"Meta-analyses and P-curves support robust cycle shifts in women's mate preferences: Reply to Wood and Carden (2014) and Harris, Pashler, and Mickes (2014)": Correction to Gildersleeve, Haselton, and Fales (2014).

Reports an error in "Meta-analyses and -curves support robust cycle shifts in women's mate preferences: Reply to Wood and Carden (2014) and Harris, Pashler, and Mickes (2014)" by Kelly Gildersleeve, Martie G. Haselton and Melissa R. Fales (, 2014[Sep], Vol 140[5], 1272-1280). In the article, all -curve analyses examining the Context Moderation Hypothesis Prediction mistakenly included the p-value from Little, Jones, Burt, & Perrett (2007) Study 2 for the simple effect of fertility on attraction to facial symmetry in a short-term relationship context ( < .001). The analyses should have instead included the -value for the fertility X relationship context interaction ( = .011). In addition, the -curve analyses examining exact two-tailed -values for the Cycle Shift Prediction should have included an additional -value from Provost et al. (2008) Study 1 for the main effect of fertility on attraction to gait masculinity. The reported -value for this effect was .05, making it ineligible for inclusion in -curves of reported p-values. However, the exact recalculated two-tailed -value was .049, making it eligible for inclusion in -curves of exact -values. The corrected -curve of exact two-tailed -values evaluating the Cycle Shift Prediction and Context Moderation Prediction (displayed in Figure 2) now includes a total of 15 -values ( = 1442) is no longer significantly right skewed χ²(30) = 41.25, = .08. The corrected -curve of exact two-tailed -values evaluating the Cycle Shift Prediction, Context Moderation Prediction, and Partner Qualities Moderation Prediction (displayed in Figure 3) now includes a total of 21 -values ( = 1707) and continues to be significantly right skewed Χ²(42) = 69.83, = .004. As part of this correction, the online supplemental materials have been updated. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2014-35938-003.) Two meta-analyses evaluated shifts across the ovulatory cycle in women's mate preferences but reported very different findings. In this journal, we reported robust evidence for the pattern of cycle shifts predicted by the ovulatory shift hypothesis (Gildersleeve, Haselton, & Fales, 2014). However, Wood, Kressel, Joshi, and Louie (2014) claimed an absence of compelling support for this hypothesis and asserted that the few significant cycle shifts they observed were false positives resulting from publication bias, p-hacking, or other research artifacts. How could 2 meta-analyses of the same literature reach such different conclusions? We reanalyzed the data compiled by Wood et al. These analyses revealed problems in Wood et al.'s meta-analysis-some of which are reproduced in Wood and Carden's (2014) comment in the current issue of this journal-that led them to overlook clear evidence for the ovulatory shift hypothesis in their own set of effects. In addition, we present right-skewed p-curves that directly contradict speculations by Wood et al.; Wood and Carden; and Harris, Pashler, and Mickes (2014) that supportive findings in the cycle shift literature are false positives. Therefore, evidence from both of the meta-analyses and the p-curves strongly supports genuine, robust effects consistent with the ovulatory shift hypothesis and contradicts claims that these effects merely reflect publication bias, p-hacking, or other research artifacts. Unfounded speculations about p-hacking distort the research record and risk unfairly damaging researchers' reputations; they should therefore be made only on the basis of firm evidence. (PsycINFO Database Record