Chemosensory Perception

, Volume 12, Issue 1, pp 40–49 | Cite as

Olfactory Awareness and the Self-Reported Importance of Olfactory Information in Romantic Interest

  • Michelle VanHatten
  • Caitlin Cunningham
  • Theresa L. WhiteEmail author



Many people seem to be looking for similar attributes when searching for a potential romantic partner. Olfactory social cues can be important parts of the process, though there are individual differences as to their value. Gay men, for example, value scent less in selecting a romantic partner than do heterosexual men (White and Cunningham, Chemosens Percept 10:31–41, 2017). Is it possible that the relative importance of olfaction in mate selection is simply a natural consequence of being generally aware of odorants?


The present study examined the relationship between odor awareness and odor importance in mating in two studies. Participants in each of the studies completed both the Romantic Interests Survey (Herz and Inzlich, Evol Hum Behav 23:359–364, 2002) and the Odor Awareness Survey (Smeets et al., Chem Senses 33:725–734, 2008). In the first study, 455 college-aged heterosexual individuals were surveyed, while in the second study, 453 individuals varying in sexual preference (142 heterosexual women, 161 heterosexual men, and 150 gay men) completed the questionnaires.


Principle components analyses from both studies revealed two different components underlying scores on the RIS; one component best accounted for OAS scores. Regression analysis for both studies indicated that OAS scores predicted the first RIS principle component, but not the second one.


The value of odorants in selecting a romantic partner seems to reflect two different underlying attitudes. The first attitude values all aspects of the smell of a lover, while the second only finds it important that the lover does not smell badly. Odor awareness is related only to the first of these attitudes.


These findings suggest that odor awareness accounts for some of the attitudes concerning the value of odors in mate selection, but not all of them. Other factors, such as the need to avoid aversive stimuli, may also contribute to the relative importance of olfaction in selecting a partner.


Odor Mating Humans Sexual orientation 



The authors contributed to the present paper in different ways. The first and last authors (MV and TW) took part in the initial conceptualization of the work. The first author initiated data collection for study 1, and participated in its analysis. The third author (TW) initiated data collection for study 2, participated in interpretation of the data from both studies, and drafted the article. The second author (CC) analyzed the data from both studies and critically revised the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Compliance with Ethical Standards


This work was supported by Le Moyne College, in particular by the Student Research Fund and the Psychology Research Fund.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

All participants agreed to an Adult Informed Consent that had been approved by the local Institutional Research Board before beginning the study. The data for this survey was collected completely anonymously in that all IP addresses were stripped from the responses. Data was collected over secured, encrypted SSL/TLS connections to ensure that user data was safe in transit, secure, and available only to intended recipients.


