Advertisement

The Bitter Pill: Cessation of Oral Contraceptives Enhances the Appeal of Alternative Mates

  • Gurit E. Birnbaum
  • Kobi Zholtack
  • Moran Mizrahi
  • Tsachi Ein-Dor
Research Article

Abstract

Hormonal contraceptives change women’s natural mate preferences, leading them to prefer nurturing but less genetically compatible men. Cessation of contraceptives reverses these preferences, decreasing women’s attraction to current partners. Two studies examined whether women who had used contraceptive pills at relationship formation and stopped doing so were more vulnerable to desire attractive alternatives, primarily around ovulation, as compared to women who had not used pills at relationship formation or had used pills then but did not stop using them. In Study 1, participants watched videos of attractive and average-looking men and described imaginary dates with them, which were coded for desire expressions. In Study 2, we measured attention adhesion to attractive and average-looking men. Results showed that women who stopped using pills and were currently in high-fertility phase were especially likely to attend to, and express desire for, attractive alternatives, suggesting that cessation of contraceptives motivates the pursuit of more suitable mates.

Keywords

Attractive alternatives Contraceptive pills Infidelity Mate choice Menstrual cycle 

Notes

Funding

This research was supported by the Israel Science Foundation (Grants 86/10 and 1210/16 awarded to Gurit E. Birnbaum).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Alvergne, A., & Lummaa, V. (2010). Does the contraceptive pill alter mate choice in humans? Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 25(3), 171–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arslan, R.C., Schilling, K.M., Gerlach, T.M., & Penke, L. (in press). Using 26,000 diary entries to show ovulatory changes in sexual desire and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.Google Scholar
  3. Bertram, S. M., Loranger, M. J., Thomson, I. R., Harrison, S. J., Ferguson, G. L., Reifer, M. L., Corlett, D. H., & Gowaty, P. A. (2016). Linking mating preferences to sexually selected traits and offspring viability: good versus complementary genes hypotheses. Animal Behavior, 119, 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Birnbaum, G. E. (2018). The fragile spell of desire: a functional perspective on changes in sexual desire across relationship development. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 22(2), 101–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Birnbaum, G. E., & Finkel, E. J. (2015). The magnetism that holds us together: sexuality and relationship maintenance across relationship development. Current Opinion in Psychology, 1, 29–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Birnbaum, G. E., Weisberg, Y. J., & Simpson, J. A. (2011). Desire under attack: attachment orientations and the effects of relationship threat on sexual motivations. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28, 448–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Birnbaum, G. E., Mikulincer, M., Szepsenwol, O., Shaver, P. R., & Mizrahi, M. (2014). When sex goes wrong: a behavioral systems perspective on individual differences in sexual attitudes, motives, feelings, and behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106, 822–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Birnbaum, G. E., Reis, H. T., Mizrahi, M., Kanat-Maymon, Y., Sass, O., & Granovski-Milner, C. (2016). Intimately connected: the importance of partner responsiveness for experiencing sexual desire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111, 530–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Birnbaum, S., Birnbaum, G. E., & Ein-Dor, T. (2017). Can contraceptive pill affect future offspring’s health? The implications of using hormonal birth control for human evolution. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 3(2), 89–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blake, K. R., Dixson, B. J. W., O’Dean, S. M., & Denson, T. F. (2016). Standardized protocols for characterizing women’s fertility: a data-driven approach. Hormones and Behavior, 81, 74–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Buss, D. M., Goetz, C., Duntley, J. D., Asao, K., & Conroy-Beam, D. (2017). The mate switching hypothesis. Personality and Individual Differences, 104, 143–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cobey, K. D., Pollet, T. V., Roberts, S. C., & Buunk, A. P. (2011). Hormonal birth control use and relationship jealousy: evidence for estrogen dosage effects. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 315–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Critelli, J. W., & Bivona, J. M. (2008). Women's erotic rape fantasies: an evaluation of theory and research. Journal of Sex Research, 45, 57–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Daniels, K., Mosher, W. D., & Jones, J. (2013). Contraceptive methods women have ever used: United States, 1982-2010. National Health Statistics Reports, 62(62), 1–15.Google Scholar
  15. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Flegr, J., Blum, A.E., Nekola, O., & Kroupa, Š. (in press). What people prefer and what they think they prefer in short-and long-term partners. The effects of the phase of the menstrual cycle, hormonal contraception, pregnancy, and the marital and the parenthood status on partner preferences. Evolution and Human Behavior.Google Scholar
  17. Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., Campbell, L., & Overall, N. C. (2015). Pair-bonding, romantic love, and evolution: the curious case of Homo sapiens. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10, 20–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fox, E., Russo, R., Bowles, R., & Dutton, K. (2001). Do threatening stimuli draw or hold visual attention in subclinical anxiety? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 681–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (2008). Human estrus. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 275(1638), 991–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gangestad, S. W., Thornhill, R., & Garver-Apgar, C. E. (2005). Women’s sexual interests across the ovulatory cycle depend on primary partner developmental instability. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 272, 2023–2027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gangestad, S. W., Haselton, M. G., Welling, L. L. M., Gildersleeve, K., Pillsworth, E. G., Burriss, R. P., Larson, C. M., & Puts, D. A. (2016). How valid are assessments of conception probability in ovulatory cycle research? Evaluations, recommendations, and theoretical implications. Evolution and Human Behavior, 37, 85–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Garver-Apgar, C. E., Gangestad, S. W., Thornhill, R., Miller, R. D., & Olp, J. J. (2006). Major histocompatibility complex alleles, sexual responsivity, and unfaithfulness in romantic couples. Psychological Science, 17(10), 830–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jarvis, B. G. (2016). DirectRT. (2016.1.104 ed.). New York: Empirisoft Corporation.Google Scholar
