Hormones Affect Women’s Votes & Religiosity [Repost]

The following is a very interesting study—which follows a series of earlier studies—investigating how women’s hormonal cycles may influence their religiosity and voting patterns. Authored by Kristina Durante, Ashley Arsena & Vladas Griskevicius, it was published in the Psychological Science journal.

The study is featured here because it was deemed “politically incorrect” and suppressed by academic feminists moments after it was published. Following the attack, related media articles were forcibly flagged and taken down as well.

Censorship has become a serious problem in academia so I will be featuring more “politically incorrect” studies that have been suppressed in this manner.


Each month, many women experience an ovulatory cycle that regulates fertility. Although research has found that this cycle influences women’s mating preferences, we proposed that it might also change women’s political and religious views. Building on theory suggesting that political and religious orientation are linked to reproductive goals, we tested how fertility influenced women’s politics, religiosity, and voting in the 2012 U.S. presidential election. In two studies with large and diverse samples, ovulation had drastically different effects on single women and women in committed relationships. Ovulation led single women to become more liberal, less religious, and more likely to vote  for Barack Obama. In contrast, ovulation led women in committed relationships to become more conservative, more religious, and more likely to vote for Mitt Romney. In addition, ovulation-induced changes in political orientation mediated women’s voting behavior. Overall, the ovulatory cycle not only influences women’s politics but also appears to do so differently for single women than for women in relationships.

→ Durane KM, et al. (2013) The fluctuating female vote: politics, religion and the ovulatory cycle. Psychological Science, 24(6):1007–16.

9 thoughts on “Hormones Affect Women’s Votes & Religiosity [Repost]

  1. Obviously, hormones affect men in no way, right mr. Uncontroversial?


    I agree with the censorship being disgusting, still. What I mean is, you should post on male hormones-male behaviour as well.

    1. Obviously, hormones affect men in no way, right mr. Uncontroversial?

      Where did you get that from? I don’t see anything in this article that denies hormonal effects in men? The whole point here is that the particular effects described here are specific to women, with no equivalent in men.

      As for hormones and male behaviour, that’s a vast topic in itself because hormones have much more profound and complex effects in men than in women (there exist entire neuro-hormonal mechanisms specific to men that don’t even exist in women). Stick around, you might be surprised. 🙂

  2. I’m okay with talking about this, science isn’t misogyny. This isn’t exactly science though. The article appeared to discover notable data about the statistics of female voters. However, there is no science explaining or backing this theory. There is obviously little research on this topic, but the author(s) failed to display their data. The author is simply left as “The University of Texas”. How many women even took this survey? How do you fine a religious state of mind (or even a committed relation)? Ovulation is about 3 days every month, and it does vary from woman to woman. How could a different pattern of the menstrual cycle exist in the state of marriage or being single? The article concluded with “..but also (ovulation) appears to do so differently for single women than for women in relationships.” There is no evidence of this claim. How many women can actually predict when their ovulating (ovulation occurs two weeks from a completed cycle and women can estimate when with the average length of their cycle, but it can very often be inaccurate, and assuming were able to learn how. PMS sometimes occurs closer to the end, Phase four when progesterone is most present. A woman can experience PMS close to ovulation. Yet it varies in women, and is a poor indicator as well) ? The report also mentions “..ovulation-induced changes in political orientation mediated women’s voting behavior.”. In what way? How did they come to this conclusion and what percentage of women exemplified this behavior? How did they prove that these changes were linked directly to menstruation? They left all of these questions unanswered. How many women took this survey? And their backgrounds? If all the women they surveyed voting for Barack Obama came from democratic states and all Mitt Romney voters came from republican countries, then that might be a major variable to consider in their data. The data should also exist.

    The researcher(s) behind it were not able to present credible data under a credible source. We do not know who put this together or how. They were not able to make connections with their research to their thoughts, they’re closer to assumptions. Theories come from something observed and I’m not completely sure of what that was. This was extremely informal.

    If we were to make a case on pyschological grounds, saying that committed relationships create an influence on woman based on their partner or on a more involved and active lifestyle, that’s a fair argument. You would be happier getting out more and being apart of a deep relationship. Hormones like dopamine could easily back this, if the dopamine levels were studies between women in and not in relationships (not much a difference between genders, just a common example). State of mind can change opinions, which can be influenced by hormones. Lifestyle and ideals could easily change.

    They could have tried to prove their claims by observing the presence of hormones in a woman and learn more about hormones in women during ovulation. They could of established how they would determine political opinion and religiosity, they could have made a formal hypothesis. And try to prove it. How do you even talk about the menstrual cycle without mentioning PMS, phases or estrogen? They did not try and I there is no proof to prove that this study even happened.

    1. I agree with some of your points, but you’ve missed the big picture.

      This is just one little study that keys into a much bigger topic: ideology, like other behavioural phenomena, are not rogue elements but have evolved towards reproductive goals. This is especially true of religious and political ideologies, all of which are repackaged and re-branded versions of very ancient ideas.

      Simply put: culture is biology.

      1. I am not very sure telling people they, and all what they infer their identity from, is molecules and electric pulses, and they obey to equations is a rather cruel act.

        Because culture is biology, the mind of individuals and collective mind of groups of individuals (societies) don’t come to know what would harm them.

        Some cruel individuals, whose most appropriate title is probably “philosophers”, live to tell to individuals and societies “truth”. No wonder they get the most severe penalties, and are sentenced to take hemlock, crossed, burnt, stoned, forced to resign from their positions as professors at Berkeley or Harvard, … depending on place and time.

        While most scientists and scholars alter evidence and the conclusions of their studies for career, power, or vanity-dictated purposes, I believe some, specially some great male scientists in the first half of 20th century, did that to do good. Too hard, or maybe impossible, to judge if that kind of doing good is good.

  3. Are you aware that this version of the paper is not the complete one? It doesn’t even have most of the graphs and charts in, saying instead: ‘—Figure 3 about here—‘

        1. There is a rebuttal of your study by Durante et all

          Fertility Can Have Different Effects on Single and Nonsingle Women

          Harris and Mickes (2014) report a direct replication of our study, for which they found mixed support. They found no evidence for the interaction of fertility and relationship status on religious and political
          attitudes. However, they did find support for the interaction
          with respect to voting preferences.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *