Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality, Volume 14, Nov. 12, 2011

A Rose by Any Other Name: Scent preferences, Gender, and Sexual Orientation

Frank Muscarella, Ph.D.

Luciana Arantes, M.S.

Stephen Koncsol, Ph.D.

Department of Psychology, Barry University

This research was presented at the 119th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association in Washington, D.C. in August, 2011.

Send correspondence concerning this article to Frank Muscarella, Department of Psychology, Barry University, 11300 NE 2 nd Avenue, Miami Shores, FL 33161; phone 305-899-3275; email fmuscarella@mail.barry.edu

Abstract

Humans use fragrances in colognes and perfumes to enhance their own natural odors, and human odor is an important element in sexual attraction and mate selection. Although there is evidence of gender differences in scent preferences there is little information on sexual orientation differences. Participants completed an online survey of their preferences for common scents for themselves and their romantic/sexual partners. Factor analysis revealed two major groups of scents: musky-spicy and floral-sweet. Analyses of variance revealed that heterosexual men preferred the musky-spicy scents for themselves and the floral-sweet scents for their partners. In a complementary pattern, heterosexual women preferred the floral-sweet scents for themselves and the musky-spicy scents for their partners. Gay men and lesbians showed a mixed pattern of gender-conforming and gender-nonconforming preferences. Gay men preferred the musky-spicy scents for themselves and their partners. Their scent preferences for themselves were greater than those of heterosexual men, and their preferences for their partners were greater than those of heterosexual women. Lesbians preferred the musky-spicy scents for themselves and the floral-sweet scents for their partners but less than heterosexual men did. Results support the contention that heterosexual men and women wear gender-specific scents that are attractive to the opposite gender. Gay men showed a “super” preference for the musky-spicy scents for themselves and their partners, and lesbians showed the most variation in their overall pattern of scent preferences.

Introduction

“I have perfumed my bed with myrrh, aloes, and cinnamon. Come, let us take our fill of love until the morning” (Proverbs, 7:17-18).

Humans have used fragrances to attract romantic partners and to induce romance throughout recorded history (Milinski & Wedekind, 2001), and undoubtedly even before. According to Milinski and Wedekind, some fragrances appear to be used consistently in cultures and across cultures, and it has been speculated that certain fragrances may have chemical structures similar to those found in the odors normally secreted by humans. Further, they suggest that when people use perfumes and colognes, the fragrances, rather than masking odors, are enhancing natural odors and thereby increasing the signaling effect of natural odors.

Odors are an important method of communication among most animal species (Symonds & Elgar, 2008) and are an essential element in the mating process (Rekwot, Ogwu, Oyedipe, & Sekoni, 2001). Odors and the sense of smell also appear to play an important role for humans; for example, people can differentiate the natural axillary odors of men and women (Milinski & Wedekind, 2001). Anecdotally, and apropos of this, in a sex appeal-infused Abercrombie & Fitch store that frequently employs scantily clad young male models, a Spanish-speaking woman was overheard saying to another “Esta tienda huele a macho” or “This store smells manly”. There is considerable evidence suggesting that human odors are genetically linked and may serve as pheromones, or chemical signals (Martins et al., 2005) that mediate sexual attraction and mate preferences (Cutler, Friedmann, & McCoy, 1998; Herz & Inzlicht, 2002; Kohl & Francoeur, 1995; McCoy & Pitino, 2002; Milinski & Wedekind, 2001; Sergeant, Davies, Dickins, & Griffiths, 2005; Stockhorst & Pietrowsky, 2004). Essentially, among heterosexual men and women, men produce odors that tend to attract women, and women produce odors that tend to attract men (Kohl, Atzmueller, Fink, & Grammer, 2001; Kohl & Francoeur, 1995).

Both men and women use perfumes and colognes to increase their attractiveness (Milinski & Wedekind, 2001; Summer & Doskoch, 1996). Some cultures reportedly do not differentiate between fragrances for men and fragrances for women (Milinski & Wedekind, 2001). However, Summer and Doskoch (1996) report that, at least in American culture, men’s fragrances tend to be “woodsy” and women’s fragrances tend to be “floral”. As evidenced by advertising, fragrances for men are predominantly musky-spicy, and fragrances for women are predominantly floral-sweet. The meaning of this dichotomy is unclear, but at a fundamental level it may reflect the fact that stronger odors are considered characteristically male and weaker odors are considered characteristically female (Milinski & Wedekind, 2001).

