1. style and fashion
2. clothing
3. shirts

j. Soc.Cosmet.
Chem.,37, 409-428 (November/December
1986)
Odorantsrelatedto humanbodyodor
E. P. KOSTER,J. s. JELLINEK,N. D. VERHELST,
J. MOJET, and M. R. I. LINSCHOTEN, Psychological
Laboratory,
Ryksuniversiteit,
Sorbonnelaan
16, 3594CA Utrecht,Netherlands
(E.P.K., N.D.V.,J.M.,
M.R.I.L.), and Dragoco,D-3450
Holzminden,WestGermany(J.S.J.).
Received
July 23, 1986.
Synopsis
Using a T-shirt test designdescribedby M. Schleidtand co-workerswith youngfemale(n = 29) and male
(n = 30) respondents,the relationsbetweenconcentration,odor intensity, odor pleasantness,
and sex
attributionwerestudiedfor femaleandmaleperspiration,androstenol
(I, a naturalingredientof perspiration), for two syntheticandrostenol
analogues
(II and III), and for cyclopentadecanolide,
a syntheticmusk.
It wasfoundthat the syntheticanalogueIII and, to a lesserextent, II exhibit patternssimilar to the natural
stimuli. Cyclopentadecanolide
wasperceivedmore asa feminineperfume.
INTRODUCTION
There is a notion that bodyodormay play a role in humaninteractions,not only in the
senseof repulsionby the smellof unwashed,sweatybodiesandclothingbut alsoin the
senseof sexualattraction and of individual recognition.This notion is not new (la).
However, the evidencesupportingit has been, until recentyears,largely anecdotal.
Practicessuch as the use of a perspiration-drenched
handkerchiefas an aphrodisiac,
reportedfor peasantpopulationsin severalEuropeancountries,have been basedon
traditionand belief(lb). During the pastdecade,a numberof studieshavebeenconducted in which human reactionsto human body odorshave been testedunder controlled conditions.Someof thesewere conductedwith bodyodorsin their natural form;
othersinvolvedtwo pure substances
which havebeenidentifiedin humanperspiration
and urine: 5o•-androst-16-ene-3o•-ol and 5o•-androst-16-ene-3-one (2).
Well beforetheserecentstudieswere undertaken,Paul Jellinek (3) postulatedthe central importanceto perfumeryof odorantswith odor qualitiesreminiscentof human
body odor. He proposedthe followingtheses:
1. The function of perfumesworn by womenis to enhancethe wearers'sexualattraction to the oppositesex.
2. Perfumesperformthis functionby virtue of their contentof "erogenous"
odorants.
3. Theseodorants,which are to be found primarily in perfumematerialsof animal
origin (musk, civet, ambergris,castoreum)but also in essentialoils and extracts
from plantsand amongsyntheticaromaticchemicals,owetheir erogenous
effectto
the similarity of their odorto someaspectof humanbodyodor.
4. Theseodorantsexert an erogenous
effectonly if usedat low levels.
4O9
410
JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF COSMETIC CHEMISTS
Although thesetheseshavenot beenuniversallyacceptedamongperfumers,they have
had considerable
influenceon perfumerypractice.A few studieshavebeenreportedto
test their validity.
Paukner(4a) foundthat addingincreasingconcentrations
of an "erogenous
complexof
civet, syntheticambergris,and syntheticmusk"to a lavender-type
perfumebroughtits
positionin a three factorsemanticdifferentialanalysisincreasinglycloseto the position
of "the idealerogenous
fragrance."Steiner(4b) presented,in very brief flashes(V•70to
•/250sec.), ambiguousslidesin which a pictureof a nude womanand a cityscapewere
superimposed,to a group of 25 malesaged 20-39 years.In half of the casesthe
subjectsviewingthe pictureswerealsoexposed
to a perfumewhichthey hadpreviously
selectedas being sexuallystimulating. In the presenceof the perfume, significantly
more respondents
reportedseeingthe womanthan in the absence
of perfume.
The purposeof the presentstudywasto studythe reactionsof untrainedsubjectsto the
odorsof severalaromaticchemicalsrelatedto human body odor, when thesechemicals
were presentedunder conditionswhere they might be taken for actual human body
odors.Using actualhumanbodyodorsand 5c•-androst-16-ene-3-ol
(I) as comparison
stimuli, we hopedto establishin what waysthe syntheticchemicalswere similar and
how they differedfrom thesenaturalstimuli. We adoptedthe designof M. Schleidt's
T-shirt experiment(5) but replacedpart of the shirtsthat had actuallybeenworn by
test subjectsby clean shirts that had been treatedwith androstenol(I) or with the
aromatic chemicalswe wanted to study, at variousconcentrations.We selectedthe
followingchemicals:
2-Methyl-1(2,6-exo-tricyclo
[5.2.1.02'6]dec-4(3)-ene-8-yl)-pent1-ene-3-ol(III), syntheticaromaticchemicalsfirst preparedin the laboratoriesof Dragoco, with odor descriptionssimilar to thoseof androstenol(6); and cyclopentadecanolide (IV), a macrocycliclactonefound in ambretteseedoil and closelyrelatedin structure to key ingredientsof natural musk and civet tincture, which has beenusedfor
many decadesin fine perfumeryas a musk-typeodorant(Figure 1).
We were particularlyinterestedin exploringthe followingquestions:
Is it at all possibleto fool respondents
into believingthat the odor of chemicaltreatedshirtsis human bodyodor?
Schleidt(5) had foundthat sexattributionwaspossibleand that her subjectscould
correctlyidentify the sexof the wearerof a given shirt to a statisticallysignificant
degree.Is sexattributionpossiblealsofor the aromaticchemicalsstudied?If so, to
what sexare they attributed?
Schleidtalsofoundthat strongbodyodorswerepredominantlyjudgedasunpleasant
and that they were predominantlyattributedto male wearers.Do the samepatterns
prevail with the aromaticchemicalsstudied?
METHOD
Test subjectswere 30 men and 29 women,aged 18 to 30, all studentvolunteersat the
University of Utrecht. For participatingin the test, they receiveda modestmonetary
reward (Fl. 35,--), or someacademiccredit. They were not prescreenedin any way.
There was only one among them who had trouble smelling many of the stimuli; his
ratingswere countedalongwith thoseof the other participants.
HUMAN
BODY
ODOR
411
II
5o•-And rost- 16-e ne-3o•-o I
(Androstenol)
2-Methyl-1(2,6-exo-tricyclo
[5.2.1.02,•]dec-4(3)-ene-8-yl)pent-l-ene-3-one
Oh
III
2-Methyl-1
(2,6-exo-tricyclo
[5.2.1.02,6]dec-4(3)-ene-8-yl)-
• -0"'/
'
0
IV
Cyclopentadecanolide
(CPD)
pent-1-ene-3-ol
Figure 1. Structuresof materialsusedin thesestudies.
The subjectswere providedwith yellow cotton T-shirts and were instructedto wear
theseon five consecutivenights. During this period they were instructednot to useany
deodorantand to washonly with a very faintly perfumedsoap* with which they were
provided.
