Ovulation may increase women's interest in conspicuous luxury items - but only if others see them.

Women during their peak fertility period may show a greater interest in conspicuous luxury goods, and, according to a new study, this effect appears primarily when the item is intended for public use. The researchers suggest that this consumption strategy may be linked not so much to a desire to own a more expensive item, but rather to a desire to be more visible to potential partners. The study was published on September 2, 2026, in PLOS ONE.

The authors conducted three studies using different fertility assessment methods and consumer behavior indicators. In the first experiment, ovulation was confirmed using urine luteinizing hormone peak tests, and each participant was tested twice—during periods of high and low fertility. In the second and third studies, the probability of a fertile period was calculated using menstrual cycle data.

The results paint a fairly consistent picture. During periods of high fertility, women envisioned larger Gucci, Chanel, or Louis Vuitton logos; rated their desire for luxury brand T-shirts higher if they would wear them in public; and were more likely to choose a Polo Ralph Lauren gift card over an Old Navy gift card. However, this effect was diminished when participants were previously told that men typically overlook women's clothing brands.

However, the study does not prove that ovulation automatically causes women to buy expensive items. Some results are based on an estimated phase of the menstrual cycle; actual purchases were barely measured, the samples were non-representative, and in a third study, the main statistical effect was only marginally significant despite strict selection criteria. The authors themselves emphasize that ovulatory status cannot be randomized as a standard experimental condition, so strict causal inferences are limited.

Key fact	Data
Name	Fertility increases women's desire for conspicuous luxury
Magazine	PLOS ONE
Date of publication	September 2, 2026
Authors	Aekyoung Kim, Kristina M. Durante, Juliano Laran, Lambrianos Nikiforidis, Vladas Griskevicius
Number of studies	3
Main hypothesis	high fertility increases the desire to indulge in conspicuous luxury
Confirmation of ovulation	direct LH test in study 1; cycle-based calculation in studies 2-3
Main products	bags, shoes, T-shirts, brand gift cards
Financing	no special funding announced
Conflict of interest	the authors did not state
DOI	10.1371/journal.pone.0354126

Why do scientists even link ovulation to luxury purchases?

Luxury goods are often studied as a means of demonstrating status. Expensive watches, clothing, cars, or accessories can communicate a person's wealth, prestige, and status to others. Visibility is particularly important: for conspicuous consumption, a logo or recognizable item must be sufficiently noticeable to others.

The authors of the new study proposed an alternative motivation. They drew on research suggesting that women's behavior during the ovulatory cycle can, under certain circumstances, change along with their motivation to find a partner. The article cites previous data on increased sexual desire around ovulation, increased socialization, changes in clothing choices, and a desire to stand out from other women.

Researchers have suggested that a noticeable luxury item can serve a similar function: not necessarily enhancing physical attractiveness per se, but primarily attracting attention. A person wearing clothing with a recognizable logo or a noticeable designer accessory stands out more easily than someone wearing a seemingly neutral item.

From this, the authors constructed a two-stage model of partner selection. In the first stage, a person seeks to increase the number of potentially interested partners—to "expand the funnel," so to speak. In the second stage, they become more selective and choose the most suitable partner from those who have already shown interest. According to the researchers, conspicuous luxury may work specifically in the first stage—as a means of visibility, and not necessarily as a way to communicate "my standards are so high that most partners are unsuitable for me."

The model proposed by the authors	Possible function of the suite
High fertility	increasing motivation to find a partner
Attraction stage	the desire to be noticed
A prominent logo or brand	additional visual signal
More attention	potentially more possible partners
Selection stage	choice among people already attracted
Invisible luxury	should be less useful for this strategy

Study #1: During ovulation, women drew larger logos for themselves.

The first experiment involved 70 female students with an average age of 22.6 years. They were not using hormonal contraception. The study was a within-subjects design: the same woman underwent the procedure twice—once around ovulation and once during a period of low fertility. This meant that each participant effectively served as her own control.

The periovulatory period was defined relatively strictly here. Women submitted urine tests to detect the peak in luteinizing hormone, which typically precedes ovulation by approximately 24-48 hours. For periods of low fertility, the researchers subsequently further clarified the date of their next menstrual period. Women with irregular cycles, recent use of hormonal contraceptives, certain medications, and a number of other factors that could influence cycle irregularities were excluded.

