al., 1993), as well as studies which found synchrony only among
roommates who are best friends (Goldman and Schneider, 1987; Weller et al.,
1995).
McClintock (1971) raised the question whether menstrual synchrony might be the
result of common environmental influences, particularly food eaten in a common
dining room, a similar life pattern, and common reported stress periods. She
therefore randomly paired her subjects and tested for synchrony within the dormi-
tory as a whole. Not finding a significant trend toward synchrony among the
control group of randomly paired subjects, she concluded that common environ-
mental influences were not the cause of menstrual synchrony. Since then other
studies have also compared their results to control groups of random pairs
(Graham and McGrew, 1980; Weller and Weller, 1993b,c). All these studies, like
McClintock (1971), found significantly more synchrony among the research groups
than among the random controls. These findings suggest that the phenomenon is
mediated by sensory communication between the women (either olfactory, by
pheromones or by other senses) and not by exposure to common environmental
cues. The pheromonal explanation is particularly supported by results of a recent
study which demonstrated that the axillary secretions of donors applied to female
subjects affected the timing of ovulation and menstruation of the recipients (Stern
and McClintock, 1998).
Two sets of studies examined whether synchrony occurs among women not living
together. In a major review article Graham (1991, p. 307) wrote ‘If olfactory
communication underlies synchrony, then the effect might be enhanced in groups of
women who are in close physical proximity in situations involving increased
perspiration: for example, sports team members or sauna-users’. Following this line
of thought, Weller and Weller (1995a) investigated whether synchrony occurred
among women basketball teams, but did not find evidence for the phenomenon.
They offered several explanations for their failure to find synchrony. The duration
of social interaction among the players was relatively short ( 10 h a week); the
women practiced in large halls where the air circulation may have dispersed the
weakened airborne pheromonal signals; and the sweat generated during exercise
(which serves a cooling function) may have diluted the pheromones in the ‘regular’
sweat whose function may be for olfactory communication.
A limitation of studying women in dormitory rooms is that they may not live
there together for a sufficiently long time to generate synchrony. This may very well
explain at least some of the negative findings; the women in the samples for which
synchrony was not found may not have been together for a sufficiently long time
and/or may not have had sufficiently intensive contact with one another to generate
synchrony. With the exception of one study (Weller et al., 1995), no article has
attempted to report the number of hours that the women were together during the
period of the study. If one discounts sleeping, then the number of hours two women
 L. Weller et al. / Psychoneuroendocrinology 24 (1999) 449–459 451

sharing a dormitory room actually spend together may have been relatively few.
Therefore the case of women working together for a full 8/9 h day may offer an
even better test of menstrual synchrony than that of women living in a dormitory.
Matteo (1987) studied menstrual synchronization among 41 working women in
five work groups: an all female university department (ten women), emergency
room nurses (six women), recovery room nurses (seven women), a typing pool
(eight women), and graduate students in the same department (ten women). For
each work group, synchrony scores were reported for 3 months. Menstrual syn-
chrony was found for four of the five groups.
The findings of this study — if valid —are intriguing and significantly advance the
area of menstrual synchrony, for synchrony would have been shown to exist among
women who do not live together. The author unfortunately did not provide any
information about the physical conditions under which these women worked.
However, it would certainly seem that in some, if not in most of these groups, the
women may not have shared a joint office space or may have spent a lot of time
away from their offices. Thus the finding of synchrony among these groups of
women suggests that menstrual synchrony is indeed a strong effect.
The Matteo (1987) findings have been seriously criticized by Wilson (1993).
Wilson (1993) contends that Matteo (1987) did not actually conduct a test for
synchrony in her work groups, that her technique for determining the groups degree
of synchrony is flawed and that she ‘does not demonstrate menstrual synchrony in
her four groups’ (p. 537). We would add another criticism. Applying the sign test
to these five groups shows that when four groups are significant and one is not, the
statistical probability is .19. That is, menstrual synchrony was not demonstrated in
this study.
The second study of menstrual synchrony in the workplace (Weller and Weller,
1995b) consisted of two samples. The first sample was comprised of women soldiers
who worked mostly as secretaries in offices on two army bases. The subjects had
worked together for a mean of 11.8 months and their mean age was 19.5 years. The
second sample consisted of 23 pairs of women, each pair working in different
civilian office buildings. The subjects had been working together for a mean of 36
months and their mean age was 37.1 years. The data are based on 2 months of
retrospective reporting of menstrual dates for the army sample and on 1 month’s
retrospective reporting and 1 months prospective reporting for the civilian sample.
Neither of the two samples demonstrated a significant degree of synchrony.
However, women soldiers who had been working together for a longer period of
time were significantly more synchronous than those who had been working
together for a shorter period. Also, women soldiers who were close friends were
significantly more synchronous than women who were not close friends. Neither
degree of mutual activity nor degree of friendship was related to synchrony in the
civilian sample.
The purpose of this paper is to examine menstrual synchrony under near-optimal
conditions conducive to menstrual synchrony, outside the household. Three
prospective menstrual onset dates were collected from pairs of women who shared,
for a complete day, a small office and had minimal contact with other workers or
with clients during the workday.
452 L. Weller et al. / Psychoneuroendocrinology 24 (1999) 449–459