It is commonly recognized that human males and females evolved different reproductive strategies (Symons, 1979), and mating behavior and preferences related to these strategies appear to be universal (Buss, 1994). Differences in brain structure and organization appear to contribute to gender differences in behavior, particularly mating behavior (Ellis & Ames, 1987; LeVay, 2011; Ogas & Gaddam, 2011; Pillard & Weinrich, 1987). Neurohormonal theories of sexual orientation development hold that various patterns of feminization – defeminization and masculinization – unmasculinization of the brain direct attraction to specific physical characteristics which contributes to mate preferences and ultimately to sexual orientation (LeVay, 2011; Muscarella, 2002; Muscarella, Elias, & Szuchman, 2004). The brain differentiation pattern in heterosexual men is speculated to be defeminized and masculinized, and the pattern in heterosexual women is speculated to be feminized and unmasculinized (Ellis & Ames, 1987; Pillard & Weinrich, 1987).

Neurohormonal theory on the development of a homosexual orientation has two directions: inversion theory and continuum theory. In essence, the inversion theory holds that the brains of gay men and lesbians are “inverted” such that their structure represents the same structure found in the opposite-gender, heterosexual counterparts (Ellis & Ames, 1987; Pillard & Weinrich, 1987). Thus, gay men exhibit the behavior and preferences of heterosexual women, and lesbians exhibit the behavior and preferences of heterosexual men. Anatomical studies of brain differences between heterosexual men and women and gay men and lesbians have been used as evidence to support this theory ( e.g., Kinnunen, Moltz, Metz, & Cooper; 2004; Savic & Lindström, 2008) as have psychological studies of behavioral differences (e.g., Bailey & Zucker, 1995; Singh, Vidaurri, Zambarano, & Dabbs, 1999).

By contrast, the continuum theory holds that opposite-sex differentiation of embryonic brains is not global but rather exists on a continuum and varies in degree and across structures between individuals (Kauth, 2000; Woodson & Gorski, 2000). Consistent with this idea, Rahman and Wilson (2003) have argued that homosexuality is associated with predominantly sex-typical behavior and some sex-atypical behavior that varies unpredictably. This variability is speculated to give rise to the wide range of behaviors and preferences associated with a homosexual orientation. The majority of psychological studies support this interpretation (Chivers, Seto & Blanchard, 2007; Kauth, 2000; LeVay, 2011; Muscarella, 2002; Muscarella et al., 2004; Petty & Muscarella, 2011; Rahman & Wilson, 2003).

Very little research has examined odor preferences in gay men and lesbians. However, there is some evidence of differences in olfactory preferences between heterosexual men and women and gay men and lesbians (Martins et al., 2005).

The Present Study

The purpose of this study was three-fold: a) it examined common fragrances to determine if they can be divided into major categories; b) it examined gender and sexual orientation differences in scent preferences for oneself and for one’s partner among those categories: and c) it compared odor preferences between heterosexual men and women and gay men and lesbians to determine if the pattern of odor preference in gay men and lesbians is better explained by the inversion theory or the continuum theory. Specifically, the inversion theory predicts that gay men will show a pattern of odor preferences similar to that of heterosexual women while lesbians will show a pattern of odor preferences similar to those of heterosexual men. Conversely, the continuum theory predicts that gay men and lesbians will show a mixed pattern of gender-conforming and gender-nonconforming preferences.

Method

Participants

The study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Barry University, a small, Catholic university located in metropolitan Miami-Dade County, Florida. The participants were recruited in three ways: a) an announcement was emailed to all psychology classes at Barry University inviting students who were interested in participating for extra credit, and it contained a link to a URL on Surveymonkey.com; b) the study was advertised on two websites for individuals seeking to participate in psychological research ( www.socialpsychology.org/expts.htm and psych.hanover.edu/research/exponnet.html ), and websites linked participants to the survey posted on Surveymonkey.com; c) the study was advertised on social networking websites (www.facebook.com, www.orkut.com, and www.myspace.com) with a link directing participants to a specific URL on SurveyMonkey.com.