  1. Agosta WC (1992) Chemical communication: the language of pheromones. W.H. Freeman and Company, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen C, Cobey KD, Havlíček J, Roberts SC (2016) The impact of artificial fragrances on the assessment of mate quality cues in body odor. Evol Hum Behav, 37(6):481–489.Google Scholar
  3. Bowerman B, Koehler AB, O’Connell RT (2005) Forecasting, time series, and regression. Cengage Learning, BostonGoogle Scholar
  4. Brand G, Millot JL (2001) Sex differences in human olfaction: between evidence and enigma. Q J Exp Psychol B 54(3):259–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buron E, Bulbena A, Pailhez G, Cabré AB (2011) The Spanish version of two olfactory scales: reliability and validity. Rev Psiquiatr Salud 4:187–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buss DM, Shackelford TK, Kirkpatrick LA, Larsen RJ (2001) A half century of mate preferences: the cultural evolution of values. J Marriage Fam 63:491–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cain WS (1982) Odor identification by males and females: predictions vs performance. Chem Senses 7(2):129–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davis MH (1983) Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. J Pers Soc Psychol, 44(1):113–126Google Scholar
  9. Demattè ML, Endrizzi I, Biasioli F, Corollaro ML, Zampini M, Gasperi F (2011) Individual variability in the awareness of odors: demographic parameters and odor identification ability. Chem Percept 4:175–185. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Diamond LM (2007) A dynamical systems approach to the development and expression of female same-sex sexuality. Perspect Psychol Sci 2:142–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Doty RL (2010) The great pheromone myth. JHU PressGoogle Scholar
  12. Doty RL, Shaman P, Applebaum SL, Giberson R, Siksorski L, Rosenberg L (1984a) Smell identification ability: changes with age. Science 226(4681):1441–1443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Doty RL, Shaman P, Dann M (1984b) Development of the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test: a standardized microencapsulated test of olfactory function. Physiol Behav 32:489–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Engen T (1982) The perception of odors. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Eysenck HJ (1967) The biological basis of personality. Thomas, SpringfieldGoogle Scholar
  16. Ferdenzi C, Coureaud G, Camos V, Schaal B (2008a) Human awareness and uses of odor cues in everyday life: results from a questionnaire study in children. Int J Behav Dev 32:422–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ferdenzi C, Mustonen S, Tuorila H, Schaal B (2008b) Children’s awareness and uses of odor cues in everyday life: a Finland-France comparison. Chem Percept 1:190–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Guttman L (1954) Some necessary and sufficient conditions for common factor analysis. Psychometricka 19:149–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Haviland-Jones JM, McGuire TR, Wilson P (2016) Testing for individual differences in the identification of chemosignals for fear and happy: phenotypic super-detectors, detectors and non-detectors. PLoS One 11(5):e0154495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Havlíček J, Saxton TK, Roberts SC, Jozifkova E, Lhota S, Valentova J, Flegr J (2008) He sees, she smells? Male and female reports of sensory reliance in mate choice and non-mate choice contexts. Personal Individ Differ 45:565–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Herz RS, Inzlicht M (2002) Sex differences in response to physical and social factors involved in human mate selection: the importance of smell for women. Evol Hum Behav 23:359–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Holt-Lunstad J, Smith TB, Layton JB (2010) Social relationships and mortality risk: a meta-analytic review. PLoS Med 7(7):e1000316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Keverne EB (2005) Odor here, odor there: chemosensation and reproductive function. Nat Neurosci 81:1637–1638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kouros-Mehr H, Pintchovski S, Melnyk J, Chen YJ, Friedman C, Trask B, Shizuya H (2001) Identification of non-functional human VNO receptor genes provides evidence for vestigiality of the human VNO. Chem Senses 26:1167–1174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lippa RA (2007) The preferred traits of mates in a cross-national study of heterosexual and homosexual men and women: an examination of biological and cultural influences. Arch Sex Behav 36:193–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lübke K, Schablitzky S, Pause BM (2009) Male sexual orientation affects sensitivity to androstenone. Chemosens Percept 2:154–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lübke KT, Hoenen M, Pause BM (2012) Differential processing of social chemosignals obtained from potential partners in regards to gender and sexual orientation. Behav Brain Res 228:375–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McClintock MK, Jacob S, Zelano B, & Hayreh DJS (2001) Pheromones and vasanas: The functions of social chemosignals. In JA French, AC Kamil, & DW Leger (Eds) Vol. 47 of the Nebraska symposium on motivation. Evolutionary psychology and motivation pp. 75–112. Lincoln, NE, US: University of Nebraska PressGoogle Scholar
  29. Mor N, Winquist J (2002) Self-focused attention and negative affect: a meta-analysis. Psychol Bull 128(4):638–662. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Navarrete-Palacios E, Hudson R, Reyes-Guerrero G, Guevara-Guzmán R (2003) Lower olfactory threshold during the ovulatory phase of the menstrual cycle. Biol Psychol 63(3):269–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nováková LM, Mrzílková RV (2016) Children’s exposure to odors in everyday contexts predicts their odor awareness. Chemosens Percept 9(2):56–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nováková L, Valentová JV, Havlíček J (2013) Olfactory performance is predicted by individual sex-atypicality, but not sexual orientation. PLoS One 8(11):e80234. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nováková L, Valentova JV, Havlíček J (2014) Engagement in olfaction-related activities is associated with the ability of odor identification and odor awareness. Chemosens Percept 7(2):56–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Peeters G, Czapinski J (1990) Positive-negative asymmetry in evaluations: The distinction between affective and informational negativity effects. Eur Rev Soc Psychol 1(1):33–60Google Scholar
  35. Penn DJ, Oberzaucher E, Grammer K, Fischer G, Soini HA, Wiesler D et al (2007) Individual and gender fingerprints in human body odour. J R Soc Interface 41:331–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Plailly J, Howard JD, Gitelman DR, Gottfried JA (2008) Attention to odor modulates thalamocortical connectivity in the human brain. J Neurosci 28(20):5257–5267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Savic I, Berglund H, Lindström P (2005) Brain response to putative pheromones in homosexual men. Proc Natl Acad Sci, 102(20):7356–7361Google Scholar
  38. Sergeant MJT, Davies MNO, Dickens TE, Griffiths MD (2005) The self-reported importance of olfaction during human mate choice. Sex Evol & Gend 73:199–213. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Smeets MAM, Schifferstein HNJ, Boelema SR, Lensvelt-Mulders G (2008) The odor awareness scale: a new scale for measuring positive and negative odor awareness. Chem Senses 33:725–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stevenson RJ (2010) An initial evaluation of the functions of human olfaction. Chem Senses 35:3–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sucker K, Berresheim H, Ramcke-Krüll H, Schulze P, Brüning T, Bünger J (2010) Approach to characterize a sub-group susceptible to odour annoyance. Chem Eng Trans 23:99–104Google Scholar
  42. Survey Monkey (2015) SurveyMonkey audience for academics. Retrieved from on August 19, 2015
  43. Touhara K, Vosshall LB (2009) Sensing odorants and pheromones with chemosensory receptors. Annu Rev Physiol 71:307–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Vaish A, Grossmann T, Woodward A (2008) Not all emotions are created equal: the negativity bias in social-emotional development. Psychol Bull 134(3):383–403. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Voyer D, Voyer SD, Saint-Aubin J (2017) Sex differences in visual-spatial working memory: a meta-analysis. Psychon Bull Rev 24(2):307–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Watson D, Clark LA (1984) Negative affectivity: the disposition to experience aversive emotional states. Psychol Bull 96:465–490. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. White TL, Cunningham C (2017) Sexual preference and the self-reported role of olfaction in mate selection. Chemosens Percept 10:31–41. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Witt M, Georgiewa B, Knecht M, Hummel T (2002) On the chemosensory nature of the vomeronasal epithelium in adult humans. Histochem Cell Biol 117:493–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wrzesniewski A, McCauley C, Rozin P (1999) Odor and affect: individual differences in the impact of odor on liking for places, things and people. Chemical Senses, 24(6):713–721.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Le Moyne CollegeSyracuseUSA

Personalised recommendations