  24. Jern, P., Kärnä, A., Hujanen, J., Erlin, T., Gunst, A., Rautaheimo, H., . . . Zietsch, B.P. (2018). A high-powered replication study finds no effect of starting or stopping hormonal contraceptive use on relationship quality. Evolution and Human Behavior, 39, 373–379.Google Scholar
  25. Johnston, V. S., Hagel, R., Franklin, M., Fink, B., & Grammer, K. (2001). Male facial attractiveness: evidence for hormone-mediated adaptive design. Evolution and Human Behavior, 22(4), 251–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jones, B.C., Perrett, D.I., Little, A.C., Boothroyd, L., Cornwell, R., Feinberg, D., … Hillier, S. (2005). Menstrual cycle, pregnancy, and oral contraceptive use alter attraction to apparent health in faces. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 272(1561), 347–354.Google Scholar
  27. Jones, B. C., DeBruine, L. M., Perrett, D. I., Little, A. C., Feinberg, D. R., & Smith, M. J. L. (2008). Effects of menstrual cycle phase on face preferences. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37(1), 78–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jones, B. C., Hahn, A. C., Fisher, C., Wang, H., Kandrik, M., Han, C., ... DeBruine, L. M. (2018). No compelling evidence that preferences for facial masculinity track changes in women's hormonal status. Psychological Science, 29(6), 996-1005.Google Scholar
  29. Judd, C. M., Westfall, J., & Kenny, D. A. (2012). Treating stimuli as a random factor in social psychology: a new and comprehensive solution to a pervasive but largely ignored problem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 54–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Little, A. C., Jones, B. C., & Burriss, R. P. (2007). Preferences for masculinity in male bodies change across the menstrual cycle. Hormones and Behavior, 52, 633–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Little, A. C., Burriss, R. P., Petrie, M., Jones, B. C., & Roberts, S. C. (2013). Oral contraceptive use in women changes preferences for male facial masculinity and is associated with partner facial masculinity. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 38(9), 1777–1785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lydon, J., & Karremans, J. C. (2015). Relationship regulation in the face of eye candy: a motivated cognition framework for understanding responses to attractive alternatives. Current Opinion in Psychology, 1, 76–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lydon, J. E., Fitzsimons, G. M., & Naidoo, L. (2003). Devaluation versus enhancement of attractive alternatives: a critical test using the calibration paradigm. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 349–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Maner, J. K., Gailliot, M. T., Rouby, D. A., & Miller, S. L. (2007). Can’t take my eyes off you: attentional adhesion to mates and rivals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 389–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Maner, J. K., Rouby, D. A., & Gonzaga, G. C. (2008). Automatic inattention to attractive alternatives: the evolved psychology of relationship maintenance. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29, 343–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Maner, J. K., Gailliot, M. T., & Miller, S. L. (2009). The implicit cognition of relationship maintenance: inattention to attractive alternatives. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 174–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Marcinkowska, U. M., Galbarczyk, A., & Jasienska, G. (2017). La donna è mobile? Lack of cyclical shifts in facial symmetry, and facial and body masculinity preferences: a hormone based study. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 88, 47–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mizrahi, M., Hirschberger, G., Mikulincer, M., Szepsenwol, O., & Birnbaum, G. E. (2016). Reassuring sex: can sexual desire and intimacy reduce relationship-specific attachment insecurities? European Journal of Social Psychology, 46(4), 467–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Puts, D. A. (2005). Mating context and menstrual phase affect women’s preferences for male voice pitch. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26(5), 388–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Roberts, S. C., Havlicek, J., Flegr, J., Hruskova, M., Little, A. C., Jones, B. C., Perrett, D. I., & Petrie, M. (2004). Female facial attractiveness increases during the fertile phase of the menstrual cycle. Proceedings of the Royal Society B (Suppl.), 271, S270–S272.Google Scholar
  41. Roberts, S. C., Gosling, L. M., Carter, V., & Petrie, M. (2008). MHC-correlated odor preferences in humans and the use of oral contraceptives. Proceedings of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 275, 2715–2722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Roberts, S.C., Klapilova, K., Little, A.C., Burriss, R.P., Jones, B.C., DeBruine, L.M., … Havliček, J. (2012). Relationship satisfaction and outcome in women who meet their partner while using oral contraception. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 279, 1430–1436.Google Scholar
  43. Roberts, S. C., Little, A. C., Burriss, R. P., Cobey, K. D., Klapilová, K., Havlíček, J., Jones, B. C., DeBruine, L., & Petrie, M. (2014). Partner choice, relationship satisfaction, and oral contraception. The congruency hypothesis. Psychological Science, 25, 1497–1503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Russell, V. M., McNulty, J. K., Baker, L. R., & Meltzer, A. L. (2014). The association between discontinuing hormonal contraceptives and wives’ marital satisfaction depends on husbands’ facial attractiveness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 111, 17081–17086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wedekind, C., & Füri, S. (1997). Body odor preferences in men and women: do they aim for specific MHC combinations or simply heterozygosity? Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 264(1387), 1471–1479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wedekind, C., Seebeck, T., Bettens, F., & Paepke, A. J. (1995). MHC dependent mate preferences in humans. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 260(1359), 245–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Welling, L. L., Puts, D. A., Roberts, S. C., Little, A. C., & Burriss, R. P. (2012). Hormonal contraceptive use and mate retention behavior in women and their male partners. Hormones and Behavior, 61, 114–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Baruch Ivcher School of PsychologyInterdisciplinary Center (IDC) HerzliyaHerzliyaIsrael

Personalised recommendations