Participants were asked to imagine choosing bags and shoes and then draw the logo of one of three brands—Gucci, Chanel, or Louis Vuitton—on them. They performed the same task while recommending an item to another woman. The area of each drawn logo was measured with calipers and used as an indicator of preference for more or less ostentatious luxury.

When women were choosing a product for themselves, the average logo size was 1.28 square inches during the high-fertility period versus 1.12 during the low-fertility period. The difference was statistically significant: p = 0.014, η² = 0.09. However, for another woman, logos did not increase in size during the high-fertility period; in fact, their average size was smaller: 1.13 square inches versus 1.35 square inches. The authors did not anticipate this latter result and merely speculated that it may reflect a reluctance to make potential competitors more visible.

Results of the first experiment

What did they draw?	High fertility	Low fertility	Statistics
Logo on things for yourself	1.28 inches²	1.12 inches²	p=0.014
Logo on clothes for another woman	1.13 inches²	1.35 inches²	p=0.007
High fertility: yourself vs. another woman	1.28 vs. 1.13	-	p=0.036
Interaction between fertility and recipient	-	-	p<0.001, η²=0.19

An important detail: the effect was real, but its scale should not be exaggerated.

The difference between 1.28 and 1.12 square inches represents approximately 14% of the value in the low-fertility phase. This is a statistically detectable effect, but it doesn't necessarily represent a radical change in consumer behavior or the transformation of minimalist preferences into a love of oversized logos. Rather, it represents a change in the average value within a small group of participants.

A strength of the experiment is that the same participant was compared with herself. Thus, characteristics such as upbringing, income, basic fashion attitudes, or brand preference remained largely constant between the two measurements. An additional advantage was the confirmation of the ovulatory window based on the peak luteinizing hormone.

But even this design doesn't turn ovulation into a randomized intervention. A researcher can't randomly assign a woman to "ovulate today" or "have low fertility today." Other physiological or psychological parameters may also change along with cycle phase, so the authors are cautious about the influence of the ovulatory cycle, but acknowledge the limitations of causal interpretation.

Finally, the size of the drawn logo itself is an indirect indicator of consumer desire. The woman didn't purchase a real bag for several thousand dollars. Therefore, the experiment is well suited to testing a psychological hypothesis, but is significantly less effective in answering the practical question of whether real spending on luxury goods increases around ovulation. This would require transactional or longitudinal purchase data.

Study #2: Luxury only became more attractive when it was visible to others.

In the second study, the researchers tested the most important implication of their hypothesis. If high interest in luxury is indeed linked to a desire to be seen, then invisible luxury shouldn't be more appealing. Therefore, participants were randomly asked to imagine a T-shirt worn either in public or only at home, where no one would see it.

The researchers initially collected data from 1,486 women, with an average age of approximately 31 years. However, the criteria were strict: recent use of hormonal contraception, pregnancy and breastfeeding, hormonal imbalances, certain chronic illnesses, prescription medications, and other conditions were excluded. After the first stage, 938 questionnaires remained, and after excluding women with unclear or unusual cycle data, only 332 participants remained.

Half of the participants were shown six luxury brands: Chanel, Prada, Gucci, Louis Vuitton, Fendi, and Burberry. The other half were shown Gap, Old Navy, JCPenney, H&M, Target, and Walmart. Participants rated their desire to buy a T-shirt from the corresponding brand on a seven-point scale. Fertility was not measured by a hormonal test, but rather calculated based on menstrual dates and typical cycle length. Each woman was assigned a conception probability between 0 and 0.09.

The results were consistent with the primary hypothesis. For luxury brands intended for public use, the calculated average purchase intention was higher with high fertility – 3.80 versus 3.08 points. For luxury clothing intended for home use only, the opposite was true: 1.63 versus 2.39. For non-luxury brands, no interaction between fertility and publicity was found. The three-way interaction of fertility x brand type x publicity was statistically significant, p = 0.015.

