Human Nature

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 65–91 | Cite as

Olfactory sexual inhibition and the westermarck effect



The Westermarck effect (sexual inhibition among individuals raised together) is argued to be mediated olfactorily. Various animals, including humans, distinguish among individuals by scent (significantly determined by MHC genotype), and some avoid cosocialized associates on this basis. Possible models of olfactory mechanisms in humans are evaluated. Evidence suggests aversions develop during an early sensitizing period, attach to persons as much as to their scents, and are more powerful among females than among males. Adult to child aversions may develop similarly, but more likely result from stimulus generalization. This hypothesis accords with current evidence and yields testable predictions (e.g., anosmia will prevent inhibition) that, should they be supported, will conclusively ground the Westermarck effect in a biological mechanism.

Key words

Biosocial Inbreeding Incest Kin recognition Major histocompatibility complex Olfaction Sexual abuse Sexual inhibition Westermarck effect 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alexander, R. D. 1990 Epigenetic Rules and Darwinian Algorithms: The Adaptive Study of Learning and Development. Ethology and Sociobiology 11:241–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Apanius, V., D. Penn, P. R. Slev, L. R. Ruff, and W. Potts 1997 The Nature of Selection on the Major Histocompatibility Complex. Critical Reviews in Immunology 17:179–224.Google Scholar
  3. Bateson, P. 1980 Optimal Outbreeding and the Development of Sexual Preferences in Japanese Quail. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 53:231–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 1982 Preference for Cousins in Japanese Quail. Nature 295:236–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 1983 Optimal Outbreeding. In Mate Choice, P. Bateson, ed. Pp. 257–277. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Beauchamp, G. K., and K. Yamazaki 1997 HLA and Mate Selection in Humans: Commentary. American Journal of Human Genetics 61:494–496.Google Scholar
  7. Beauchamp, G. K., K. Yamazaki, J. Bard, and E. A. Boyse 1988 Preweaning Experience in the Control of Mating Preferences by Genes of the Major Histocompatibility Complex of the Mouse. Behavior Genetics 18:537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beauchamp, G. K., K. Yamazaki, and E. A. Boyse 1985 The Chemosensory Recognition of Genetic Individuality. Scientific American 253:86–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Beauchamp, G. K., K. Yamazaki, H. Duncan, J. Bard, and E. A. Boyse 1990 Genetic Determination of Individual Mouse Odor. In Chemical Signals in Vertebrates, Vol. 5, D. W. MacDonald, D. Müller-Schwarze, and S. E. Natynczuk, eds. Pp. 244–254. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Berliner, D. L., L. Monti-Bloch, C. Jennings-White, and V. Diaz-Sanchez 1996 The Functionality of the Human Vomeronasal Organ (VNO): Evidence for Steroid Receptors. Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 58: 259–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bernstein, I. S. 1991 The Correlation between Kinship and Behaviour in Non-human Primates. In Kin Recognition, P. G. Hepper, ed. Pp. 6–29. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Bevc, I., and I. Silverman 1993 Early Proximity and Intimacy between Siblings and Incestuous Behavior: A Test of the Westermarck Theory. Ethology and Sociobiology 14:171–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Boyse, E. A., G. K. Beauchamp, and K. Yamazaki 1987 The Genetics of Body Scent. Trends in Genetics 3:97–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Boyse, E. A., K. Beauchamp, K. Yamazaki, and J. Bard 1991 Genetic Components of Kin Recognition in Mammals. In Kin Recognition, P.G. Hepper, ed. Pp. 148–161. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Brown, J. L. 1983 Some Paradoxical Goals of Cells and Organisms: The Role of the MHC. In Ethical Questions in Brain and Behavior: Problems and Opportunities, D. Pfaff, ed. Pp. 111–124. New York: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  16. Brown, J., and A. Eklund 1994 Kin Recognition and the Major Histocompatibility Complex: An Integrative Review. American Naturalist 143:435–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Charlesworth, D., and B. Charlesworth 1987 Inbreeding Depression and Its Evolutionary Consequences. Annual Review of Ecological Systematics 18:237–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. De Young, M. 1982 The Sexual Victimization of Children. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland.Google Scholar