A total of 841 adult individuals initiated the survey, and 288 were deleted due to missing data. The total deleted cases accounted for 34% of all individuals who initiated the survey. The final sample included 553 individuals (153 men, 400 women). They were self-identified as follows: 77 heterosexual men, 64 gay men, 12 bisexual men, 293 heterosexual women, 54 lesbians, and 53 bisexual women. They ranged in age from 18 years to 67 years (M = 25.46). The self-classified ethnic makeup of the participants was as follows: 301 White non-Hispanic, 95 Hispanic, 67 African-American, 37 Mixed Race, 19 Caribbean, 14 Asian, and 20 Other. All 553 participants were used in the factor analyses for the development of the odor scales, but only heterosexual men and women and gay men and lesbians were used in the between-group comparisons for two reasons: one, there were too few bisexual men for these analyses, and two, the sexual interests of the bisexual women, as indicated by other measures, suggested they were not a homogeneous group.

Materials and Procedure

The study began with a review of descriptions in advertisements of the scents of popular colognes and perfumes for men and women. This resulted in a list of 18 commonly found scents in colognes and perfumes: floral, sweet, fresh, fruity, herbal, honey, light, lavender, rich, grassy, spicy, heavy, oriental, woody, lemon, orange, musky, and leather. For each of the 18 items on the scent list, participants rated how much they preferred it for their own colognes or perfumes and then rated it for the colognes and perfumes of their romantic/sexual partners. Ratings were on a 7-point Likert scale with response options ranging from 1 (very little) to 7 (very much). The same two questions were used for all items: “In your cologne/perfume, how much do you prefer the following scents?” and “In the cologne/perfume used by a romantic/sexual partner, how much do you like the following scents?”

Results

Scale Development

Factor analysis for self odor preferences. The scores for the 18 items for self odor preferences were submitted to an exploratory factor analysis. A three-factor solution was chosen. The eigenvalues of the three components were 1.61 or greater, and the cumulative variance accounted for was 55.3%. See Table 1 for factor loadings.

Table 1

Factor Loadings for Self Odor Preferences

The development of the self scales. Individual items retained for all scales had factor loadings greater than .50. The seven items retained from factor 1 were as follows: grassy, spicy, heavy, oriental, woody, musky, and leather. These scents, characteristic of colognes for men, were used to create a scale named the Musky-Spicy Scale (MSS). The scale was subjected to a test of internal consistency and found to be reliable, Cronbach’s Alpha = .86. The five items retained from factor 2 were as follows: floral, sweet, fruity, honey, and lavender. These items, characteristic of colognes and perfumes for women, were used to create a scale named the Floral-Sweet Scale (FSS). The scale was subjected to a test of internal consistency and found to be reliable, Cronbach’s Alpha = .77. The two items retained from factor 3 were as follows: lemon and orange. These items were used to create a scale named the Citrus Scents Scale (CSS). The scale was subjected to a test of internal consistency and found to be reliable, Cronbach’s Alpha = .88.

Total scale scores were created by summing the scores for all items on each scale. Scores for the MSS could range from 7 to 49, scores for the FSS could range from 5 to 35, and scores for the CSS could range from 2 to 14. Higher scores indicated greater liking for the scents included in the scale.

Factor analysis of partner odor preferences. The scores for the 18 items for partner odor preferences were submitted to an exploratory factor analysis. A two-factor solution was chosen. The eigenvalues of the two components were 3.16 or greater, and the cumulative variance accounted for was 48.91%. See Table 2 for factor loadings.

Table 2

Factor Loadings for Partner Odor Preferences

The development of the partner scales. Individual items retained for all scales had factor loadings greater than .50. The eight items retained from factor 1 were as follows: floral, sweet, fruity, herbal, honey, lavender, lemon, and orange. These items, characteristic of fragrances for women, were used to create a scale named the Partner-Floral-Sweet Scale (P-FSS). The scale was subjected to a test of internal consistency and found to be reliable, Cronbach’s Alpha = .88. The five items retained for factor 2 were as follows: grassy, spicy, woody, musky, and leather. These items, characteristic of fragrances for men, were used to create a scale named the Partner- Musky-Spicy Scale (P-MSS). The scale was subjected to a test of internal consistency and found to be reliable, Cronbach’s Alpha = .83. Total scale scores were created by summing the scores for all items on each scale. Scores for the P-FSS could range from 8 to 56 and scores for the P-MSS could range from 5 to 35. Higher scores indicated greater liking for the scents included in the scale when worn by the partner.