Results of the second study

Scenario	High fertility	Low fertility	Result
Luxury brand, worn in public	3.80	3.08	p=0.028
Luxury brand, wear only at home	1.63	2.39	p=0.031
Non-luxury brands	there is no significant interaction	-	p=0.856
General trilateral interaction	-	-	p=0.015

Publicity turned out to be more important than the price of the item itself

This experiment allows us to separate two possible explanations. The first would be that around ovulation, women simply become more inclined to purchase expensive goods, pleasures, or purchases in general. If this were true, an increase in interest should have been observed for a luxury T-shirt that no one would ever see. But the researchers obtained the opposite result.

The second theory—the one supported by the authors—lies precisely in the signaling value of the product. A luxury item is especially attractive when others can see the brand. This is consistent with the very concept of conspicuous consumption, where the usefulness of a product lies partly in its visibility.

Interestingly, the overall appeal of luxury and non-luxury brands was examined separately. In the pre-test, luxury brands were indeed rated as significantly more luxurious—7.58 versus 4.63 points—but the groups did not differ significantly in subjective appeal: 6.05 versus 5.66, p=0.367. This reduces the likelihood that the result was simply due to participants simply liking Chanel or Gucci more visually.

On the other hand, a limitation of the fertility assessment method is particularly noticeable here. Of the 1,486 original participants, only 332—less than a quarter—remained in the main analysis. Because women with irregular cycles, medical conditions, drug therapy, or uncertain dates were excluded, the final sample may differ significantly from the general female population. The authors themselves cite the high exclusion rate as a limitation of the study.

Study #3: What happens when you tell women that men don't notice brands?

In a third study, the authors attempted to test this mechanism even more directly. If luxury clothing becomes more attractive around ovulation because it attracts men's attention, then the belief that "men don't notice designer clothes anyway" should weaken the effect. To do this, participants were randomly assigned to two information conditions.

One group was given a fictitious news story to read, claiming that men notice women's beauty, smiles, and gait, but hardly notice clothing brands. The control group read a neutral story about the number of galaxies in the universe. The manipulation worked: after reading the story about male perception, the participants rated the likelihood of a man noticing designer clothing at only 1.76 points, compared to 3.87 in the control group.

The women were then asked not just to rate the product but to choose a $100 gift card from Polo Ralph Lauren or Old Navy. One randomly selected participant was promised an actual gift card for their chosen brand. A pre-test confirmed that Polo Ralph Lauren was perceived as significantly more luxurious than Old Navy—6.09 versus 2.70—but the two brands were similar in overall appeal.

In the control group, the model estimated that luxury card selection was 60.75% for women with high fertility versus 44.81% for women with low fertility. After the message that men supposedly don't notice brands, the corresponding values were 40.02% and 42.20%—the fertility effect virtually disappeared. Moreover, among women with high fertility, the difference between the information conditions was statistically significant: 60.75% versus 40.02%, p=0.008.

Study No. 3

Condition	High fertility	Low fertility
Control text	60.75% chose Polo Ralph Lauren	44.81%
The text "Men don't notice brands"	40.02%	42.20%
The difference between two conditions for high fertility	20.73 p.p.	-
p for this difference	0.008	-

But the third study turned out to be statistically less conclusive than the percentages suggest.

Initially, 966 women participated in the third experiment. After excluding 88 women who failed the reading check, 888 remained. Participants who were unsure of their cycle dates or whose cycles were shorter than 25 or longer than 36 days were then excluded. Only 358 women were ultimately included in the pre-planned main analysis.

And this is where it's important to distinguish between the attractive visual difference in percentages and the underlying statistical test. In the controlled sample, the interaction between fertility and the experimentally induced belief was only marginally significant: p=0.099. The positive association between fertility and luxury brand choice in the control group also failed to reach the traditional threshold of p<0.05: p=0.066.

When the researchers repeated the analysis on a larger sample of 888 participants, including women who were unsure of their cycle data, the interaction was now statistically significant: p=0.024. In the control condition with high estimated fertility, the luxury brand was chosen more often - model values 54.50% versus 39.02%, p=0.002; after the message about men's inattention to brands, there was virtually no difference - 41.55% versus 41.42%.

Therefore, the most accurate formulation is this: the results of the third study support the proposed mechanism, especially when analyzing the full sample and directly comparing the information conditions, but the primary prespecified test in the strict sample was weaker than the traditional criterion of statistical significance. This is important to consider before presenting the results as definitive proof that women around ovulation buy luxury goods solely for male attention.