They were alsogiven odorlesspolyethylenebagsin which to storethe shirts between
and after wearing them.
At the end of the 5-day period, the test subjectsparticipatedin two smellingsessions
which were conductedon two consecutivedays.
In thesesessions,they were presentedwith 30 T-shirts of the kind they had been
wearingand were askedto rate thesefor odorintensity(four replications)and for pleasantnessof odor (three replications)and to try and identify the sexof the wearerof each
shirt (threereplications).The respondents
wererandomlydividedinto two groups.The
sequence
of the tasksperformedby the two groupsis shownin Table I.
The orderof presentationof the shirtswasrandomized.This wasdone(1) within tasks,
* Penatensoap,the samebrandaswasusedin Schleidt'sexperiments.The experimentaldesignof this test
replicatedin all essentialaspectsthat usedby Schleidt.
412
JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF COSMETICCHEMISTS
Table
I
Sequence
of Task Presentation
Group I (n = 29)
Stimuli:
Group II (n = 30)
"Body" shirts1-5 (m and f)*
"Body"shirts11-15 (m and f)
All
All
"solution"
shirts
"solution"
shirts
Day 1
Tasks:
Intensity (1 X )
Sex Attribution (3 X )
Intensity (1 X )
Intensity (1 X )
Pleasantness(3 X
Intensity (1 X )
Stimuli:
"Body"shirts6-10 (m and f)
"Body"shirts16-20 (m and f)
All
All
"solution"
shirts
"solution"
shirts
Day 2
Tasks:
Intensity (1 X )
Sex Attribution (3 X )
Intensity (1 X )
Intensity (1 X )
Pleasantness(3 X)
Intensity (1 X )
* This meansshirts1 through5 wornby a manandshirts1 through5 wornby a woman.Similarfor the
other groups.
by assigningdifferentstartingpointsto differenttestsubjects,and(2) betweentasks,
by rearrangingthe shirts.The subjectsmarkedtheir responses
on a ratingscalewhich
wasan undividedline scalewith two markersplaced7 cm apart.At both ends,the scale
extended1 cm beyondthe markers(Figure2). Respondents
wereinstructed
to indicate
intensityand pleasantness
by placinga verticalline acrossthe centersegmentof the
scale:nearerto the left markerfor a weakor unpleasant
odor,nearerto the right marker
for a strongor pleasantodor. For extremelyweak or unpleasantodors,they coulduse
the line segmentextendingto the left beyondthe left marker;for extremelystrongor
pleasantodors,they couldusethe line segmentto the right of the right marker.The
markingswere subsequentlyconvertedinto numericalscoresfrom 0 to 8, using the
scoringscaleindicatedin Figure 2.
The respondents
weremade to believethat the shirt they weresmellingwerethe ones
that had beenworn by themselves
and by their fellowrespondents.
In actuality,only
ten of the shirtsin eacharrayhadbeenwornby respondents,
five by femalesandfiveby
males. These had been selected at random from the 29 female and 30 male shirts
available,avoiding, however,shirtsthat were judgedby the experimenters
to be extremely low in odor. In this paper,theseshirtswill be referredto as "body"shirts.
Different"body"shirtswereusedon day 1 andday 2, andby groupI andgroupII, to
avoid the effectsof odor lossdue to exposureand of odor contaminationdue to handling. The remaining20 shirts in the array were cleanshirtsthat were impregnated
with differentodorantsolutions
by placingthreedrops(ca. 0.06 ml) of solutionat each
of the underarmareasof the shirts.Thesewill subsequently
be referredto as "solution"
shirts. The odorants used and the concentrations of the solutions are summarized
Response
Scale [
ScoringScale
[
0. 1 . 2 . 3 ß4. 5 . 6. 7 . 8
Figure 2. Scaleand scoring
in
HUMAN
BODY
ODOR
413
Table II. The solventin all caseswas 96% ethanol. The solutionswere placedon the
shirts 30 minutes beforethe beginningof the sniffing sessions.
The "solution"shirts
usedon day 2 were cleanshirtsfreshlytreated with odorantsolutions,as on day 1.
The concentrations
of the odorantsolutionshad beenchosenso that they represented
a
rangeof intensitylevelscomparable
to the rangeshownby the shirtsactuallyworn. The
appropriateconcentrations
were determinedin a pre-testin which 16 male and 16
femalerespondents
participated;thesebelongedto the samestudentbodyasthe participantsof the main test, but theyweredifferentindividuals.In the pre-test,the subjects
were screenedfor anosmiato the odorantstested. They were provided with yellow
cotton T-shirts and askedto wear them on five consecutivenights, using the same
precautions
as described
for the main test. Reference
arraysof the four odorantswere
prepared.Eacharrayconsistedof eight cottonswabson which threedropsof alcoholic
odorantsolutionhad beenplaced, using eight different odorantconcentrations.Each
subjectwasinstructedto compare16 shirts(eight female,eight male)with eachof the
four referencearrays,and to indicate,for eachshirt and eachodorant,with which swab
it corresponded
most closelyin odor intensity. The concentration
representedby the
swabindicatedwasnotedby the experimenter.For eachodorant,the referenceconcentration ratings were groupedacrossall respondentsand all shirts. The 12.5% highest
and the 12.5% lowest concentrationswere eliminated. The remaining concentration
rangewasdivided logarithmicallyinto four equalsteps,giving the five concentration
levelswhichwerethen usedin the main part of the test.
Table
Concentration
Solution
Odorant
"Androstenol" (I)
III
II
Cyclopentadecanolide
"CPD" (IV)
* Starting from a 1.00% solution.
II
of the Odorant
Solutions
Concentration
No.
(g/l)
Dilution
Factor*
1
10.000
1:1
2
1.429
1:7
3
4
5
0.204
0.029
0.004
1:49
1:343
1:2401
1
5.000
1:2
2
1.250
1:8
1:32
3
0.313
4
0.078
1:128
5
0.020
1:512
1
1.250
1:8
2
3
4
0.313
0.078
0.020
1:32
1:128
1:512
5
0.005
1:2048
1
10.000
2
3
1.429
0.204
4
5
0.029
0.004
1:1
1:7
1:49
1:343
1:2401
4 14
JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF COSMETIC CHEMISTS
RESULTS
CONCENTRATION
AND
PERCEIVED
INTENSITY
In the courseof the experiment,eachrespondentrated the intensityof each"solution"
shirt four timesand of each"body"shirt twice. Sincean analysisof varianceshowedno
systematicdifferencebetweentthe four (or two, resp.)ratings,they werecombinedin
the calculationsfor Table III. The correlationbetweenconcentrationand intensitywas
examinedusingthe non-parametrictest for grouptrend of Jonckheereand Bower(7).
This test combines the rank correlation
coefficient T between concentration
and indi-
vidual ratings to an overallstandardnormal deviate. The z-scores(one-tail test) were
highly significantfor all test substances,
both for femaleand male respondents
(Table
IV).