1.1. Subjects

The criteria for being included in the study were: (1) two women between the
ages of 17 and 40 working in an office; (2) for a complete day (8–9 h); (3) for a
complete work week; (4) for at least 1 year; (5) with no man present; (6) minimal
contact with other workers or with clients during the workday; and (7) in an office
not larger than 12 m2.
One of the researchers knew of an office building which housed offices that met
these criteria and gained permission to request the women to participate in the
study. Another researcher sought out such offices, some of which she was aware of,
but mostly by asking friends and acquaintances. In some cases, the friend who
knew at least one woman in the office asked her if she would be willing to
participate. In other instances the researcher simply knocked on the door, explained
the study (the same explanation written on the questionnaires cover page, see
below), and asked the women to participate.
The setting consisted of rooms (offices) in which two women worked. A total of
19 of these offices were located in one building. The other 32 rooms were located
in various office buildings located in the Tel-Aviv area. We located 181 offices
which met the above criteria. In 84 of these 181 offices, one or both women refused
to participate (46% participation rate). In 42 of the remaining 97 offices, both
women completed the questionnaire but one or both of them did not record all 3
months of menstrual data (43% attrition rate). From the final sample of 55 offices
(total participation rate 30%), the four couples in which both women used oral
contraceptives were omitted from the analyses. Thus, the final sample size was 51
couples.

1.2. Instruments

The cover page of the questionnaire explained that the major purpose of the
research was the determination of menstrual symptoms, an extension of research
performed previously in the US. Confidentiality was assured. The questionnaire,
which consisted primarily of closed-ended questions, included: demographic data,
questions on friendship, activities, menstruation and related issues. Questions on
menstruation included: age of menarche, dates of the last and next to last onset
date, average duration of menstruation, usual length of time between periods,
regularity of the period, type of sanitary method (tampon, sanitary napkins), and
use of contraceptives. The question of regularity was: ‘Do you have a regular
period— yes, no?’ This is the same question used in virtually all studies which have
assessed womens self report on regularity (Weller and Weller, 1998b). Also included
was a 21-item menstrual symptom questionnaire (Chesney and Tasto, 1975), in
which women were asked to indicate which symptoms they suffer from during their
menstrual cycle (e.g. backache, cramps, fatigue).
The friendship questions were: What is the quality of your relationship with your
coworker?; How close do you feel to her? To what extent are you friends? For each
question the subject responded on a 4-point scale, ranging from poor/not close
 L. Weller et al. / Psychoneuroendocrinology 24 (1999) 449–459 453

relationship to a very good/very close relationship. The seven questions on joint

activity were: To what extent do you and she eat together?; study together?; wear
each others clothes?; buy together?; go out together?; meet together during week-
ends?; do most things together? For each question, the subject responded on a
4-point scale, ranging from ‘no shared activities’ to ‘many shared activities’.
Chronbachs a-coefficient of reliability for the three friendship questions was .90
and for the seven activity questions was .86. For each subject a mean friendship
score and a mean activity score was computed.