  19. D’Udine, B., and A. Alleva 1983 Early Experience and Sexual Preferences in Rodents. In Mate Choice, P. Bateson, ed. Pp. 311–327. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Durham, W. H. 1991 Coevolution: Genes, Culture, and Human Diversity. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Egid, K., and J. L. Brown 1989 The Major Histocompatibility Complex and Female Mating Preferences in Mice. Animal Behaviour 38:548–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Eklund, A. 1997 The Effect of Early Experience on the MHC-based Mate Preferences of Two B10.W Strains of Mice (Mus domesticus). Behavior Genetics 27:223–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Engen, T. 1991 Odor Sensation and Memory. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  24. Finkelhor, D. 1979 Sexually Victimized Children. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  25. 1980 Sex among Siblings: A Survey on Prevalence, Variety, and Effects. Archives of Sexual Behavior 9:171–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fox, Robin 1980 The Red Lamp of Incest. New York: E. P. Dutton.Google Scholar
  27. Freud, Sigmund 1952 Totem and Taboo, James Strachey, trans. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
  28. Gangestad, S., and D. Buss 1993 Pathogen Prevalence and Human Mate Preferences. Ethology and Sociobiology 14:89–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gilbert, A. N., K. Yamazaki, and G. K. Beauchamp 1986 Olfactory Discrimination of Mouse Strains (Mus musculus) and Major Histocompatibility Types by Humans (Homo sapiens). Journal of Comparative Psychology 100:262–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gordon, M., and S. S. Creighton 1988 Fathers as Sexual Abusers in the United Kingdom. Journal of Marriage and the Family 50:99–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gruber, K. J., and R. J. Jones 1983 Identifying Determinants of Risk of Sexual Victimization of Youth. Child Abuse and Neglect 7:17–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hamilton, W. D. 1982 Pathogens as Causes of Genetic Diversity in Their Host Populations. In Population Biology of Infectious Diseases, R. M. Anderson and R. M. May, eds. Pp. 269–296. New York: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  33. Hamilton, W. D., and M. Zuk 1982 Heritable True Fitness and Bright Birds: A Role for Parasites? Science 218:384–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hartung, J. 1985 Review of Incest: A Biosocial View. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 67:169–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hedrick, P. W., and F. L. Black 1997 HLA and Mate Selection: No Evidence in South Amerindians. American Journal of Human Genetics 61:505–511.Google Scholar
  36. Hendrix, L., and M. A. Schneider 1999 Assumptions on Sex and Society in the Biosocial Theory of Incest. Cross-Cultural Research 33:193–218.Google Scholar
  37. Herdt, G., and A. Boxer 1993 Children of Horizons. New York: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  38. Herz, R. S., and E. D. Cahill 1997 Differential Use of Sensory Information in Sexual Behavior as a Function of Gender. Human Nature 8:275–286.Google Scholar
  39. Heth, G., J. Todrank, and R. E. Johnston 1998 Kin Recognition in Golden Hamsters: Evidence for Phenotype Matching. Animal Behavior 56:409–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hopkins, K. 1980 Brother-Sister Marriage in Roman Egypt. Comparative Studies in Society and History 22:303–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Jiménez, J. A., A. Hughes, G. Alaks, L. Graham, and R. C. Lacy 1994 An Experimental Study of Inbreeding Depression in a Natural Habitat. Science 266:271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kitcher, P. 1987 Vaulting Ambition. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  43. Kuby, J. 1991 Immunology, second ed. New York: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  44. Lawless, H. T. 1997 Olfactory Psychophysics. In Tasting and Smelling, G. K. Beauchamp and L. Bartoshuk, eds. Pp. 125–174. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  45. Leavitt, G. C. 1990 Sociobiological Explanations of Incest Avoidance: A Critical Review of Evidential Claims. American Anthropologist 92:971–993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lévi-Strauss, C. 1969 The Elementary Structures of Kinship. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  47. Manning, C. J., E. K. Wakeland, and W. K. Potts 1992 Communal Nesting Patterns in Mice Implicate MHC Genes in Kin Recognition. Nature (London) 360:581–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Margolin, L. 1994 Child Sexual Abuse by Uncles: A Risk Assessment. Child Abuse and Neglect 18:215–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. McCabe, J. 1983 FBD Marriage: Further Support for the Westermarck Hypothesis of the Incest Taboo? American Anthropologist 85:50–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. McClintock, M., and G. Herdt 1996 Rethinking Puberty: The Development of Sexual Attraction. Current Directions in Psychological Science 5:178–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Monti-Bloch, L., C. Jennings-White, D. S. Dolberg, and D. L. Berliner 1994 The Human Vomeronasal System. Psychoneuroendocrinology 19(5–7):673–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mostofsky, D., ed. 1965 Stimulus Generalization. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Mott, A., and D. Leopold 1991 Disorders in Taste and Smell. Medical Clinics of North America 75:1321–1353.Google Scholar
