The polarity and diversity of premenstrual testimonies are influenced by question framing in an online experiment

Abstract

The discourse around menstrual cycles is often pathologised, leading to negative perceptions of menstruation. The extent to which premenstrual syndrome (PMS) is inherently negative or the result of medicalised framing has long remained unclear. We address this gap by investigating whether framing the premenstrual experience as being both negative and positive components would enable individuals to report more diverse and positive experiences than are currently reported. In an online experiment, 2,638 participants were randomly allocated to one of three question phrasings (control: describe your premenstrual experience; treatment one: describe your positive and negative premenstrual experience; treatment two: describe your negative and positive premenstrual experience). Sentiment analysis was applied to responses to create polarity scores. A two-part Bayesian model was performed to investigate the effect of phrasing in predicting differences in polarity scores. Across all phrasings, responses were negatively skewed. However, response polarity scores and diversity of symptoms were higher if the question specified both positive and negative experiences compared to the control group. This corroborates previous literature showing that a negative premenstrual phase is a widespread phenomenon but challenges the idea that the premenstrual experience is solely negative. The findings have implications for how the premenstrual experience is quantified.