1.3. Data analysis

To determine whether synchrony exists, we examined the data for each of the
three successive pairwise onsets. We followed the recommendation of a recent
methodological article on menstrual synchrony (Weller and Weller, 1997b) that for
women who are together for a considerable amount of time, menstrual onsets
should be compared for each of three onsets.
Menstrual onset differences were calculated according to McClintock (1971) and
Wilson (1992, pp. 571 – 572) guidelines. Accordingly, the first recorded onset date of
subject A is compared to the first and second recorded onset dates of subject B, and
then the first recorded onset date of subject B is compared to the second recorded
onset date of subject A. The least of these three values is the correct absolute onset
difference between the subjects onset dates. For example, if the onset dates of
subject A are June 1 and June 29 and the onset dates of subject B are June 5 and
July 6, then the correct absolute onset difference between the subjects’ initial onset
dates is 4 days, the least of the three comparisons. However, if the onset dates of
subject A are June 12 and July 13 and the onset dates of subject B are June 30 and
July 29, then the correct absolute onset difference is 13 days (June 30–July 13).
The procedure utilized for calculating onset differences (described in the next
paragraph) frequently results in a reduction of cases in the last comparison of
menstrual onsets. In the second example, subject A’s second (July 13) onset
becomes her first onset for purposes of computing the onset difference, and her first
recorded onset of June 12 is discarded. Now subject A’s third recorded onset, say
August 12, becomes her second onset date for computing purposes. Since there are
only three recorded onset dates, subject A does not have a fourth recorded onset
(third computation onset) to compare to subject B’s third recorded onset. Accord-
ingly in the current sample, N = 51, 51, 45 for the three cycles, respectively.
The smallest absolute intracouple difference could range from 0 (both women
have the same onset) to 14 days, assuming both have a 28 day-cycle. For example,
if one woman reported her onset days on July 1 and July 29, and the second woman
on July 15, the absolute difference would be 14 days. Had the second woman
reported her onset day on either July 12 or July 18, the absolute difference would
be 11 days. With a mean cycle of 32 days, the range would be 0 to 16 days.
Cycle length was calculated by counting the number of days between two onsets.
Because each subject recorded three menstrual onset dates, two cycle lengths could
be calculated. The mean pair menstrual cycle length is the mean duration of the
454 L. Weller et al. / Psychoneuroendocrinology 24 (1999) 449–459

menstrual cycles of a pair of subjects. The expected mean onset difference (cutpoint)
is one fourth the length of the mean pair cycle length. Onset differences based on
random onset occurrence would be expected to average at this cutpoint, as shown
by a computer simulation (50 000 runs) based on randomly generated numbers.
Thus, for couples with a mean cycle of 28, 29, 30, 31, or 32 days, the cutpoints
(expected mean onset differences) would be 7, 7.25, 7.5, 7.75 and 8 days, respec-
tively. Mean menstrual onset differences below these cutpoints indicate synchrony
(as in Weller and Weller, 1995b, 1997a, 1998a).
One-sample ‘t’ tests were employed to determine whether menstrual synchrony
exists. Here, each couples menstrual onset difference was compared with its
expected mean onset difference (cutpoint). This remainder, which could be negative,
zero or positive (henceforth referred to as ‘synchrony index’) was the data for the
‘t’ tests. The ‘t’ test examined whether the group’s average index was significantly
different from zero, a significantly negative index indicating synchrony. If the
couple had a 4-day menstrual onset difference and one woman had a 30-day cycle
and the other woman had a 32-day cycle, we compared 4 (observed) with 7.75 (the
expected cutpoint). The index of −3.75 suggests synchrony. If two women had a
10-day menstrual onset difference and both had a 28-day cycle, then the difference
between the 10 days ‘observed’ and the 7 days ‘expected’ would be 3, suggesting no
synchrony. Since we can only calculate two cycle lengths (as we do not have data
prior to the first recorded menstrual onsets), the average of the two calculated cycle
lengths was used for comparison with the first onset date. Thus, the mean pair cycle
length based on the first and second menses was used to compare with the second
menstrual onset difference. The mean pair cycle length based on the second and
third menses was used to compare with the third menstrual onset difference. The
mean of the two mean pair cycle lengths was used to compare with the first onset
difference. This was done for each couple.
Finally, the impact of activity and degree of friendship was analyzed by means of
multiple regression analyses. The dependent variable was the menstrual onset
difference and the independent variables were the mean friendship score and the
mean activity score for each subject. To assess the impact of menstrual factors on
synchrony, a number of zero-order correlations were computed. The correlations
were calculated between the menstrual onset difference of the subject and her age,
age of menarche, flow duration, type of sanitary method and length of time
between periods. For the categorical variable (sanitary method), point biserial
correlations were calculated.

