Differential use of sensory information in sexual behavior as a function of gender
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
Olfactory information is critical to mammalian sexual behavior. Based on parental investment theory the relative importance of olfaction compared with vision, touch, and hearing should be different for human males and females. In particular, because of its link to immunological profile and offspring viability, odor should be a more important determinant of sexual choice and arousal for females than for males. To test this hypothesis a questionnaire was developed and administered to 332 adults (166 males, 166 females). Subjects used a 1–7 scale to indicate how much they agreed with a series of statements concerning the importance of olfactory, visual, auditory, and tactile information for their sexual responsivity. The data reveal that males rated visual and olfactory information as being equally important for selecting a lover, while females considered olfactory information to be the single most important variable in mate choice. Additionally, when considering sexual activity, females singled out body odor from all other sensory experiences as most able to negatively affect desire, while males regarded odors as much more neutral stimuli for sexual arousal. The present results support recent findings in mice and humans concerning the relation of female preferences in body odor and major histocompatibility complex (MHC) compatibility and can be explained by an evolutionary analysis of sex differences in reproductive strategies. This work represents the first direct examination of the role of different forms of sensory information in human sexual behavior.
- Boyse, E. A., G. K. Beauchamp, and K. Yamazaki 1987 The Genetics of Body Scent.Trends in Genetics 3:97–102. CrossRef
- Buss, D. M. 1987 Sex Differences in Human Mate Selection Criteria: an Evolutionary Perspective. InSociobiology and Psychology: Ideas, Issues, and Applications, C. C. Crawford, M. Smith, and D. Krebs, eds. Pp. 335–351. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
- 1994The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating. New York: Basic Books.
- Buss, D. M., and D. P. Schmitt 1993 Sexual Strategies Theory: An Evolutionary Perspective on Human Mating.Psychological Review 100:204–232. CrossRef
- Cain, W. 1982 Odor Identification by Males and Females: Predictions Versus Performance.Chemical Senses 7:129–141. CrossRef
- Darwin, C. 1871The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. London: Murray.
- Doty, R. L., P. Snyder, G. Huggins, and L. D. Lowry 1981 Endocrine, Cardiovascular and Psychological Correlates of Olfactory Sensitivity Changes during the Human Menstrual Cycle.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology 95:45–60. CrossRef
- Egid, K., and J. L. Brown 1989 The Major Histocompatibility Complex and Female Mating Preferences in Mice.Animal Behavior 38:548. CrossRef
- Eklund, A., K. Egid, and J. L. Brown 1992 Sex Differences in the Use of the Major Histocompatibility Complex for Mate Selection in Congenic Strains of Mice. InChemical Signals in Vertebrates, R. L. Doty and D. Muller-Scwarze, eds. Pp. 213–217. New York: Plenum Press.
- Ellis, B. J., and D. Symons 1990 Sex Differences in Sexual Fantasy: An Evolutionary Psychology Approach.Journal of Sex Research 27:527–555.
- Faust, B. 1980Women, Sex and Pornography. New York: Macmillan.
- Feingold, A. 1990 Gender Differences in Effects of Physical Attractiveness on Romantic Attraction: A Comparison across Five Research Paradigm.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59:981–993. CrossRef
- 1992 Gender Differences in Mate Selection Preferences: A Test of the Parental Investment Model.Psychological Bulletin 112:125–139. CrossRef
- Gorman, M. R. 1994 Male Homosexual Desire: Neurological Investigations and Scientific Bias.Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 38:61–81.
- Greenlees, I. A., and W. C. McGrew 1994 Sex and Age Differences in Preferences and Tactics of Mate Attraction: Analysis of Published Advertisements.Ethology and Sociobiology 15:59–72. CrossRef
- Hardin, K. M., and S. R. Gold 1989 Relationship of Sex, Sex Guilt, and Experience to Written Sexual Fantasies.Imagination, Cognition and Personality 8:155–163.
