Here is the abstract from a paper by Matthew Pearson and Burkhard Schipper:
In an experiment using two-bidder first-price sealed bid auctions with symmetric independent private values, we collected information on the female participants’ menstrual cycles. We find that women bid significantly higher than men in their menstrual and premenstrual phase but do not bid significantly different in other phases of the menstrual cycle. We suggest an evolutionary hypothesis according to which women are genetically predisposed by hormones to generally behave more riskily during their fertile phase of their menstrual cycle in order to increase the probability of conception, quality of offspring, and genetic variety.
Believe it or not, this contributes to a growing literature.

3 comments
Comments feed for this article
August 17, 2010 at 5:05 pm
Anonymous
QJE material.
August 17, 2010 at 9:05 pm
Biological Does Not Equal Evolutionary: The Economics of Menstruation?! « A (Budding) Sociologist’s Commonplace Book
[…] Biological Does Not Equal Evolutionary: The Economics of Menstruation?! Also known as: What exactly do economists think biological means? Quoting Cheap Talk: […]
December 9, 2011 at 9:10 pm
Burkhard C. Schipper
Sorry for commenting on such an old post, but I just found this posting. In the abstract we also mention a paper by Chen, Katuscak, and Ozdenoren (2009). Ours is “just” replication study of theirs. And yes, we are interested in endocrinological factors that may affect economic behavior. May be we won’t learn much for economics like GPD, inflation etc. but we may learn something about human nature.