As Table III indicates,the T-shirts worn by femaleswere, on the average,rated lower
for odor intensitythan were thoseworn by males.
Table
Ilia
Intensity Ratingsof "Solution"Shirts
IntensityI
Women
Substance
Men
(n = 29)
W
(n = 30)
+
M
(n = 59)
Sol. 2
Mean 3
+ SD
Mean
+ SD
Mean
+ SD
Av.
1
2
3
4
5
1-5
4.00
3.32
2.78
2.21
2.44
2.98
1.57
1.40
1.29
0.82
1.06
.93
3.66
3.37
2.89
2.52
2.71
3.05
1.52
1.59
1.25
0.84
1.02
1.06
3.83
3.35
2.84
2.37
2.58
3.02
1.53
1.48
1.26
.83
1.04
.99
Av.
1
2
3
4
5
1-5
3.27
2.82
2.83
2.41
2.41
2.77
1.44
1.11
1.11
1.05
0.89
.85
3.41
3.00
2.98
2.38
2.71
2.92
1.45
1.16
1.22
0.88
1.20
.98
3.34
2.91
2.91
2.40
2.56
2.84
1.43
1.13
1.16
.96
1.06
.91
1
2
Av.
1.83
1.54
1.60
1.29
1.37
1.30
5.03
4.17
3
4
5
1-5
4.92
4.31
3.70
3.28
2.93
3.85
3.43
3.18
3.18
3.84
1.91
1.58
1.65
1.24
1.18
1.36
4.98
4.24
3.57
3.23
3.06
3.84
1.85
1.62
1.61
1.25
1.26
1.31
Av.
1
2
3
4
5
1-5
3.13
2.66
2.28
2.64
2.28
2.62
1.15
0.93
0.93
0.87
1.06
.76
3.31
3.02
2.64
2.92
2.57
2.92
1.24
1.17
0.98
1.17
1.05
.95
3.22
2.84
2.46
2.79
2.43
2.77
1.18
1.07
1.00
1.02
1.05
.87
Androstenol
III
II
CPD
0 = extremelyweak;8 = extremelystrong.
For concentrations,seeTable II.
Fourreplicadons
fromeachrespondent
enterinto the calculation
of thesemeans.
HUMAN
BODY
Table
ODOR
415
IIIb
Intensity Ratings of "Body" Shirts
Women
Women's shirts
Mean 3
Men
+ SD
Mean
W+M
+ SD
Mean
+ SD
1
2.00
.96
2.40
.03
2.21
.90
2
2.79
1.31
3.00
1.31
2.90
1.29
3
4
5
5.57
2.00
3.00
1.45
.68
1.47
5.87
2.47
3.47
1.25
1.36
1.64
5.72
2.24
3.24
1.33
1.09
1.55
6
7
8
9
10
2.93
3.60
4.07
2.87
2.60
1.22
1.45
1.62
1.73
1.68
2.93
2.67
3.33
2.40
2.07
1.39
1.29
1.76
1.84
1.03
2.93
3.13
3.70
3.63
2.33
1.28
1.43
1.71
1.77
1.40
11
12
13
14
15
3.64
3.43
3.36
3.14
3.00
1.22
1.09
1.08
.66
1.24
3.40
3.60
3.20
3.67
3.53
1.59
1.06
1.26
.98
.83
3.52
3.52
3.28
3.41
1.40
1.06
1.16
.87
3.28
1.07
16
17
18
3.07
3.87
3.47
1.67
1.60
1.55
3.33
3.73
3.00
1.68
1.71
1.81
3.20
3.80
3.23
3.17
2.63
1.65
1.63
1.68
1.46
1.61
Day 1
Day 2
hv.
19
3.07
1.44
3.27
1.53
20
2.53
1.36
2.73
1.07
1-20
2.96
2.96
2.96
3 Two replications
fromeachrespondent
enterinto the calculation
of thesemeans.
CONCENTRATION
AND
PLEASANTNESS
The meanpleasantness
ratingsfor the "solution"shirtsand the "body" shirtsare listed
in Table V. ThesevaluesareBasedon threereplicatedpleasantness
judgementsfor each
shirt by eachrespondent;groupsI (pleasantness
ratingson day 1) and II (pleasantness
ratingson day 2; compareTable I) were combinedfor the "solution"shirtsonly. The
scaleused(seeFigure 2) ran from 0 = extremelyunpleasantto 8 = extremelypleasant.
The correlationBetweenpleasantness
and concentrationwas calculatedfor eachof the
test substances,
using the two-tailed non-parametricgroup trend test (7) (Table VI).
The most striking finding is the very high negativecorrelationBetweenconcentration
and pleasantness
for androstenoland alsofor substances
II and III. Cyclopentadecanolide showsa totally different pattern in this respect:pleasantness
doesnot correlate
significantlywith concentration,and in this casethe correlationcoefficientsare positive.
The meanpleasantness
rating of the T-shirtsworn by womenwasnearthe midpoint of
the scale.The women'sshirtswere, on the average,rated somewhatmore pleasantthan
were the shitsworn by men. The differencein rating Betweenthe mostpleasantand the
leastpleasantshirt wasmuchhigherfor the shirtsworn by men than for the shirtsworn
by women(Table XI).
416
JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF COSMETIC CHEMISTS
Table IIIb
(cont'd)
IntensityRatingsof "Body"Shirts
Wonhen
Men's shirts
Men
W
q- M
Mean
-+ SD
Mean
+ SD
Mean
-+ SD
1
2
3
4
5
3.29
3.86
4.93
5.07
3.50
t.38
1.29
1.54
1.44
1.70
3.27
3.60
4.87
5.00
4.40
1.39
1.50
1.64
1.46
1.88
3.28
3.72
4.90
5.03
3.97
1.36
1.39
1.57
1.43
1.86
6
7
8
9
10
4.20
4.93
5.20
3.07
3.33
1.86
1.58
1.78
1.75
1.88
3.27
3.53
4.47
3.13
2.93
1.79
1.88
1.96
1.46
1.58
3.73
4.23
4.83
3.10
3.13
1.86
1.85
1.88
1.58
1.72
11
12
13
4.14
3.43
2.86
1.03
t.45
.77
3.80
3.13
3.13
1.47
.92
.92
3.97
3.28
1.27
1.19
3.00
.85
14
15
5.64
3.50
1.74
1.16
5.07
3.80
1.16
1.01
5.34
3.66
1.47
1.08
16
17
18
2.13
4.46
2.53
1.55
1.64
1.41
2.00
3.80
2.47
1.00
1.61
.99
2.07
1.28
4.13
1.63
2.50
1.20
19
2.53
1.30
2.67
1.59
20
3.40
1.76
3.47
1.77
2.60
3.43
1.43
1.74
1-20
3.55
Day 1
I
Day 2
II
Av.
3.47
3.39
Androstenoland III, in their highestdilutions, obtainedpleasantness
ratingscomparable to the shirts actually worn. II, at all concentrationlevelswas rated lower in
pleasantness
than the othertestsubstances;
at the highestconcentration
levelsits mean
ratingswere nearthe low end of the pleasantness
scale.Cyclopentadecanolide,
at all
levels, obtainedratingsnear the midpoint of the scaleand comparableto the female
T-shirts.