What the authors believe is happening psychologically

The authors don't claim that a woman consciously thinks, "I'm ovulating, so I need Gucci today." Their model suggests a more general shift in motivation: during periods of high fertility, the desire to increase the number of potential partners who will notice a woman may increase, and visible status symbols are one possible means of achieving this goal.

In this model, a luxury product serves several functions. It stands out visually, communicates status or prestige, and can enhance subjective feelings of attractiveness or confidence. The authors also suggest that a fashionable and high-quality item itself can visually complement an image. These latter explanations are theoretical interpretations, not independently tested mechanisms in the three experiments.

Researchers emphasize the importance of social visibility. Better kidney function, they cite as an example, may be biologically beneficial, but no one sees it; skin condition, clothing, or social activity are much easier to see. Therefore, according to the model, the influence of motivation should be particularly pronounced for cues that are both noticeable and perceived positively by others.

In this logic, the third experiment is particularly important. Simply changing the belief about whether men notice clothing brands altered their brand choice. This suggests that the result cannot be reduced solely to the physiological "desire for something expensive": the perception of whether the item would act as a social cue was also important. However, definitive confirmation of this mechanism will require independent replications and more direct measurement of participants' motivation.

Possible mechanism	How proven is it in operation?
High fertility → more interest in visible luxury	supported by three studies
Product visibility matters	directly supported by study 2
The assumption that men notice the brand	was experimentally varied in Study 3
Lux boosts confidence	authors' assumption
Luxury enhances real attractiveness for men	not directly tested
Women actually spend more money around ovulation.	not verified
The effect is associated exclusively with the search for a partner	not proven

Study doesn't show women become 'more materialistic' during ovulation

One of the most important findings of the second experiment is that the increase in interest was not general across all products. Non-luxury brands did not demonstrate the expected interaction with fertility, and luxury brands for private use did not increase appeal either. Therefore, the interpretation that ovulation increases overall propensity to consume does not fit the data.

The cruder theory that women simply want to spend more money around ovulation also doesn't support this. All three studies measured attitudes toward specific brands or visual cues, but not overall budget, financial impulsivity, or actual bank spending. In the third experiment, the price of a gift card for both brands was the same—$100.

The study also doesn't show that all women around ovulation prefer large logos or expensive clothing. The study describes average differences between conditions and groups, with significant individual variability. In the first experiment, for example, the standard deviation of logo area in the high-fertility group even exceeded the mean—1.42 square inches, with an average of 1.28 square inches—indicating significant heterogeneity in individual preferences.

Finally, the "luxury" category itself is culturally dependent. The authors primarily studied well-known Western fashion brands and explicitly acknowledge that their findings may not be replicated in communities where conspicuous luxury is unappreciated or perceived negatively. Behavior may also vary depending on whether a woman is among friends, partners, or perceived competitors.

Why the results should be treated with caution

The first limitation is the unrepresentative samples. Experiment 1 involved female students, and the remaining participants were recruited through the online platforms Prolific and Mechanical Turk. People who voluntarily sign up for paid behavioral studies are not necessarily representative of the female population as a whole. The authors explicitly cite convenience sampling as one of their limitations.

The second is the very large number of excluded participants. In the second study, the main analysis included 332 women out of the original 1,486, while in the third, the rigorous analysis included 358 out of 966. This is due to the methodological desire to more accurately define the fertile window, but also limits the applicability of the results to women with irregular cycles, medical conditions, drug therapy, and other characteristics.

The third limitation concerns the measurement of ovulation. Only the first study used a urine test for the peak luteinizing hormone. In two larger studies, fertility was calculated using a menstrual cycle calendar. Even with the recommended statistical procedure, this method cannot reliably confirm that each individual woman actually ovulated on the calculated day.

Fourth, most endpoints aren't real, high-value purchases. Drawing a logo and assessing desire for a T-shirt are lab or survey-based measures. Even choosing a $100 gift card only loosely mimics a consumer decision, as the participant didn't have to spend her own money. Therefore, the next step is to test whether similar fluctuations occur in real transactions, preferably within the same women with hormonal confirmation of ovulation.