2. Results

The subjects (N =102) had worked together for a mean of 31.9 months (SD=
29.7). The large standard deviation represents the large range in the numbers of
months the women worked together, from 12 to 260 months. Their mean age was
27.9 years (SD= 4.00). The mean age difference of the woman in each pair (N= 51)
was 5.20 years (SD= 6.03). The mean cycle length was 28.2 days (SD= 5.50).
 L. Weller et al. / Psychoneuroendocrinology 24 (1999) 449–459 455

Reported age at menarche was 12.8 years (SD= 1.20). A total of 23% reported
using oral contraceptives, and only 12% reported being irregular. In about two-
thirds of the cases, we were able to measure the size of each room, and in the other
third we estimated the size. The rooms ranged from 5 to 12 m2. The mean size (and
the mode) was about 10 m. The mean activity score was 1.99 (SD =.65), which
indicates little joint activity between the women. The mean friendship score was 3.2
(SD= .64). On the friendship scale, 3 indicates good/close relationship and 4
indicates very good/very close relationship.
Table 1 shows the results of the analysis of synchrony for the second and third
successive onsets. The second row displays the index (viz. the real number differ-
ence between the pair’s onset difference and its cutpoint), averaged over the entire
sample. A minus sign indicates synchrony. The results of the one-sample ‘t’ tests
show the existence of synchrony for both onsets (pB.01, pB.02). The mean index
for the first onset (for which cutpoint data were estimated, as described above) was
− 2.42 (SD = 3.58; t = 4.63, pB .001, N= 51), providing additional support for
synchrony. The number of couples who had negative indices for the first, second
and third onsets, respectively, were 36, 36 and 30. The number of couples who had
positive indices for the first, second and third onsets, respectively, were, 14, 15 and
15.
We also examined whether there might be differences in synchrony between the
women whose offices were in one building versus the women who worked in offices
in various buildings. To this end, we undertook two additional comparisons. One,
we examined whether menstrual synchrony was attained for each of the groups.
Menstrual synchrony was found for each of these two groups for each of the three
comparisons. Two, we examined whether there were significant differences in
menstrual synchrony between these two groups of women. There was no significant
difference between these two groups of women for each of the three menstrual
onset comparisons.
To determine how much synchrony exists, we adopted a formula used in previous
studies (Weller and Weller, 1993a,b,c, 1997a). The index reported in the second row
of Table 1 when divided by the expected mean onset difference indicates the shift
toward synchrony. For the three onsets these are: 35, 25, 26%—an average of 28%.
In the multiple regressions, the dependent variable was the menstrual onset
difference and the independent variables were the mean activity score and the mean

Table 1
Menstrual synchrony indices at two successive onsets for pairs of working womena

Onset 2 Onset 3 Combined

N 51 45 96
Mean synchrony index −1.72 −1.80 −1.76
SD 3.79 4.53 4.15
t −3.25 −2.66 −4.15
p B.01 B.02 B.001

a
See text for a description of synchrony index and a report on onset 1.
456 L. Weller et al. / Psychoneuroendocrinology 24 (1999) 449–459

friendship score. The multiple regressions were calculated three times, for each of
the three successive onsets. The multiple regressions were statistically significant for
each of the three months (R 2 =.05, p = .02; R 2 = .04, p =.04; R 2 = .14, p= .001).
For all three multiple regressions, the beta of the friendship variable was significant,
but not the beta for the activity variable.
We examined whether menstrual related and demographic items were related to
menstrual synchrony by means of correlations, again three times for each of the
three menstrual onsets. For each of three onsets, correlations were computed
between menstrual onset differences and each of the following: cycle length, flow
duration, age, age at menarche, and amount of time working together. None of the
correlations were significant.
Further analysis, by means of Mann–Whitney U-tests, were undertaken in which
two groups were created: both workers said of each other that they were ‘very good
friends’ or ‘good friends’ (N=39, 39 and 35, respectively, for each of the three
analyses) or both workers said of each other that they were ‘not friends at all’ or
‘friends to a small degree’ (N = 10, 10 and 8, respectively, for each of the three
analyses). There were only two couples where one woman said she was a good
friend with the other woman, while the other woman said that they were not. For
each of the three onsets, the within-pair onset differences were significantly smaller
among good friends than among co-workers who did not report close friendship.
The mean of all the absolute menstrual onset differences for the co-workers who
were good friends versus those who did not report close friendship were 3.5 versus
8.4 days (first onset, p B .001), 3.5 versus 7.7 days (second onset, p= .001) and 4.3
versus 9.0 days (third month, p =.02). The pattern of the results shows that while
mutually close friends appear to be synchronous, those who did not report close
friendship had onset differences above the expected (i.e. random) mean for this
sample.