The differencesbetweenthe pleasantness
ratingsassignedby male and femalesubjects
were, in general,slight. The malesubjectstendedto give morefavorableratingsto the
shirts actuallyworn, both by womenand by men, and somewhatlessunfavorable
ratings to the higher concentrations
of II.
Table
IV
Significanceof the CorrelationBetweenConcentrationand PerceivedIntensity
Women
Men
W
q- M
Substance
z
p
z
p
z
p
Androstenol
III
6.05
2.51
.0001
.006
4.49
3.21
.0001
.0007
7.40
4.05
.0001
.000 l
II
CPD
7.96
3.39
.0001
.0004
7.26
3.56
.0001
.0002
10.76
4.91
.0001
.0001
HUMAN
BODY
Table
ODOR
417
V
Pleasantness
Ratings for "Solution"Shirts
Women
Men
(n = 29)
Substance
Sol. 2
Androstenol
Av.
W
(n = 30)
q- M
(n = 59)
Mean •
+ SD
Mean
+ SD
Mean
+ SD
1
2
3
4
5
1-5
2.99
3.03
3.63
4.03
3.93
3.53
1.37
1.49
1.17
1.06
1.09
.93
2.98
3.10
3.41
3.41
3.60
3.30
1.27
1.04
1.01
0.92
0.84
.82
2.98
3.07
3.52
3.72
3.77
3.41
1.31
1.27
1.08
1.02
.98
.88
1
2
3
4
2.85
2.93
3.71
3.78
1.39
1.32
1.00
1.14
2.79
2.79
3.60
3.37
1.21
1.08
0.98
1.03
2.82
2.86
3.66
3.58
1.29
1.20
1.00
1.10
III
5
3.72
1.11
3.73
1.18
3.73
1.13
Av.
1-5
3.40
.83
3.25
.82
3.32
.82
Av.
1
2
3
4
5
1-5
1.62
2.05
2.60
3.07
3.22
2.51
1.53
1.41
1.37
1.18
1.06
1.11
2.10
2.30
2.73
3.11
3.01
2.65
1.58
1.49
1.58
1.46
1.00
1.24
1.86
2.18
2.67
3.09
3.11
2.58
1.56
1.44
1.47
1.32
1.02
1.17
1
2
4.01
4.05
1.43
1.20
3.88
3.71
1.34
l. 10
3.94
3.88
1.37
1.15
3
3.87
1.11
3.72
0.93
3.79
1.00
4
5
1-5
3.55
3.87
3.86
0.96
1.07
.95
3.43
3.69
3.68
1.31
1.04
1.50
3.49
3.78
3.77
1.13
1.06
.97
II
CPD
Av.
0 = extremely
unpleasant,
8 = extremely
pleasant.
For concentrations,seeTable II.
PERCEIVED
INTENSITY
AND
PLEASANTNESS
RATING
The correlationsbetweenperceivedintensityand pleasantness
rating were calculatedfor
each concentrationlevel of each of the four test substances,and using the two-tailed
Pearsoncorrelationtest on the paired mean pleasantness
and intensity ratings of each
individual respondent.The findings are presentedin Table VII. They show clearly
differentpatternsfor the four test substances,
and alsofor male and femalerespondents.
With substance
II, correlations
are high and negative,especiallyat high concentration
levels, both for male and female respondents.With androstenoland substanceIII,
correlationswere also negativeat all concentrations,but significantonly for female
respondentsand only at the two highestconcentrationlevels(and, for substanceIII, at
the lowest concentrationlevel). With cyclopentadecanolide
there seemsto be no covariation betweenperceivedintensityand pleasantness.
With the shirtsactuallyworn, the
correlation,althoughnegativein most cases,is significantonly in isolatedinstances.
SEX ATTRIBUTION
The findingsregardingsexattributionare summarizedin TablesVIII and IX. Table
418
JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF COSMETIC CHEMISTS
Table V (cont'd)
Pleasantness
Ratings for "Body" Shirts
Women
Men's shirts
11
12
W
d- M
1.77 --- 1.21
3.69
1.03
3.96
1.11
1.69
1.02
4.06
1.15
3.03
.98
2.40 --- 1.03
3.71
1.36
2.10 +
3.70
1.15
1.19
4.31
2.49
4.41
3.41
1.38
1.16
1.49
1.01
4.14
2.10
4.24
3.23
1.24
1.15
1.32
1.00
4.08
2.68
3.84
1.53
1.56
1.62
3.91
3.16
4.05
.76
1.20
.93
3.40
2.92
3.95
1.19
1.39
1.30
9
10
6-10
4.14
3.35
3.49
1.46
1.38
1.20
4.24
3.77
3.82
.97
1.54
.76
4.19
3.56
3.66
1.22
1.45
1.00
11
12
3.71
4.44
1.41
.78
4.09
4.75
1.17
1.67
3.91
4.60
1.28
1.30
13
3.46
1.•13
4.16
1.30
3.82
1.25
Av.
14
15
11-15
4.40
4.36
4.08
1.10
.79
.74
4.03
4.53
4.31
1.00
1.21
1.05
4.21
4.45
4.20
1.04
1.02
.91
Av.
6
7
8
9
10
6-10
3.59
3.21
3.23
3.38
3.90
3.46
1.19
1.91
1.96
1.55
1.58
1.49
3.69
3.53
3.41
3.63
4.22
3.69
1.28
1.27
1.03
.89
1.24
.90
3.64
3.37
3.32
3.51
4.06
3.57
1.22
1.60
1.54
1.25
1.41
1.21
13
14
15
11-15
Av.
6
7
8
•4xV.
Women's
Men
shirts
Shirts 1-5 and 16-20, both men'sand women's,had not beenratedfor pleasantness.
VIII indicatesthe mean intensity rating for eachcell alongwith its standarddeviation;
Table IX presentsthe mean pleasantness
ratingswith their standarddeviations.Onesamplechi squaretestsfor eachsubstance,conductedseparatelyfor femaleand male
respondents,lead to the following conclusions:
Androsreno/is
predominantly
judgedto be femaleat all concentration
levels,both by
men and by women. When calculatedfor combinedconcentration
levels,the female
attribution was highly significant(chi squaretest).
Table
VI
Significance
of the CorrelationBetweenConcentration
and Pleasantness
Women
Men
(n = 29)
Substance
Androstenol
III
II
CPD
W
(n = 30)
d- M
(n = 59)
z
p
z
p
z
p
-4.02
- 2.87
-7.26
1.17
.0001
.004
.0001
.224
- 3.40
- 3.65
-4.93
1.65
.0006
.0003
.0001
.099
- 5.25
-4.62
-8.60
2.00
.0001
.0001
.0001
.046
HUMAN
BODY ODOR
Table
419
VII
CorrelationBetweenPerceivedIntensity and Pleasantness
Rating
Substance
Androstenol
Sol.