Main limitations

Limitation	Why is it important?
Non-representative sample	It is unknown to what extent the effect applies to all women.
Many excluded participants	the final groups are highly selected
Calendar assessment of fertility in studies 2-3	does not directly confirm ovulation
A Little Study 1	only 70 participants
Actual purchases have been little studied.	intention is not equal to behavior
In Study 3, the main interaction p=0.099	the result requires careful interpretation
Fertility cannot be randomized	strict causality is limited
Specific brands and cultural environments were studied	the universality of the effect is unknown

Why is the work interesting for consumer behavior science?

Most classic studies of conspicuous consumption view luxury primarily through status: people purchase expensive items because they want to communicate wealth, success, or status. New research adds a possible contextual biological factor—short-term changes in motivation during the reproductive cycle.

The results regarding public and private use are particularly interesting. The same luxury brand acquired different subjective value depending on whether it was seen by others. This aligns well with the broader economic idea that part of the value of status goods is determined not only by their physical properties but also by their social audience.

The study also attempts to reconcile two seemingly contradictory ideas. Previous studies suggested that luxury may allow women to demonstrate high standards and thereby screen out undesirable partners. Kim and co-authors propose that both mechanisms may operate sequentially: initially, a salient cue helps attract more attention, and then other cues and behaviors facilitate selection.

However, this two-stage model remains largely theoretical. The study did not track actual encounters, the number of men who noticed the woman, the quality of subsequent partners, or the success of the relationship. Therefore, the data suggest a link between fertility and a preference for conspicuous luxury cues, but the next step of the model—that these cues actually increase the pool of potential partners—has not been directly tested.

Can the results be used in marketing?

Theoretically, the study shows that a product's consumer value depends on the interaction between its status, visibility, and a person's current motivation. For marketing, this is more interesting than the simple statement "women love luxury": the same product in a public scenario turned out to be psychologically different from the same product intended for home use.

However, using the results for personalized targeting based on estimated ovulation would be premature, not only scientifically but also from a privacy standpoint. The study itself did not test advertising campaigns, sales, or the ability to predict individual purchases. A statistical shift at the group level is insufficient to predict a specific woman's preferences.

Furthermore, the authors studied women who did not use hormonal contraception and, in some analyses, excluded numerous medical and reproductive conditions. Therefore, even theoretically generalizing the results to all women would be erroneous.

From a scientific perspective, it's much more interesting to test the next level: does the actual likelihood of purchase change, which product categories are more responsive, does a woman's romantic status influence the effect, does the effect depend on attitudes toward luxury, and to what extent is it replicated across different countries and cultures. The authors themselves cite individual differences, social competition, and alternative motivations as important areas for future research.

The main conclusion of the study

Three experiments yield a similar overall message: periods of high fertility are associated not simply with a greater interest in luxury, but specifically with an interest in luxury that is visible to others. In the first study, this was reflected in the size of logos; in the second, in the desire to purchase luxury clothing for public use; and in the third, in the choice of a luxury brand based on the perception of whether men notice designer clothing.

The strongest evidence for the physiological component of the hypothesis comes from a small initial experiment, in which ovulatory periods were confirmed by a luteinizing hormone test and each woman was compared to herself. Larger studies add social context but use less precise calendar-based fertility assessments.

The most compelling argument for a social function is that the effect disappeared or weakened when the luxury item was invisible, was intended for another woman, or the participant believed that men don't notice brands. This is indeed more difficult to explain by a simple increase in desire to buy expensive items.

But the next step remains. To confirm that hormonal changes truly alter economic behavior in everyday life, prospective studies with hormonal confirmation of ovulation, repeated observations of the same participants, and objective purchasing data are needed. So far, the best evidence doesn't suggest "ovulation makes you buy luxury goods," but rather a more nuanced connection between fertile periods and a preference for publicly visible status signals.

News source

Kim A., Durante KM, Laran J., Nikiforidis L., Griskevicius V. Fertility increases women's desire for conspicuous luxury. PLOS ONE. 2026;21(9):e0354126. The article was published on September 2, 2026, received by the editors on July 11, 2025, and accepted on July 2, 2026. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0354126.

The study is published openly. The authors disclosed that they received no specific funding and have no known conflicts of interest. Anonymized data from three studies are available in the Open Science Framework repository.