  54. Ober, C., L. R. Weitkamp, N. Cox, H. Dytch, D. Kostyu, and S. Elias 1997 HLA and Mate Choice in Humans. American Journal of Human Genetics 61:497–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pattalucci, A. M. L., and D. H. Hamer 1995 Development and Familiality of Sexual Orientation in Females. Behavior Genetics 25:407–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Parker, H., and S. Parker 1986 Father-Daughter Sexual Abuse: An Emerging Perspective. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 56:531–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Parker, S. 1976 The Precultural Basis of the Incest Taboo: Toward a Biosocial Theory. American Anthropologist 78:285–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Penn, D., and W. Potts 1998 How Do Major Histocompatibility Complex Genes Influence Odor and Mating Preferences? Advances in Immunology 69:411–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Porter, R. H. 1991 Mutual Mother-Infant Recognition in Humans. In Kin Recognition, P. G. Hepper, ed. Pp. 413–432. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Porter, R. H., J. M. Chernoch, and R. D. Balogh 1985 Odor Signatures and Kin Recognition. Physiology and Behavior 34:445–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Porter, R. H., R. D. Balogh, J. M. Chernoch, and C. Franchi 1986 Recognition of Kin through Characteristic Body Odors. Chemical Senses 11:389–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Potts, W. K., C. J. Manning, and E. K. Wakeland 1991 Mating Patterns in Seminatural Populations of Mice Influenced by MHC Genotype. Nature (London) 352:619–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 1992 MHC-based Mating Preferences in Mus Operate through Both Settlement Patterns and Female Controlled Extra-territorial Matings. In Chemical Signals in Vertebrates, Vol. 6, R. L. Doty and D. Müller-Schwarze, eds. Pp. 183–188. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  64. Pryor, D. W. 1996 Unspeakable Acts: Why Men Sexually Abuse Children. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Russell, D. E. H. 1984 The Prevalence and Seriousness of Incestuous Abuse: Stepfathers vs. Biological Fathers. Child Abuse and Neglect 8:15–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 1986 The Secret Trauma: Incest in the Lives of Girls and Women. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  67. Russell, M. J., T. Mendelson, and H. V. S. Peeke 1983 Mothers’ Identification of Their Infant’s Odors. Ethology and Sociobiology 4:29–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Schaal, B., and R. H. Porter 1991 “Microsmatic Humans” Revisited: The Generation and Perception of Chemical Signals. Advances in the Study of Behavior 20:135–199.Google Scholar
  69. Seemanova, E. 1971 A Study of Children of Incestuous Matings. Human Heredity 21:108–128.Google Scholar
  70. Scheidel, W. 1996 Brother-Sister and Parent-Child Marriage outside Royal Families in Ancient Egypt and Iran: A Challenge to the Sociobiological View of Incest Avoidance? Ethology and Sociobiology 17:319–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 1997 Brother-Sister Marriage in Roman Egypt. Journal of Biosocial Science 29:361–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Schellinck, H. M., E. Monahan, R. E. Brown, and S. C. Maxson 1993 A Comparison of the Contribution of the Major Histocompatibility Complex (MHC) and Y Chromosomes to the Discriminability of Individual Urine Odors of Mice by Long-Evans Rats. Behavior Genetics 23:257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Shaw, B. D. 1992 Explaining Incest: Brother-Sister Marriage in Græco-Roman Egypt. Man 27:267–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Shepher, J. 1983 Incest: A Biosocial View. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  75. Sherman, P. W., and W. G. Holmes 1985 Kin Recognition: Issues and Evidence. In Experimental Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, B. Hölldobler and M. Lindauer, eds. Pp. 437–460. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
  76. Shields, W. M. 1993 The Natural and Unnatural History of Inbreeding and Outbreeding. In The Natural History of Inbreeding and Outbreeding, N. W. Thornhill, ed. Pp. 143–169. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  77. Singer, A. G., G. K. Beauchamp, and K. Yamazaki 1997 Volatile Signals of the Major Histocompatibility Complex in Male Mouse Urine. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 94:2210–2214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Spiro, M. E. 1965 Children of the Kibbutz. New York: Schocken.Google Scholar