1
2
3
4
5
1-5
III
1-5
Sex
p
p
f
- 0.48
0.008
m
tot
-0.29
- 0.38
0.13
0.003
f
-0.72
0.001
m
tot
-0.36
-0.54
0.052
0.001
f
-0.036
0.85
m
-0.25
0.19
tot - 0.09
0.45
f
-0.18
0.33
m
-0.008
0.96
tot
-0.15
0.25
f
-0.24
0.20
m
-0.05
0.77
tot
- 0.17
0.17
f
-0.37
0.046
m
-0.20
0.29
tot
- 0.28
0.029
f
-0.43
0.021
m
-0.26
0.17
tot
- 0.34
0. 008
f
-0.49
0.007
m
-0.29
0.12
tot
- 0.39
0.002
f
-0.20
0.30
m
-0.03
0.88
tot
- 0.11
0.40
f
-0.15
0.44
m
-0.09
0.72
tot
- 0.11
0.41
f
-0.43
0.02
m
-0.015
0.94
tot
- 0.17
0.17
f
-0.27
0.15
m
tot
-0.03
- 0.116
0.88
f
-O.84
0.001
m
-0.57
0.001
tot
- 0.68
0.001
f
-0.62
0.001
m
-0.74
0.001
tot
- 0.68
0.001
f
-0.66
0.001
m
-0.55
0.002
tot
- 0.60
0.001
O.379
420
JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF COSMETICCHEMISTS
Table VII (cont'd)
Substance
Sol.
4
5
1-5
1
CPD
Sex
p
p
f
-O.43
0.018
m
tot
-0.38
- 0.40
0.036
f
-0.26
0.17
m
-0.42
0.02
tot
- 0.34
0.008
f
m
tot
-0.75
-0.62
- 0.67
0.001
f
m
tot
2
3
4
5
1-5
Women's
shirts
11
12
0.10
15
6
0.001
0.60
0.94
-0.02
0.03
0.78
-0.43
0.02
m
-0.26
0.17
tot
- 0.35
0.007
f
0.069
0.72
m
-0.06
0.75
tot
- 0.006
O.95
f
-0.46
0.01
m
-0.32
tot
- 0.37
0.086
0.004
f
0.10
0.60
m
-0.08
tot
- 0.001
0.67
0.99
f
-0.21
0.27
m
-0.22
0.23
tot
- 0.229
0.08
f
-.24
.41
m
.45
.10
tot
.11
.57
.18
.55
f
-- .02
.93
.04
.82
f
- .32
.27
m
tot
-.31
- .32
.26
f
.27
.35
m
.38
.17
tot
.21
.27
tot
14
0.001
f
m
13
0.002
f
-.33
.09
.25
m
.53
.04 *
tot
.15
.44
f
- .49
.06
m
-.13
.65
tot
-.
.13
28
HUMAN
BODY
ODOR
421
Table VII (cont'd)
Substance
Sol.
7
8
Sex
p
f
- .26
.35
m
- .35
.20
tot
-.31
.10
f
- .40
.14
.22
.44
m
9
10
Men's
shirts
11
12
p
tot
-.
17
.37
f
- .47
.08
m
- .01
.98
tot
-.29
.12
f
m
tot
- .72
.23
- .43
.003*
.41
.02*
f
-.10
.72
m
tot
-.13
-.14
.65
.46
f
- .08
.78
m
tot
-.33
-. 18
.23
.34
f
m
-.38
.03
.17
.93
tot
-.
.60
f
- .44
.1.1
m
- .32
.25
tot
-.41
.03*
f
- .34
.23
.18
.52
tot
-. 04
.84
f
- .42
.12
.06
.84
tot
- .23
.22
f
m
tot
-.16
- .05
.58
.87
-.
17
.37
f
m
-.37
.20
.17
.47
tot
-.
17
.37
9
f
m
-.43
.42
.11
.12
tot
-.13
.51
10
f
rn
tot
-.44
- .46
- .46
.10
.08
.01'
13
14
15
m
6
m
7
8
10
Substance
III is judgedto be femaleonlyat lowerconcentration
levels(3, 4, and5) both
by men and by women.
Substance
II is judgedto bemaleat highconcentration
levels(1 and2--but theassign-
422
JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF COSMETIC CHEMISTS
Table
Villa
Concentration,PerceivedIntensity, and SexAttribution--"Solution" Shirts
Women (n = 29)
Men (n = 30)
Substance
Sol. 2
Mean•
_+SD
n4
Mean
+ SD
n
Mean
___
SD
n
Mean
_+SD
Androstenol
1
2
3
4
5
3.20
2.95
2.49
2.10
2.34
1.33
0.89
1.06
0.94
1.01
16
20
19
17
20
4.98
4.14
3.33
2.35
2.69
1.29
1.97
1.55
0.61
1.21
13
9
10
12
9
3.49
3.15
2.83
2.57
2.61
1.57
1.42
1.18
0.85
1.02
19
17
18
18
18
3.96
3.65
2.98
2.44
2.85
1.46
1.80
1.41
0.85
1.05
1
2
3
4
5
2.73
2.52
2.86
2.32
2.36
1.24
1.54
1.04
0.95
0.82
13
12
21
21
21
3.70
3.03
2.75
2.63
2.53
1.48
0.62
1.38
1.32
1.10
16
17
8
8
8
3.04
2.78
2.97
2.25
2.52
1.44
0.99
1.15
0.70
1.23
12
15
22
17
21
3.65
3.22
3.00
2.56
3.14
1.45
1.31
1.49
1.08
1.05
18
1
2
3
4
5
4.39
2.88
2.87
3.10
2.81
1.72
1.45
1.13
1.34
1.42
7
6
11
17
18
5.09
4.69
4.19
3.52
3.14
1.87
1.36
1.67
1.20
1.25
22
23
18
12
11
4.30
3.52
2.99
2.78
3.00
1.76
1.10
1.50
1.06
1.15
11
13
17
19
21
5.46
4.66
4.00
3.86
3.58
1.90
1.74
1.73
1.29
1.21
19
17
1
2
3
4
5
3.06
2.78
2.28
2.58
2.25
1.07
0.90
0.94
0.78
1.13
24
24
24
20
20
3.45
2.10
2.30
2.78
2.73
1.56
0.98
0.99
1.09
0.92
5
5
5
9
9
3.44
2.99
2.57
2.83
2.42
1.09
1.16
0.96
1.21
1.03
23
20
22
19
19
2.89
3.08
2.84
3.07
2.82
1.67
1.26
1.08
1.14
1.07
III
II
CPD
11
12
12
12
15
8
13
9
13
11
9
7
10
8
11
11
•,2 CompareTableIII.
3 •? = shirts attributed to female wearer.
d' = shirts attributed to male wearer.
4 n = numberof judgesin thegroupgivingthesexattributionindicated.
ment is significantonly with femalerespondents)
and femaleat low concentrations
(3,
4, and 5--but this assignment
is significantonlywith malerespondents).