Analyses of Variance

Five one-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were performed on the total scores for the three self odor preference scales (MSS, FSS, and CSS) and the two partner odor preference scales (P-MSS and P-FSS). The independent variable was gender and sexual orientation category: heterosexual men, heterosexual women, gay men and lesbians. Post-hoc comparisons were done using the Fisher’s least significant difference test.

Self scales. The ANOVA performed on the MSS revealed significant differences in self odor preferences for musky-spicy scents. Odor preferences for musky-spicy scents differed significantly across gender and sexual orientation categories, F (3,484) = 21.39, p < .001. Table 3 shows the means and standard deviations for the four gender and sexual orientation categories. Results indicated that gay men scored the highest on preference for musky-spicy scents, followed by heterosexual men, followed by lesbians, followed by heterosexual women. Post-hoc analyses revealed that heterosexual men differed significantly from gay men (p < .001) and heterosexual women (p = .005). Heterosexual women also differed significantly from gay men (p < .001), and lesbians (p = .048). Gay men differed significantly not only from heterosexual men and women (p < .001) but also lesbians (p < .001). Heterosexual men and lesbians did not differ from each other.

The ANOVA performed on the FSS revealed significant differences in self odor preferences for floral-sweet scents. Odor preferences for floral-sweet scents differed significantly across gender and sexual orientation categories, F (3,484) = 31.11, p < .001. Table 3 shows the means and standard deviations for the four gender and sexual orientation categories. Results indicated that heterosexual women scored the highest on preference for floral-sweet scents. Heterosexual women differed significantly from heterosexual men (p < .001), gay men (p < .001), and lesbians (p < .001). Heterosexual men and gay men and lesbians did not differ from each other.

ANOVA performed on the CSS revealed no significant differences in self odor preferences for citrus scents. Odor preferences for citrus scents did not differ significantly across gender and sexual orientation categories, F (3,484) = 1.66, p = .174.

Partner scales. The ANOVA performed on the P-MSS revealed significant differences in odor preferences for musky-spicy scents in a romantic/sexual partner. Partner odor preferences for musky-spicy scents differed significantly across gender and sexual orientation categories, F (3,484) = 16.96, p < .001. Table 3 shows the means and standard deviations for the four gender and sexual orientation categories. Results indicated that gay men scored the highest on preference for musky-spicy scents for partner. Gay men differed significantly from heterosexual men (p < .001), heterosexual women (p < .001), and lesbians (p < .001). Heterosexual men differed significantly from heterosexual women (p < .05). Lesbians did not differ significantly from either heterosexual men or heterosexual women.

The ANOVA performed on the P-FSS revealed significant differences in odor preferences for floral-sweet scents in a romantic or sexual partner. Partner odor preferences for floral-sweet scents differed significantly across gender and sexual orientation categories, F (3,484) = 48.16, p < .001. Table 3 shows the means and standard deviations for the four gender and sexual orientation categories. Results indicated that heterosexual men scored the highest on preference for floral-sweet scents for a partner, followed by gay men and lesbians, followed by heterosexual women. Heterosexual men differed significantly from heterosexual women (p < .001), gay men (p < .001), and lesbians (p < .001). Heterosexual women also differed significantly from gay men (p = .001), and lesbians (p < .001). Gay men and lesbians did not differ significantly from each other.

It should be noted that the mean age of the gay men (M = 37.39, SD = 15.78) and lesbians (M = 32.80, SD = 12.56) was significantly greater than that of the heterosexual men (M = 22.66, SD = 7.44) and women (M = 21.88, SD = 6.52). However, reanalysis of the data controlling for age revealed the same pattern of results.

Table 3

Means and Standard Deviations of Scent Preference Scales

Note . Means with unshared subscripts are significantly different. See text for specific level of significance.

Discussion

The study revealed that approximately two-thirds of 18 common fragrances in colognes in perfumes can be divided into two major groups: a musky-spicy group and a floral-sweet group. Consistent with the identification of two major groups of scents, the results of the study demonstrated gender differences in the preferences for the two in heterosexual men and women. In this study, heterosexual men preferred the musky-spicy group of fragrances for themselves and had a low preference for the floral-sweet group. Conversely, for their female partners they liked the floral-sweet group and disliked the musky-spicy group. In a complementary pattern, heterosexual women preferred the floral-sweet group of fragrances for themselves and had a low preference for the musky-spicy group. For their male partners, heterosexual women liked the musky-spicy group of fragrances and disliked the floral-sweet fragrances.