3. Discussion

This is the first study to have unequivocally demonstrated the existence of

menstrual synchrony outside the living unit. The 28% shift toward synchrony found
in this study of coworkers is similar to the estimated mean 33% shift among
roommates (Weller and Weller, 1993a). Another important conclusion from our
findings is that synchrony can be found also in women older (mean age 28 years)
than the typical college-age subjects. We note that two reports of synchrony among
mothers and daughters sleeping in different rooms but living in the same house
(Weller and Weller, 1993b, 1997a) support our conclusions regarding exposure and
age.
The results of the current study are at variance with findings of two other
samples of working women, both of which did not find synchrony, although in one
of the two samples women who were closer friends were significantly more
synchronous than women who were not (Weller and Weller, 1995b). There are
several possibilities to resolve this inconsistency. First, the present study was
 L. Weller et al. / Psychoneuroendocrinology 24 (1999) 449–459 457

methodologically more precise than the former one. Data were based on three
prospective dates, whereas in the previous study, data in one sample were based
only on retrospective reporting, while the other sample was based on one retrospec-
tive date and one prospective date. More importantly, the findings of the previous
samples were based on only one onset difference, whereas the findings of the
current study are based on three onset differences. In a recent paper we have argued
that due to the inherent variability in women’s menstrual cycles, as a reliability
check, at least two and preferably three separate analyses of menstrual onset
differences should be undertaken to ascertain the existence of synchrony (Weller
and Weller, 1997b). Analyzing only one set of onset differences increases the
chances of spuriously finding synchrony, or finding no synchrony. In addition, the
present study controlled for the relatively small size of the room in which the
women worked, whereas the previous study did not.
Two suggestions have been offered as to why friendship should affect synchrony.
One, friendship may result in physiological changes in the heart rate, blood
pressure, galvanic skin response and free acid levels. Emotional involvement
between close friends may lead to physiological changes that could, in turn, increase
the subjects sensitivity to factors which alter the timings of their biological clocks
(Jarett, 1984). Two, friendship is an indicator of time spent together, closeness and
exposure. Specifically, increased friendship is associated with closer personal space
(defined as the area individuals maintain around themselves into which others
cannot intrude without causing discomfort). Friends maintain closer personal
distances than nonfriends, and there is a positive linear relationship between
frequency of contact and strength of liking (Hayduk, 1983; Bell et al., 1988).
Furthermore, a parallel field of research, emotional contagion, has also shown
friendship to affect synchronization in a variety of behaviors and emotions
(Hatfield, et al., 1992).
Another study reported findings regarding friendship and synchrony in a pattern
similar to our results: Even though the sample as a whole was synchronous,
roommates who were close friends were significantly more synchronous than
roommates who were not (women in private residences, Weller and Weller, 1993b).
Still other studies found that while the sample as a whole was not synchronous,
women who were close friends were significantly more synchronous than women
who were not (Goldman and Schneider, 1987; Weller and Weller, 1995b). Friend-
ship, then, seems to be an important element in synchrony and warrants further
study. We note that this summary on the friendship–synchrony relationship is
based upon the results of t-tests comparing roommates who are close friends versus
roommates who do not report close friendship (Goldman and Schneider, 1987;
Weller and Weller, 1993b) and not upon multiple regression analyses (where
friendship and activity were the predictor variables) which often produce a different
pattern of results (Jarett, 1984; Matteo, 1987; Weller and Weller, 1993b).
Since working in one office building may be regarded as controlling for environ-
mental influences, the finding of no significant differences between the couples who
worked in the same office building versus the women who worked in various office
buildings suggests that common environmental influence is not an important factor
458 L. Weller et al. / Psychoneuroendocrinology 24 (1999) 449–459

affecting synchrony. As such, the present findings are consistent with those based
on random controls in showing that environmental influence does not underlie
menstrual synchrony.
In summary, the findings which demonstrate the existence of menstrual syn-
chrony in the workplace, show that living together is not a requisite for the
occurrence of menstrual synchrony. There may be other situations outside the
household, in which women are together for a sufficiently long period of time for
them to synchronize. While this study has found the existence of synchrony in a
closed space, it is still possible that women who are in frequent contact with one
another, but not in closed spaces, may synchronize. Finally, the current findings
further show that the relationship among close friends may produce not only
intimacy and warm mutual feelings but also a synchronization of biological
rhythms.