Cyc/opentadecano/ide
is judgedto be femaleat all concentrations,
both by men and by
women.
Shirtswornbywome,are judgedto be female,both by men and by women.
Shirtswornbymenarejudgedto be malebothby menand by women(TableVillA)
SEX ATTRIBUTION,
INTENSITY,
AND PLEASANTNESS
The perceivedintensityof anygiven shirt is higherand the pleasantness
ratingis lower
in those cases where the shirt is attributed
to a male wearer than in those where it is
attributedto a femalewearer.This is true bothforfemaleandfor malerespondents
and
it holds for the four substances tested at all concentrations. The absolute differences are
not great, but with very few exceptionsthey consistentlypoint in the samedirection
(Table X). For the T-shirtsactuallyworn, the test designenablesus only to test the
correlationbetweensexattributionand intensity.Here the pattern(higherperceived
HUMAN
BODY ODOR
Table
423
VIilb
Concentration,
PerceivedIntensity,and SexAttribution--"Body" Shirts
Women
Women's shirts
Mean
+ SD
n
Mean
Men
+ SD
n
Mean
+ SD
n
Mean
+ SD
n
Shirt
Men's
1
2.00
1.00
11
2.00
1.00
3
2.33
.65
12
2.67
1.53
3
2
3
4
5
2.60
5.33
2.11
3.00
1.34
2.08
.78
1.63
5
3
9
10
2.89
5.64
1.80
3.00
1.36
1.36
.45
1.16
9
11
5
4
2.88
5.50
1.80
3.82
.64
1.4l
.84
1.66
8
8
5
11
3.14
6.29
2.80
2.50
1.86
.95
1.48
1.29
7
7
10
4
16
17
3.00
3.50
13
10
2
5
9
7
6
8
2.00
1.89
1.60
9
4
6
2.30
1.29
1.20
8
10
9
3.50
4.63
2.86
3.60
3.50
2.26
1.77
6
11
9
3.22
2.71
3.13
3.10
2.22
1.30
.95
3.67
3.00
2.11
3.50
4.60
3.33
3.25
3.17
2.12
1.34
18
19
20
1.68
1.65
.52
1.34
1.05
1.22
2.07
2.51
7
5
6
3.00
3.78
4.00
3.50
5.00
1.41
1.30
0
.71
2.83
5
9
2
2
2
3.44
4.00
5.08
5.39
3.25
1.42
1.41
1.62
1.37
1.49
9
5
12
12
12
3.13
3.60
2.00
4.60
4.50
1.36
1.14
0
1.14
1.73
8
5
1
5
4
3.43
3.60
5.07
5.20
4.36
1.51
1.71
1.49
1.62
2.01
7
10
14
10
11
16
1.20
1.10
5
2.60
1.58
10
2.25
1.17
8
1.71
.76
7
17
18
3.40
1.00
1.14
1.00
5
3
5.00
2.92
1.63
1.24
10
12
3.40
2.57
1.67
.98
5
7
4.00
2.38
1.63
1.06
10
8
19
2.25
1.28
8
2.86
1.35
9
2.43
1.62
7
2.88
1.64
8
20
3.00
.02
4
3.55
2.02
11
3.71
1.80
7
3.25
1.83
8
shirts
Shirt
1
2
3
4
5
Shirts6 15, both men'sand women's,had not beenratedfor sexattribution.
intensitygoeswith male attribution)holdsfor femalebut not significantlyfor male
respondents.
DISCUSSION
CONCENTRATION
AND
PERCEIVED
INTENSITY
The decrease
of perceivedintensitywith increasing
dilution is amazinglyslight. With
substance
II, whereit is mostpronounced,it amountsto 1.92 scalepointson a 9-point
scalefor a dilution factor of 256. With androstenoland cyclopentadecanolide,
a dilution factorof 2401 leadsto a decrease
in perceivedintensityof only 1.25 and 0.79 scale
pointsrespectively
(TableIII). In the faceof suchslight responses
to majordilution
steps,one may be led to wonderwhetherthe respondents
really smell somethingor
whethermanyof them werejust guessing--a doubtwhich is particularlypertinentin
view of publishedreportsaboutthe high incidenceof anosmiato androstenol
(8), in
view, moreover,of the observation,commonlyknownto perfumers,that many people
areveryinsensitive
to macrocyclic
musks,andin viewof themassive
taskdemanded
of
424
JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF COSMETIC CHEMISTS
Table
IX
Pleasantness
Rating and SexAttribution--"Solution" Shirts
Women (n = 29)
•3
Men (n = 30)
C•3
•
C•
Substance
Sol. 2
Mean •
mSD
n
Mean
_+SD
n
Mean
mSD
n
Mean
_+SD
Androstenol
1
2
3
4
5
3.44
3.42
3.84
3.96
3.93
1.19
1.27
0.84
1.03
1.02
16
20
19
17
20
2.44
2.19
3.23
4.14
3.93
1.42
1.65
1.61
1.13
1.30
13
9
10
12
9
3.05
3.43
3.54
3.37
3.56
1.40
0.62
1.03
0.89
0.94
19
17
18
18
18
2.85
2.67
3.22
3.47
3.67
1,01
1.33
0.98
1.00
0.71
1
2
3.10
3.11
1.48
1.36
13
12
2,65
2.80
1.33
1.31
16
17
2.81
2.84
1.35
0.89
12
15
2.78
2.73
1.15
1.28
3
3.37
0.90
21
3.67
1.30
8
3.52
1.08
22
3.83
0.64
8
4
5
3.87
3.78
1.21
1.14
21
21
3.54
3.58
0.96
1.10
8
8
3.63
3.79
1.20
1.20
17
21
3.03
3.59
0.67
1.19
13
1
2
3
4
2.29
3.22
3.30
3.28
1.56
1,44
1.41
1.28
7 q.41
6 1.74
11 2.17
17 2.78
1.49
1.26
1.18
1.02
22
23
18
12
2.97
2.87
3.20
3.72
1.75
1.43
1.69
1.18
11
13
17
19
1.60
1.86
2.13
2.06
1.26
1.42
1.25
1.33
19
5
3.22
1.13
18
3.21
0.97
11
3.11
1.07
21
2.78
0.82
III
II
CPD
1
12
12
12
18
15
9
17
13
11
9
1
3.82
1.49
24
4.93
0,49
5
4.10
1.30
23
3.14
1.27
7
2
4.04
1.25
24
4.07
1.12
5
3.70
1.09
20
3.73
1.20
10
3
4
5
3.96
3.58
3.95
1.19
0.95
1.14
24
20
20
3.47
3.48
3.70
0.51
1.03
0.95
5
9
9
3.88
3.53
3.54
0.86
1.34
1.13
22
19
19
3.29
3.27
3.94
1.03
1.31
0.84
11
8
11
•,2 CompareTable III.