- Hedrick, P. W. 1994 Evolutionary Genetics of the Major Histocompatibility Complex.American Naturalist 143:945–964. CrossRef
- Hendrick, S., C. Hendrick, M. J. Slapion-Foote, and F. H. Foote 1985 Gender Differences in Sexual Attitudes.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 48:1630–1642. CrossRef
- Ho, H. N., T. J. Gill, R. P. Nsieh, H. J. Hsieh, and T. Y. Lee 1990 Sharing of Human Leukocyte Antigens in Primary and Secondary Recurrent Spontaneous Abortions.American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 163:178–188.
- Klein, J. 1986Natural History of the Major Histocompatibility Complex. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
- Koyama, M., F. Saji, S. Takahashi, M. Takemura, Y. Samegima, T. Kameda, T. Kimura, and O. Tanizawa 1991 Probabilistic Assessment of the HLA Sharing of Recurrent Spontaneous Abortion Couples in the Japanese Population.Tissue Antigens 37:211–217. CrossRef
- Landolt, M. A., M. L. Lalumiere, and V. L. Quinsey 1995 Sex Differences in Intrasex Variations in Human Mating Tactics: An Evolutionary Approach.Ethology and Sociobiology 16:3–23. CrossRef
- Linn, M. C., and A. C. Peterson 1986 A Meta-Analysis of Gender Differences in Spatial Ability: Implications for Mathematics and Science Achievement. Inthe Psychology of Gender: Advances Through Meta-Analysis, J. S. Hyde and M. C. Linn, eds. Pp. 67–101. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
- Potts, W. K., C. J. Manning, and E. K. Wakeland 1991 Mating Patterns in Seminatural Populations of Mice Influenced by MHC Genotype.Nature 352:619–621. CrossRef
- Sprecher, S. 1989 Premarital Sexual Standards for Different Categories of Individuals.Journal of Sex Research 26:232–248. CrossRef
- Symons, D. 1979The Evolution of Human Sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Thomas, M. L., J. H. Harger, D. K. Wagner, B. S. Rabin, and T. J. Gill III 1985 HLA Sharing and Spontaneous Abortion in Humans.American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 151:1053–1058.
- Trivers, R. 1972 Parental Investment and Sexual Selection: InSexual Selection and the Descent of Man, B. Campbell, ed. Pp. 136–179. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.
- Watson, N. V., and D. Kimura 1989 Right-Hand Superiority for Throwing But Not Intercepting.Neuropsychologia 27:1399–1414. CrossRef
- Weckstein, L. N., P. Patrizio, J. P. Balmaceda, R. H. Asch, and D. W. Branch 1991 Human Leukocyte Antigen Compatibility and Failure to Achieve a Viable Pregnancy with Assisted Reproductive Technology.Acta European Fertility 22:103–107.
- Wedekind, D., T. Seebeck, F. Bettens, and A. J. Paepke 1995 MHC-Dependent Mate Preference in Humans.Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 260:245–249. CrossRef
- Whisman, M. L., J. W. Goetzinger, F. O. Cotton, and D. W. Brinkman 1978 Odorant Evaluation: A Study of Ehanethiol and Tetrahydrothiophene as Warning Agents in Propane.Environment, Science, and Technology 12:1285–1288. CrossRef
- Yamazaki, K., E. A. Boyse, V. Mike, H. T. Thaler, B. J. Mathieson, J. Abbot, J. Boyse, Z. A. Zayas, and L. Thomas 1976 Control of Mating Preferences in Mice by Genes in the Major Histocompatibility Complex.Journal of Experimental Medicine 144:1324–1335. CrossRef
- Yamazaki, K., M. Yamaguchi, L. Baranoski, J. Bard, E. A. Boyse, and L. Thomas 1979 Recognition among Mice. Evidence from the Use of a Y-Maze Differentially Scented by Congenic Mice of Different Major Histocompatibility Types.Journal of Experimental Medicine 150:755–760. CrossRef
- Differential use of sensory information in sexual behavior as a function of gender
Volume 8, Issue 3 , pp 275-286
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Additional Links
- Evolutionary principles
- Gender differences
- Sensory information
- Sexual behavior