The pattern of results for heterosexual men and women suggests that there are gender-specific fragrances. This pattern is consistent with the popular presentation of gender-specific colognes and perfumes in American culture. Traditionally, male-specific scents tend to be “woodsy” (a fragrance found in the musky-spicy cluster) and female-specific fragrances tend to be floral (Summer & Doskoch, 1996). The emergence of the two major groups of fragrances is in line with past research that has shown that men and women have different scent preferences and use fragrances to enhance their own natural odors (Milinski & Wedekind, 2001).

Milinski & Wedekind (2001) state that not all cultures have gender-specific fragrances and that in fragrances that are gender-specific, all scent ingredients are used in both although in differing degrees. Thus, it has been difficult to identify specific fragrances that are uniquely male-specific or female-specific. Milinski and Wedekind also indicate that, in general, stronger axillary odors are characterized as male and lighter ones as female. Since no particular fragrances have been specifically gender-linked it is not clear why heterosexual men gravitate towards the musky-spicy fragrances and heterosexual women gravitate toward the floral-sweet fragrances. It is possible that in American cultural tradition fragrances for men underscore their “stronger” natural odors and that fragrances for women underscore their (relative to men) “lighter” natural odors.

An unexpected finding was that in scent preferences for oneself a third group emerged: citrus. However, in scent preferences for a partner, the orange and lemon fragrances that make up the citrus factor are subsumed by a group of fragrances that are generally characterized as floral-sweet. In addition, there were no differences between heterosexual men and women and gay men and lesbians in their preference for the citrus scent. Summer and Doskoch (1996) report that fragrances shared by men and women tend to be based in the citrus family. One interpretation is that a citrus fragrance may appeal to women and do not necessarily turn off men. This study suggests that the citrus scent may be unique and gender-neutral for one’s own experience of it, but that it is associated with floral-sweet fragrances in a partner.

The pattern of scent preferences for oneself and one’s partner for gay men and lesbians was consistent with the continuum theory rather than the inversion theory of brain differentiation. The inversion theory holds that the brain structure of gay men and lesbians is inverted and as such their behavior and preferences are similar to those of their heterosexual, opposite-gender counterparts (Ellis & Ames, 1987; Pillard & Weinrich, 1987). This pattern of scent preferences was not found. The continuum theory holds that underlying brain structure in gay men and lesbians varies in degree and across structures and individuals (Kauth, 2000; Woodson & Gorski, 2000). This results in a pattern of mostly gender-conforming behavior and preferences accompanied by some gender-nonconforming behavior and preferences that vary unpredictably (Muscarella et al., 2004; Rahman & Wilson, 2003). The results of this study showed such a pattern.

Gay men, like heterosexual men and unlike heterosexual women, preferred the musky-spicy group of fragrances for themselves. Thus, their preference for their personal scent is gender-conforming. In fact, gay men indicated a liking for the musky-spicy group of fragrances that is significantly greater than that of heterosexual men. However, gay men, unlike heterosexual men and like heterosexual women, showed a high degree of liking of the musky-spicy group of fragrances for their partners. This is a gender-nonconforming preference but a predictable one for individuals attracted to men. That is, individuals who are attracted to men presumably are attracted to masculine characteristics (Muscarella, 2002; Muscarella et al., 2004) including, as seen in this study, characteristically masculine odors.

Gay men also showed a greater liking of the musky-spicy scent in their partners than did heterosexual women. Thus, it appears that the musky-spicy group of fragrances is particularly attractive to gay men for both themselves and their partners. To the degree that gender-specific odor preferences are directed by brain organization, the super preference for musky-spicy scents evidenced by gay men is consistent with other documented behavioral differences that may be related to brain organization. It has been argued that the brains of gay men may be organized through the effects of prenatal hormones such that there is a hyper-masculinization of some areas and a feminization of others (LeVay, 2011; Ogas & Gaddam, 2011). Further, it is speculated that this brain organization is associated with some sexual interests and behaviors that are hyper-gender-conforming (e.g., interest in visual sexual stimuli such as pornography) and others that are gender non-conforming (e.g., sexual interest in males).