Acknowledgements

Orli Turgeman Goldshmidt’s assistance in the statistical analysis and her helpful
comments on the manuscript are gratefully acknowledged. We thank Menucha
Kutner for processing the manuscript.

References

Bell, P.A., Kline, L.M., Barnard, W.A., 1988. Friendship and freedom of movement as moderators of
sex differences in interpersonal distancing. J. Soc. Psychol. 128, 305 – 310.
Chesney, M.A., Tasto, D.L., 1975. The development of a menstrual symptom questionnaire. Behav. Res.
Ther. 13, 237–244.
Goldman, S.E., Schneider, H.G., 1987. Menstrual synchrony: social and personality factors. J. Soc.
Behav. Pers. 2, 243–250.
Graham, C.A., 1991. Menstrual synchrony: an update and review. Hum. Nat. 2, 293 – 311.
Graham, C.A., McGrew, W.C., 1980. Menstrual synchrony in female undergraduates living on a
coeducational campus. Psychoneuroendocrinology 5, 245 – 252.
Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J.T., Rapson, R.L., 1992. Primitive emotional contagion. In: Clark, M.S. (Ed.),
Review of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 14. Sage, London, pp. 151 – 177.
Hayduk, L.A., 1983. Personal space: where we stand. Psychol. Bull. 94, 293 – 335.
Jarett, L.R., 1984. Psychological and biological influences on menstruation: synchrony, cycle length, and
regularity. Psychoneuroendocrinology 9, 21– 28.
Matteo, S., 1987. The effect of job stress and job interdependency on menstrual cycle length, regularity
and synchrony. Psychoneuroendocrinology 23, 467 – 476.
McClintock, M.K., 1971. Menstrual synchrony and suppression. Nature 229, 244 – 245.
Stern, K., McClintock, M.K., 1998. Regulation of ovulation by human pheromones. Nature 392,
177 – 178.
Trevathan, W., Burleson, M.H., Gregory, L., 1993. No evidence for menstrual synchrony in lesbian
couples. Psychoneuroendocrinology 18, 425– 431.
Weller, L., Weller, A., 1993a. Human menstrual synchrony: a critical assessment. Neurosci. Biobehav.
Rev. 27, 427–439.
Weller, L., Weller, A., 1993b. Menstrual synchrony between mothers and daughters and between
roommates. Physiol. Behav. 53, 173–179.
 L. Weller et al. / Psychoneuroendocrinology 24 (1999) 449–459 459

Weller, L., Weller, A., 1993c. Multiple influences of menstrual synchrony: Kibbutz roommates, their best
friends, and their mothers. Am. J. Hum. Biol. 5, 173 – 179.
Weller, A., Weller, L., 1995a. Examination of menstrual synchrony among women basketball players.
Psychoneuroendocrinology 20, 613–622.
Weller, A., Weller, L., 1995b. The impact of social interaction factors on menstrual synchrony in the
workplace. Psychoneuroendocrinology 20, 21 – 31.
Weller, A., Weller, L., 1997a. Menstrual synchrony under optimal conditions: Bedouin families. J.
Comp. Psychol. 111, 143–151.
Weller, L., Weller, A., 1997b. Menstrual variability and the measurement of menstrual synchrony.
Psychoneuroendocrinology 22, 115–128.
Weller, A., Weller, L., 1998a. Prolonged and very intensive contact may not be conducive to menstrual
synchrony. Psychoneuroendocrinology 23, 19 – 32.
Weller, A., Weller, L, 1998b. Assesement of menstrual regularity and irregularity using self-reports and
objective criteria. J. Psychosom. Obstet. Gynecol. 19, 111 – 116.
Weller, L., Weller, A., Avinir, O., 1995. Menstrual synchrony: only in roommates who are close friends?
Physiol. Behav. 58, 883–889.
Wilson, H.C., 1992. A critical review of menstrual synchrony research. Psychoneuroendocrinology 17,
565 – 591.
Wilson, H.C., 1993. Reply to letter by Graham. Psychoneuroendocrinology 18, 535 – 539.