Human Nature

, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 275–286 | Cite as

Differential use of sensory information in sexual behavior as a function of gender

  • Rachel S. HerzEmail author
  • Elizabeth D. Cahill


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.

Key words

Evolutionary principles Gender differences Odor Sensory information Sexual behavior 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Boyse, E. A., G. K. Beauchamp, and K. Yamazaki 1987 The Genetics of Body Scent.Trends in Genetics 3:97–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.Google Scholar
  3. 1994The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  4. Buss, D. M., and D. P. Schmitt 1993 Sexual Strategies Theory: An Evolutionary Perspective on Human Mating.Psychological Review 100:204–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cain, W. 1982 Odor Identification by Males and Females: Predictions Versus Performance.Chemical Senses 7:129–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Darwin, C. 1871The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. London: Murray.Google Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Egid, K., and J. L. Brown 1989 The Major Histocompatibility Complex and Female Mating Preferences in Mice.Animal Behavior 38:548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.Google Scholar
  10. Ellis, B. J., and D. Symons 1990 Sex Differences in Sexual Fantasy: An Evolutionary Psychology Approach.Journal of Sex Research 27:527–555.Google Scholar
  11. Faust, B. 1980Women, Sex and Pornography. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 1992 Gender Differences in Mate Selection Preferences: A Test of the Parental Investment Model.Psychological Bulletin 112:125–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gorman, M. R. 1994 Male Homosexual Desire: Neurological Investigations and Scientific Bias.Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 38:61–81.Google Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.Google Scholar
  17. Hedrick, P. W. 1994 Evolutionary Genetics of the Major Histocompatibility Complex.American Naturalist 143:945–964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.Google Scholar
  20. Klein, J. 1986Natural History of the Major Histocompatibility Complex. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.Google Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sprecher, S. 1989 Premarital Sexual Standards for Different Categories of Individuals.Journal of Sex Research 26:232–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Symons, D. 1979The Evolution of Human Sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. 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.Google Scholar
  28. Trivers, R. 1972 Parental Investment and Sexual Selection: InSexual Selection and the Descent of Man, B. Campbell, ed. Pp. 136–179. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.Google Scholar
  29. Watson, N. V., and D. Kimura 1989 Right-Hand Superiority for Throwing But Not Intercepting.Neuropsychologia 27:1399–1414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.Google Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Monell Chemical Senses CenterPhiladelphia

Personalised recommendations