However, the fact that gay men’s preference of the musky-spicy scent for partners surpassed heterosexual women’s preference is inconsistent with other research on partner preferences showing that heterosexual women surpass gay men in their preferences for certain masculine characteristics. For example, it has been shown that although gay men, like heterosexual women, prefer partners who are taller and heavier than themselves, heterosexual women prefer their partners to be much taller and heavier than themselves while gay men prefer them to be only slightly taller and heavier then themselves (Muscarella et al., 2004). The meaning of the super preference for musky-spicy scents in terms of brain differentiation and sexual behavior remains unclear. Nonetheless, the commercial meaning does not appear to be lost to fragrance makers and advertisers. For example, in 2010 an advertisement was released for a new men’s cologne called “Bang” by the designer Marc Jacobs. It features a nude, well-muscled Jacobs lying spread eagle on a silver Mylar bed with a huge bottle of Bang between his legs. He has described its scent as “peppery, woody, and spicy”.

Gay men also indicated a liking of the floral-sweet scent for the partner that can be seen as a point on a continuum between the preferences of heterosexual men and women. They showed a greater liking of floral-sweet scent than did heterosexual women. However, they did not like it as much as heterosexual men did.

The scent preferences of lesbians appear to be more varied than those of gay men. Lesbians liked the musky-spicy group of scents for themselves as much as heterosexual men did and more than heterosexual women did. They also liked the floral-sweet group of scents for themselves as much as heterosexual men did and less than heterosexual women did. These are gender-nonconforming preferences. The scent preference of lesbians for their partners is the most nuanced of the four groups. The rating of the preference for the characteristically male musky-spicy scents for a partner is the mid-point between the ratings of the preferences of heterosexual men and women. The preference of lesbians for the musky-spicy scents for a partner did not differ significantly from heterosexual men or heterosexual women who did differ significantly from each other. Lesbians liked in a partner scents that are the traditionally female floral-sweet group. Lesbians, like gay men, preferred the floral-sweet scents for a partner significantly more than did heterosexual women but significantly less than did heterosexual men.

The overall pattern of results shows that gay men are more similar to heterosexual men than heterosexual women in odor preferences for themselves. However, in their odor preferences for a romantic/sexual partner, gay men are more similar to heterosexual women than heterosexual men. The overall pattern of results for lesbians shows more variation and gender nonconformity in their odor preferences. To the degree that brain structure underlies odor preferences and behaviors, these results suggest a greater variation in the brain structure of lesbians than in gay men. Other research has also suggested greater variation in the sexual behavior and interests, and possibly the underlying neural organization, of lesbians (Chivers et al., 2007; Muscarella et al., 2004; Petty & Muscarella, 2011; Pillard & Weinrich, 1987; Singh et al, 1999). However, as Chivers et al. (2007) have indicated, the origins of this variation could include genetic, neurohormonal, and sociocultural factors, and the identification of the origins requires further research. Nonetheless, the results of the current study add to the growing body of evidence that a homosexual orientation appears to be associated with a “package” of traits some of which are gender-conforming and others that are gender-nonconforming (see LeVay, 2011).

Limitations of the study include the problems associated with all online studies that can generate error such as sample bias, multiple responses from individual participants, and careless and unmotivated responding. Further, the current study assessed opinions of fragrances as opposed to actual fragrances, and as such the measurements of preferences for oneself and one’s partner may have reduced accuracy. Directions for future studies should include an examination of characteristics of the musky-spicy and floral-sweet groups of fragrances to determine how they may complement the natural odors of men and women. Future studies might also examine the “super” preference of musky-spicy scents of gay men, and the correlates and meanings of the more nuanced scent preferences of lesbians particularly as they may relate to a butch-femme dichotomy.

References

Bailey, J. & Zucker, K. J. (1995). Childhood sex-typed behavior and sexual orientation: A conceptual analysis and quantitative review. Developmental Psychology, 31, 43-55.

Buss, D. M. (1994). The evolution of desire. New York: Basic Books.

Chivers, M. L., Seto, M. C., & Blanchard, R. (2007). Gender and sexual orientation differences in sexual response to sexual activities versus gender of actors in sexual films. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 1108-1121.

