The Impact of Menstrual Cycle Phase on Economic Choice and Rationality
Stephanie C Lazzaro, Robb B Rutledge, Daniel R Burghart, Paul W Glimcher, Stephanie C Lazzaro, Robb B Rutledge, Daniel R Burghart, Paul W Glimcher
Abstract
It is well known that hormones affect both brain and behavior, but less is known about the extent to which hormones affect economic decision-making. Numerous studies demonstrate gender differences in attitudes to risk and loss in financial decision-making, often finding that women are more loss and risk averse than men. It is unclear what drives these effects and whether cyclically varying hormonal differences between men and women contribute to differences in economic preferences. We focus here on how economic rationality and preferences change as a function of menstrual cycle phase in women. We tested adherence to the Generalized Axiom of Revealed Preference (GARP), the standard test of economic rationality. If choices satisfy GARP then there exists a well-behaved utility function that the subject's decisions maximize. We also examined whether risk attitudes and loss aversion change as a function of cycle phase. We found that, despite large fluctuations in hormone levels, women are as technically rational in their choice behavior as their male counterparts at all phases of the menstrual cycle. However, women are more likely to choose risky options that can lead to potential losses while ovulating; during ovulation women are less loss averse than men and therefore more economically rational than men in this regard. These findings may have market-level implications: ovulating women more effectively maximize expected value than do other groups.
Conflict of interest statement
Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Figures
![Fig 1. Example trials in the GARP…](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/4732761/bin/pone.0144080.g001.jpg)
![Fig 2. Results from the GARP experiment.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/4732761/bin/pone.0144080.g002.jpg)
![Fig 3. Hormone levels in the subject…](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/4732761/bin/pone.0144080.g003.jpg)
![Fig 4. Results for gain-only trials in…](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/4732761/bin/pone.0144080.g004.jpg)
![Fig 5. Session order effects.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/4732761/bin/pone.0144080.g005.jpg)
![Fig 6. Results from the gambling experiment…](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/4732761/bin/pone.0144080.g006.jpg)
References
- McEwen BS, Alves SE. Estrogen actions in the central nervous system. Endocr Rev. 1999; 20: 279–307.
- McEwen B. Estrogen actions throughout the brain. Recent Prog Horm Res. 2002; 50: 357–384.
- Sherwin BB, Gelfand MM. Sex steroids and affect in the surgical menopause: a double-blind, cross-over study. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 1985; 10: 325–335.
- Hampson E, Kimura D. Sex differences and hormonal influences on cognitive function in humans In: Becker JB, Breedlove SM, Crews D, editors. Behavioral Endocrinology. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1992. pp. 357–398.
- Evans SM, Haney M, Foltin RW. The effects of smoked cocaine during the follicular and luteal phases of the menstrual cycle in women. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2002; 159: 397–406.
- Justice AJ, de Wit H. Acute effects of d-amphetamine during the follicular and luteal phases of the menstrual cycle in women. Psychopharmacology. 1999; 145: 67–75.
- Ball A, Wolf CC, Ocklenburg S, Herrmann BL, Pinnow M, Brune M, et al. Variability in ratings of trustworthiness across the menstrual cycle. Biol Psychol. 2013; 93: 52–57. 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2013.01.005
- Wozniak D, Harbaugh WT, Mayr U. The menstrual cycle and performance feedback alter gender differences in competitive choices. J Labor Econ. 2014; 32: 161–198.
- Dreher JC, Schmidt PJ, Kohn P, Furman D, Rubinow D, Berman KF. Menstrual cycle phase modulates reward-related neural function in women. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002; 104: 2465–2470.
- Goldstein JM, Jerram M, Poldrack R, Ahern T, Kennedy DN, Seidman LJ, et al. Hormonal cycle modulates arousal circuitry in women using functional magnetic resonance imaging. J Neurosci. 2005; 25: 9309–9316.
- Protopopescu X, Pan H, Altemus M, Tuescher O, Polanecsky M, McEwen B, et al. Orbitofrontal cortex activity related to emotional processing changes across the menstrual cycle. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005; 102: 16060–16065.
- Shugrue PJ, Scrimo PJ, Merchenthaler I. Evidence for the colocalization of estrogen receptor-beta mRNA and estrogen receptor-alpha immunoreactivity in neurons of the rat forebrain. Endocrinology. 1998; 139: 5267–5270.
- Mani S. Progestin receptor subtypes in the brain: the known and the unknown. Endocrinology. 2008; 149: 2750–2756. 10.1210/en.2008-0097
- Gangestad SW, Garver-Apgar CE, Simpson JA, Cousins AJ. Changes in women’s mate preferences across the ovulatory cycle. J Pers Soc Psych 2007; 92: 151–163.
- Durante KM, Griskevicius V, Hill SE, Perilloux C, Li NP. Ovulation, female competition, and product choice: hormonal influences on consumer behavior. J Consum Res. 2011; 37: 921–934.
- Saad G, Stenstrom E. Calories, beauty, and ovulation: the effects of the menstrual cycle on food and appearance-related consumption. J Consum Psych. 2012; 22: 102–113.