3 Attributed to female; wearer;attributed to male wearer.
No valueswereobtainedfor the "body"shirtsdueto the designof the experiment(seeTableI).
the test subjects:smelling30 T-shirts in onesession,five timesin a row, may well have
led to fatigue. However,the highly significantgrouptrend z-scores
(TableIV) for all
four of the test substances,
both amongmale and femalejudges,give us firm assurance
that the respondents
asa groupwerenotguessingbut reportingrealobservations.*
The
consideration
that the respondents
weregivenno cluesthat they weresmellingthe same
materialsin differentdilutionsgivesaddedweight to thesehigh z-scores.
The methodology
of this studydoesnot warrantthe assignment
of numericalvaluesto
the slopeof the psychophysical
function(that is, the slopeof the plot of log I versuslog
C) nor to the detectionthreshold.However,it may be sat•lysaidthat the studyindicatesthat for all of the materialsstudied,both the slopeand the detectionthresholdare
very low. In the caseof the highestdilutionsof androstenol,II and cyclopentadecanolide, approx.10-9 mole of odorantwaspresentat eacharm pit; for III, the lowest
testedlevelcorresponded
to about5 x 10-9 mole. Taking into accountthe low volatility of thesesubstances,
the concentration
in the air must havebeenvery low indeed.
We havepreviouslyargued(9) that materialswith a low slopeof the psychophysical
* We haveno explanationfor the curiousfinding that the meanintensityrating for the highestdilution of
both androstenol
and III (solution5) is higherthan for solution4. The differences
are non-significant.
HUMAN
BODY
Table
ODOR
425
X
SexAttribution, Intensity, and Pleasantness
x2--One sampletestfor intensityandsexattribution
"Solution"
shirts
Women
Men
X2 = 12.8
X2 = 12.8
df = 1
df = 1
p < .00l
p < .001
"Body"
shirts
Women
Men
X2 = 5.0
X2 = 1.8
df = 1
df = 1
p < .05
p < .20
x2--One sampletestfor pleasantness
andsexattribution*
"Solution"
shirts
Women
Men
X2 = 5.0
X2 = 5.0
df = 1
df = 1
p < .05
p < .05
* An analysisfor the "body" shirtsis not possibleheredue to the designof the experiment(seeTable I).
function and a low thresholdare particularlyvaluableto the perfumer, becausethey
tend to be persistentand diffusive.
The low slopeof the psychophysical
functionof androstenol,coupledwith its low
threshold,may well have biological,evolutionarysignificance.As a metaboliteof a
male hormone, as a substancethat occursnaturally in excretionsof man and other
mammals,it may well have, or have had, signal functionfor man (1,2). For such
substances,
it is obviouslyvery usefulthat they be perceptibleat greatdilutionsin the
air (i.e., at great distances)
without becomingoverpoweringwhensmelledat far higher
concentrations
(i.e., from nearby).
The finding that both male and femalerespondents
ratedthe men'sshirts,on average,
higher in odor level than the women'sshirts, without knowing what they were
smelling, confirmsSchleidt'sfindings(5).
CONCENTRATION
AND
PLEASANTNESS
The negativecorrelationbetweenconcentrationand pleasantness
for androstenone,II,
and III is in line with perfumers'common experienceregarding "animal" odorants
(civet, naturalmusk, indol, and others):that they must be usedsparinglyand lead to
rejectionif usedat too high levels(comparealsoreferences
2 and 4). The synthetic
musk, cyclopentadecanolide,
doesnot exhibit this behaviorat all.
In a qualitativesenseaswell, cyclopentadecanolide
wasfoundto be considerably
further
removedfrom actualhuman body odor than are the other odorantstested;numerous
respondents
remarkedthat the shirtswith cyclopentadecanolide
smelled"perfumed."
An interestingincidentalfindingwasthe wide variabilityin pleasantness
ratingsfor the
T-shirtsthat hadactuallybeenworn. Both for shirtswornby womenandthoseworn by
men, and both with femaleand with male respondents,
the differencebetweenthe shirt
judgedmostpleasantandthe onejudgedleastpleasant
wassignificant(TableXI)--but
more highly for men'sthan for women'sshirts.
PERCEIVED
INTENSITY
AND
PLEASANTNESS
The finding that the correlations
betweenperceivedintensityand pleasantness
(Table
426
JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF COSMETIC CHEMISTS
Table
XI
Comparisonof Mean Pleasantness
Rating for Most Pleasantand LeastPleasantT-shirt
(Wilcoxon matchedpairssignedrankstest)
Most PleasantRating
FemaleRespondents
Least PleasantRating
Mean
q-SD
4.44
4.06
.78
1.15
Shirt 13
14
Mean
q-SD
z
p (2-tailed)
3.46
1.69
1.13
1.02
2.48
3.30
.013
.001
I Women's shirts
Men's shirts
Shirt 12
15
II Women's shirts
10
3.90
1.58
7
3.21
1.91
1.57
.117
Men's shirts
9
4.14
1.46
7
2.68
1.56
2.94
.003
Male Respondents
I Women's
shirts
12
(.75
1.67
14
4.03
1.00
2.07
.038
Men's shirts
15
4.4l
1.49
11
2.40
1.03
3.35
.001
II Women's shirts
Men's shirts
10
9
4.22
4.24
1.24
.97
7
7
3.53
3.16
1.27
1.20
2.51
2.54
.012
.011
VII) are, on the whole, lessconsistentand lower than betweenconcentration
and pleasantness(Table VI) may seemsurprisingat first sight. It must be born in mind, however, that Table VII recordsthe relationshipbetweenintensityperceptionand pleasantnessperceptionat a givenconcentration
/eve/.'it takes into accountonly the intensity
differencesdue to subjectivefactors,not thosedue to the objectivefactor, concentration. This is true also for the "overall" correlations for solutions 1-5.
The differentcorrelationpatternsare curious:for substance
II one can say, at all concentrationlevelsstudied,that "the more stronglyoneperceivesit, the moreunpleasant
one finds it." It is simply an odor that nearly everybodyconsidersinherently unpleasant.With androstenoland substance
III, there appearsto be, for many people,a
most pleasantlevel that is low but higher than 0. With male respondents,the correla-
tionsbetweenintensityand pleasantness
are not significantat any concentration
level;
with female respondents,they are significantand negativeonly at the two highest
concentrationlevels. (We have no reasonableexplanationfor the significantnegative
correlation,with women,at the lowestconcentration
levelof III.) The finding (TableV)
that for thesetwo substances
the relationshipbetweenconcentration
and pleasantness
showsa far clearertrend at higher concentrations
(solutions1-3) than at lowerconcentrations (solutions3-5) is in line with this interpretation.
With cyclopentadecanolide
thereis no consistent
patternlinking pleasantness
ratingsto
perceivedintensity at a given concentration(Table VII), nor pleasantness
to concentration (Table V). Here, the interpretation"somelike it strong"appearsappropriate.It
must be remembered,for this and all other findings of this test, that the odorswere
smelledon T-shirts in a contextin which they werejudged"asbodyodors."Different
relationshipsbetweenintensityandpleasantness
might well haveresultedhad they been
smelledon smellingblottersor in perfumebottlesasaromaticchemicals
or asperfumes.
