Acceso usuarios
Correction Notice: An Erratum for this article was reported online in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology on Jun 3 2019 (see record 2019-34417-001). In the original article the number of participants available for robustness checks should have been 1,054, not 1,043; this applies to the third sentence in the abstract, the first sentence of the second paragraph in the Participants section, the first sentence of the second paragraph in the Robustness Checks section, and the subsample size of women in Table 3. The correct number of naturally cycling usable data should have been 429, not 421. The correct number of diary days should have been 26,680, not 25,948. The correct percentage of diary days in the fourth sentence in the Exclusion Criteria section should have been 5%. Figure 1 should have included guessing hypotheses (n 40) and long diary interruptions (n 41) as further reasons for exclusion, and an error in the effsize R package led to the reporting of inflated effect sizes for the differences between hormonal contraceptive users and non-users in Table 1. Figure 1, Table 1, and Table 3 have been corrected. All versions of this article have been corrected.] Previous research reported ovulatory changes in women’s appearance, mate preferences, extra- and in-pair sexual desire, and behavior, but has been criticized for small sample sizes, inappropriate designs, and undisclosed flexibility in analyses. In the present study, we sought to address these criticisms by preregistering our hypotheses and analysis plan and by collecting a large diary sample. We gathered more than 26,000 usable online self-reports in a diary format from 1,054 women, of which 429 were naturally cycling. We inferred the fertile period from menstrual onset reports. We used hormonal contraceptive users as a quasi-control group, as they experience menstruation, but not ovulation. We probed our results for robustness to different approaches (including different fertility estimates, different exclusion criteria, adjusting for potential confounds, moderation by methodological factors). We found robust evidence supporting previously reported ovulatory increases in extra-pair desire and behavior, in-pair desire, and self-perceived desirability, as well as no unexpected associations. Yet, we did not find predicted effects on partner mate retention behavior, clothing choices, or narcissism. Contrary to some of the earlier literature, partners’ sexual attractiveness did not moderate the cycle shifts. Taken together, the replicability of the existing literature on ovulatory changes was mixed. We conclude with simulation-based recommendations for reading the past literature and for designing future large-scale preregistered within-subject studies to understand ovulatory cycle changes and the effects of hormonal contraception. Interindividual differences in the size of ovulatory changes emerge as an important area for further study. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved)