  79. Stoddart, D. M. 1991 The Scented Ape: The Biology and Culture of Human Odor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  80. Talmon, Y. 1964 Mate Selection in Collective Settlements. American Sociological Review 29: 491–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Thornhill, N. W. 1991 An Evolutionary Analysis of Rules Regulating Human Inbreeding and Marriage. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14:247–293.Google Scholar
  82. Trivers, R. L. 1972 Parental Investment and Sexual Selection. In Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man, B. Campbell, ed. Pp. 136–173. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  83. Tylor, E. B. 1888 On a Method of Investigation the Development of Institutions. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 18:245–269.Google Scholar
  84. Van Toller, C., M. Kirk-Smith, N. Wood, J. Lombard, and G. H. Dodd 1983 Skin Conductance and Subjective Assessments Associated with the Odour of 5-α-androstan-3-one. Biological Psychology 16:85–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Wallace, P. 1977 Individual Discrimination of Humans by Odor. Physiology and Behavior 19:577–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Wedekind, C., T. Seebeck, F. Bettens, and A. J. Paepke 1995 MHC-dependent Mate Preferences in Humans. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 260:345–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Wedekind, C., and S. Füri 1997 Body Odour Preferences in Men and Women: Do They Aim for Specific MHC Combinations or Simply Heterozygosity? Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 264:1471–1479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Wells, P. A. 1987 Kin Recognition in Humans. In Kin Recognition in Animals, D. Fletcher and C. Michener, eds.. Pp. 395–415. Chichester, U.K.: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  89. Westermarck, E. 1903 The History of Human Marriage. London: Macmillan. (Originally published in 1891)Google Scholar
  90. Williams, L. M., and D. Finkelhor 1995 Paternal Caregiving and Incest: Test of a Biosocial Model. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 65:101–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Wolf, A. 1995 Sexual Attraction and Childhood Association: A Chinese Brief for Edward Westermarck. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  92. Yamaguchi, M., K. Yamazaki, G. K. Beauchamp, J. Bard, L. Thomas, and E. A. Boyse 1981 Distinctive Urinary Odors Governed by the Major Histocompatibility Locus of the Mouse. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 78:5817–5820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Yamazaki, K., E. A. Boyse, V. Mike, H. T. Thaler, B. J. Mathieson, J. Abbott, J. Boyse, Z. A. Zayas, and L. Thomas 1976 Control of Mating Preferences in Mice by Genes of the Major Histocompatibility Complex. Journal of Experimental Medicine 144:1324–1335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 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 150:755–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Yamazaki, K., G. K. Beauchamp, I. K. Egorov, J. Bard, L. Thomas, and E. A. Boyse 1983 Sensory Distinction between H-2b and H-2bmi Mutant Mice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 89:2756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Yamazaki, K., G. K. Beauchamp, C. J. Wysocki, J. Bard, L. Thomas, and E. A. Boyse 1983 Recognition of H-2 Types in Relation to the Blocking of Pregnancy in Mice. Science 221:186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Yamazaki, K., G. K. Beauchamp, O. Matsuzaki, K. Kupniewski, J. Bard, L. Thomas, and E. A. Boyse 1986 Influence of a Genetic Difference Confined to Mutation of H-2K on the Incidence of Pregnancy Block in Mice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 83:740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Yamazaki, K., G. K. Beauchamp, D. Kupniewski, J. Bard, L. Thomas, and E. A. Boyse 1988 Familial Imprinting Determines H-2 Selective Mating Preferences. Science 240:1331–1332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Yamazaki, K., G. K. Beauchamp, J. Bard, and E. A. Boyse 1990 Single MHC Gene Mutations Alter Urine Odor Constitution in Mice. In Chemical Signals in Vertebrates, Vol. 5, D. W. MacDonald, D. Müller-Schwarze, and S. E. Natynczuk, eds. Pp. 255–259. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  100. Yamazaki, K., G. K. Beauchamp, F. W. Shen, J. Bard, and E. A. Boyse 1991 A Distinctive Change in Odortype Determined by H-2D/L Mutation. Immunogenetics 34:191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Walter de Gruyter, Inc 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologySouthern Illinois University at CarbondaleCarbondale

Personalised recommendations