With the T-shirts actually worn, a pattern is apparentthat is alsopresentwith androstenol and III: the negativecorrelationbetweenperceivedintensityand pleasantness,
that is, the feeling that "strongis unpleasant,"is strongerwith femalethan with male
respondents.This is particularlypronouncedwith the shirtsworn by maleswhereall
shirts give, among female respondents,negative correlations(see Table VII). This
HUMAN
BODY
ODOR
427
finding that womenreject the more intensivebody odors,or body-likeodors,more
stronglythan do men confirmsSchleidt'sobservations
(5).
SEX
ATTRIBUTION
Perhapsthe most surprisingfinding of the studyis the fact that a significantmajority
both of male and of femalerespondents
attributed the shirtsthat had beentreatedwith
androstenol to female wearers, at all concentration levels tested.
This is unexpectedin view of the fact that androstenol
and the closelyrelatedandrostenoneoccurin human plasma(10) and in axillary sweat(11) at far higher concentrations in men than in women and would, therefore,be expectedto be associated
with
male bodyodor.
Actually, the resultsof the behavioralexperimentsthus far reportedin no way conflict
with the notion that androstenolis predominantlyperceivedasfemale. In the dentist's
chairexperiment(12), onewould expectthe observedpatternof response
(selectionby
women, avoidanceby men) if the chair had smelledof somefeminineperfume. In the
rating of photographs(13), it was the females,not the males, that were judged more
attractive and sexyin the presenceof androstenol.Our finding does, however, throw
additional doubt (if such were needed) on the claims of mail-order sex aid houses that
men's lotions containing androstenolare sexualattractantsto women.
Another novel finding was the concentrationdependenceof sexattribution, found both
for substanceII and for substanceIII. Although novel, this finding wasnot unexpected
in view of the earlierreportedtendencyto associate
strongerbodyodorswith men and
fainter odors with
women.
As to the sex attribution of cyclopentadecanolide,
we cannotrule out the possibility
that the predominantlyfemaleattribution of shirtstreatedwith this substance
wasdue
to an association
with women'sperfumesrather than with femalebodies.
The predominantlycorrectsexassignmentof the shirtsworn by womenand by men
impressivelyreplicatesthe findings of Schleidteta/. (5), as do the tendenciesto attribute strongerand lesspleasantodorsto men and fainter and more pleasantodorsto
women.
It is fascinatingto observehow two patterns that are commonplacein the field of
generalaesthetics
arealsoreflectedin the olfactoryfield: (1) the "beautyandthe beast"
pattern, i.e., the notion that (young) women are more estheticallypleasingthan men,
(2) the greaterprevalenceamongwomenof the tendencyto judge by estheticcriteria:
the differencesin intensityare perceivedequallyby men and women,* but the women
associatethem more strongly with "pleasing" or "not pleasing."
SUMMARY
In the presentstudy, it wasshownthat when the syntheticbodyodoranaloguesII and
III are presentedto human subjectsunder conditionswhere they might be taken for
* Equalability to perceivedifferences
doesnot necessarily
meanequalawareness
of them in dailylife. The
designof the experimentinevitablyinducedhigh odorawareness
amongall respondents;
thereis considerableevidence
that normallyodorawareness
is higheramongwomenthanamongmen.
428
JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF COSMETIC CHEMISTS
human body odors, reactionsto thesechemicals'are similar to thoseto natural body
odorsin a number of respects:
1. They are predominantlyattributed to the one or the other sex.
2. Perceivedintensityand pleasantness
rating are negativelycorrelated.
3. When the materialsare perceivedas relatively strong or as relativelyunpleasant,
they tend to be attributed to male wearers.
4. At low concentration,
the averagepleasantness
rating is comparable
to that of natural body odor (this is not true for the lesspleasantsubstanceII).
For the syntheticmusk, cyclopentadecanolide
(IV), observations
2 and 3 do not hold.
Furthermore,thesesyntheticodorantsincluding cyclopentadecanolide
were similar to
the naturalhuman body odorant,androstenol,in the following respects:
1. Low olfactorythreshold.
2. Low slopeof the psychophysical
function.
A surprisingand importantfinding wasthe attribution of androstenolto femalesrather
than to males,at all concentrationlevels,both by male and femalerespondents.
The responses
to the shirtsthat had actuallybeenworn by test subjectsconfirmedM.
Schleidt'sfindingsin all respects:
1. Correctsexattribution by a significantmajority of the respondents.
2. A significanttendencyto attribute strongersmellingshirtsto male wearers.
3. Strongerrejectionof high intensityodorsby femalerespondents.
REFERENCES
(la) A. Comfort,Dragoco
Report,19(11), 226-233 (1972).
A. Comfort in Pheromones,
M. C. Birch, Ed. (North Holland Publ., Amsterdam 1974), pp
386-396.
(lb) I. Bloch, Odorants
Sex/•alis(PanurgePress,New York, 1934).
(2) For reviewsof this work, cf. RichardL. Dory, Chemical
Senses,
6(4), 351-376 (1981);J. N. Labows,
K.J. McGinley, and A.M. Kligman, J. Soc.Cosmet.Chem.,34, 193-202 0uly 1982); D. B.
Gower, M. R. Hancock,and L. H. Bannisterin Biochemistry
of Tasteand Olfaction,
R. H. Caganand
M. R. Kate, Eds. (AcademicPress,New York, 1981), pp 7-31.
(3) P. Jellinek, Die psychologischen
Grundlagen
derParfiimerie
(Dr. A. Hi•thig Verlag, Heidelberg, 1951).
(4a) E. Paukner,J. Soc.Cosmet.
Chem.,16, 515 (1965).
(4b) W. Steiner,E.-F. Hanisch,and D. Schwarz,Parr. undKosm.,58, 189-196 (1977).
(5) M. Schleidt, Ethology
Sociobiol.,1, 225-231 (1981); and M. Schleidt, B. Hold, and G. Artill, J.
Chem.Ecol., 7, 19-31 (1981).
(6) J. S. Jellinek, Dragoco
Report,34(2), (1987).
(7) A. R. Jonckheereand G. H. Bower,Brit. J. Math. and SocialPsychol.,20(2), 163-186 (1967).
(8) J. E. Amoore, P. PelosiandJ. L. Forrester,Chem.Senses
and Flavor, 2, 401-425 (1977).
(9) J. S. Jellinek, Dragoco
Report,26(2), 85-87 (1979).
(10) D.C. Bicknell and D. B. Gower,J. SteroidBiochem.,
7, 451-455 (1976).
(11) S. Bird and D. B. Gower,J. Endocrinol.,
85, 8P-9P (1980).
(12) M.D. Kirk-Smith, D. A. Booth, in Olfaction
and TasteVII, H. v. d. Starre,Ed. (IRL Press,London
1980), pp 397-404.
(13) M.D. Kirk-Smith, D. A. Booth, D. Carroll, and P. Davies,Res.Commun.
in Psychol.,
Psychiatry
and
Behavior,3(4), 379-384 (1978).