Earlier today CNN ran a story (Update: since removed!) about new research suggesting that women’s political views are shaped by their menstrual cycles. I’m not going to rehash everything that’s wrong with the piece, beyond what I’ve already tweeted, but I did want to point out one thing.
The study, “The Fluctuating Female Vote: Politics, Religion, and the Ovulatory Cycle,” which is to appear in an upcoming issue of the journal Psychological Science, has three authors —Kristina Durante, Ashley Arsena, and Vladas Griskevicius.
- Kristina Durante is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at UT San Antonio.
- Ashley Arsena is a doctoral student in UTSA’s Marketing program.
- Vladas Griskevicius is an Associate Professor of Marketing at the University of Minnesota.
Thought you might find that illuminating.
studentactivism.net 
7 comments
Comments feed for this article
October 24, 2012 at 9:15 pm
Andrew (@notfakeandrew)
Kristina Durante got her PhD in social psychology from the University of Texas at Austin. Vladas Griskevicius got his PhD in social psychology from Arizona State University.
Thought you might find that illuminating.
October 24, 2012 at 9:29 pm
Angus Johnston
Given that that information is available on their departmental web pages, which I linked to above, yes, I was aware of it.
Griskevicius’s doctorate involved no neuropsychological research, though. It was all social science, no brains or hormones involved.
And Durante’s dissertation was on the effects of women’s menstrual cycles on their shopping habits.
October 24, 2012 at 10:32 pm
Mylo
What’s your position on whether hormones affect social behaviors? This line of inquiry isn’t exactly pseudoscience…
October 24, 2012 at 10:49 pm
Angus Johnston
I don’t have an opinion on the general question, Mylo. I don’t even have an opinion on the specific hypothesis in this research — as I noted on Twitter, the CNN story was so incompetently written that it was impossible to discern what that hypothesis actually is.
I do, however, have an opinion on shoddy pop journalism that peddles just-so stories tarted up as science without taking the time to understand, much less critically assess, the underlying research. And I bet you can guess what that opinion is.
October 24, 2012 at 10:55 pm
salvatore
Psychology’s a pseudoscience, bro.
October 24, 2012 at 11:01 pm
Andrew (@notfakeandrew)
Did you actually read the paper?
October 24, 2012 at 11:08 pm
Angus Johnston
The paper hasn’t been published yet, so no … I haven’t read it. (And I bet you five bucks the author of the CNN story hasn’t read it either.)