Cutler, W. B., Friedmann, E., & McCoy, N. L. (1998). Pheromonal influences on sociosexual behavior. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 27, 1-13.

Ellis, B. J. & Ames, M. A. (1987). Neurohormonal functioning and sexual orientation: A theory of homosexuality-heterosexuality. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 233-258.

Herz, R. S. & Inzlicht, M. (2002). Sex differences in responses to physical and social factors involved in human mate selection: The importance of smell for women. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23, 359-364.

Kauth, M. R. (2000). True nature: A theory of sexual attraction. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

Kinnunen, L. H., Moltz, H., Metz, J., & Cooper, M. (2004). Differential brain activation in exclusively homosexual and heterosexual men produced by the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, fluoxetine. Brain Research, 1024, 251-254.

Kohl, J. V., Atzmueller, M., Fink, B., & Grammar, K. (2001). Human pheromones: Integrating neuroendocrinology and ethology. Neuroendocrinology Letters, 22, 309-321.

Kohl, J. V. & Francoeur, R. T. (1995). The scent of Eros. New York: Continuum.

LeVay, S. (2011). Gay, straight, and the reason why: The science of sexual orientation. New York: Oxford University Press.

Martins, Y., Preti, G., Crabtree, C. R., Runyan, T., Vainius, A. A., & Wysocki, C. J. (2005). Preference for human body odors is influenced by gender and sexual orientation. Psychological Science, 16, 694-701.

McCoy, N. L. & Pitino, L. (2002). Pheromonal influences on sociosexual behavior in young women. Physiology & Behavior, 75, 367-375.

Milinski, M. & Wedekind, C. (2001). Evidence for MHC-correlated perfume preferences in humans. Behavioral Ecology, 12, 140-149.

Muscarella, F. (2002). Preferred partner characteristics in homosexual men in relation to speculated patterns of brain differentiation. Neuroendocrinology Letters, 23, 299-302.

Muscarella, F., Elias, V. A., & Szuchman, L. T. (2004). Brain differentiation and preferred partner characteristics in heterosexual and homosexual men and women. Neuroendocrinology Letters, 25, 305-309.

Ogas, O. & Gaddam, S. (2011). A billion wicked thoughts. New York: Dutton.

Petty, M. & Muscarella, F. (2011, November). Sexual promiscuity in lesbians and heterosexual women. Poster presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality, Houston, Texas.

Pillard, R. C. & Weinrich, J. D. (1987). The periodic table model of gender transpositions: Part I. A theory based on masculinization and defeminization of the brain. Journal of Sex Research, 23, 425-454.

Rahman, Q. & Wilson, G. D. (2003). Born gay? The psychobiology of human sexual orientation. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 1337-1382.

Rekwot, P. I., Ogwu, D., Oyedipe, E. O., & Sekoni, V. O. (2001). The role of pheromones and biostimulation in animal reproduction. Animal Reproduction Science, 65, 157-170.

Savic, I. & Lindström, P. (2008). PET and MRI show differences in cerebral asymmetry and functional connectivity between homo- and heterosexual subjects. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105, 9403-9408.

Sergeant, M. J. T., Davies, M. N. O., Dickens, T. E., & Griffiths, M. D. (2005). The self-reported importance of olfaction during human mate choice. Sexualities, Evolution & Gender, 7, 199-213.

Singh, D., Vidaurri, M., Zambarano, R. J., & Dabbs, J. M. Jr. (1999). Lesbian erotic role identification: Behavioral, morphological, and hormonal correlates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 1035-1049.

Stockhorst, U. & Pietrowsky, R. (2004). Olfactory perception, communication, and the nose-to-brain pathway. Physiology & Behavior, 83, 3-11.

Summer, C. C. & Doskoch, P. (1996, December 1). Does one scent fit all? Psychology Today , 29, 14.

Symonds, M. R. & Elgar, M. A. (2008). The evolution of pheromone diversity. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 23, 220-228.

Symons, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press.

Woodson, J. C. & Gorski, R. A. (2000). Structural sex differences in the mammalian brain: Reconsidering the male/female dichotomy. In A. Matsumoto (Ed.), Sexual differentiation of the brain (pp. 229-255). Boca Raton: CRC.

Return to Front Page