- Croson R, Gneezy U. Gender differences in preferences. J Econ Lit. 2009; 47: 448–474.
- Samuelson PA. A note on the pure theory of consumer behavior. Economica. 1938; 5: 61–71.
- Houthakker HS. Revealed preference and utility function. Economica. 1950; 17: 159–174.
- Afriat SN. The construction of utility functions from expenditure data. Int Econ Rev. 1967; 8: 67–77.
- Holt CA, Laury SK. Risk aversion and incentive effects. Am Econ Rev. 2002; 92: 1644–1655.
- Harbaugh WT, Krause K, Berry TR. GARP for kids: on the development of rational choice behavior. Am Econ Rev. 2001; 91: 1539–1545.
- Burghart DR, Glimcher PW, Lazzaro SC. An expected utility maximizer walks into a bar… J Risk Uncertain. 2013; 46: 215–246.
- Speroff L, Fitz M, eds. Clinical Gynecologic Endocrinology and Inferility. Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins; 2005.
- Stricker R, Eberhart R, Chevailler MC, Quinn FA, Bischof P, Stricker R. Establishment of detailed reference values for luteinizing hormone, follicle stimulating hormone, estradiol, and progesterone during different phases of the menstrual cycle on the Abbott ARCHITECT analyzer. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2006; 44: 883–887.
- Camille N, Griffiths CA, Vo K, Fellows LK, Kable JW. Ventromedial frontal lobe damage disrupts value maximization in humans. J Neurosci. 2011; 31: 7527–7532. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.6527-10.2011
- Varian HR. Goodness-of-fit-for revealed preference tests. Working paper. 1991.
- Sokol-Hessner P, Hsu M, Curley NG, Delgado MR, Camerer CF, Phelps EA. Thinking like a trader selectively reduces individuals' loss aversion. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009; 106: 5035–5040. 10.1073/pnas.0806761106
- Tymula A, Rosenberg Belmaker LA, Ruderman L, Glimcher PW, Levy I. Like cognitive function, decision making across the life span shows profound age-related changes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013; 110: 17143–17148. 10.1073/pnas.1309909110
- Eckel CC, Grossman PJ. Men, women and risk aversion: experimental evidence. Handbook of Exp Econ Res. 2008; 1: 1061–1067.
- Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica. 1979; 47: 263–291.
- Kahneman D, Knetsch JL, Thaler RH. Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the Coase theorem. J Polit Econ. 1990; 98: 1325–1348.
- Tversky A, Kahneman D. Advances in prospect theory–cumulative representation of uncertainty. J Risk Uncertain. 1992; 5: 297–323.
- Tom SM, Fox CR, Trepel C, Poldrack RA. The neural basis of loss aversion in decision-making under risk. Science. 2007; 315: 515–518.
- Wilcox AJ, Weinberg CR, Baird DD. Timing of sexual intercourse in relation to ovulation—effects on the probability of conception, survival of the pregnancy, and sex of the baby. N Eng J Med. 1995; 333: 1517–1521.
- Ferreira-Poblete A. The probability of conception on different days of the cycle with respect to ovulation: an overview. Adv Contraception 1997; 13: 83–95.
- Gangestad SW, Thornhill R. Menstrual cycle variation in women’s preference for the scent of symmetrical men. Proc R Soc London B. 1998; 265: 927–933.
- Gangestad SW, Thornhill R. Human oestrus. Proc R Soc London B. 2008; 275: 991–1000.
- Johnston VS, Hagel R, Franklin M, Fink B, Grammer K. Male facial attractiveness: evidence for hormone-mediated adaptive design. Evol Hum Des. 2001; 22: 251–267.
- Penton-Voak IS, Perrett DI. Female preference for male faces changes cyclically: further evidence. Evol Hum Behav. 2000; 21: 39–48.
- Puts DA. Mating context and menstrual cycle phase affect women’s preferences for male voice pitch. Evol Hum Behav. 2005; 26: 388–397.
- Harris CR. Shifts in masculinity preferences across the menstrual cycle: still not there. Sex Roles. 2013; 69: 507–515.
- Durante KM, Griskevicius V, Cantu SM, Simpson JA. Money, status, and the ovulatory cycle. J Mark Res. 2014; 51: 27–39.
- Hill SE, Durante KM. Do women feel worse to look their best? Testing the relationship between self-esteem and fertility status across the menstrual cycle. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2009; 35: 1592–1601. 10.1177/0146167209346303
- Buser T. The impact of menstrual cycle and hormonal contraceptives on competitiveness. J Econ Behav Organ. 2012; 83: 1–10.
- Pearson M, Schipper BC. Menstrual cycle and competitive bidding. Games Econ Behav. 2013; 78: 1–20.
- Chen Y, Katuscak P, Ozdenoren E. Sealed bid auctions with ambiguity: theory and experiments. J Econ Theory. 2007; 136: 513–535.
- Niederle M, Vesterlund L. Gender and competition. Ann Rev Econ. 2011; 3: 601–630.
Source: PubMed