In a study that’s sure to be controversial, the journal Psychological Science reports (via Science Daily) that women may be wasting billions of dollars every year on perfume because the natural odor may be more attractive to men.
Periodic perfumery
The study was designed to test the hypothesis that male testosterone levels can be effected by odor signals from females, especially during ovulation. The researchers had male volunteers sniff tee shirts worn by women in different phases of their menstrual cycles. The amount of testosterone in the men’s saliva was then measured. The results showed that guys who smelled the shirts of ovulating women had more testosterone in their spit. Even more interesting, these guys rated the odor of the shirts worn by ovulating women as more pleasant. The researchers speculate that this biological reaction may be driven by some kind of mating behavior. Does this mean you shouldn’t wear perfume during your period?
{ 19 comments… read them below or add one }
The last sentence implied to this reader that ovulation and having one’s period were the same thing. Ovulation happens about two weeks before one’s period… There are also studies out there that the quality of one’s complexion is better during ovulation too.
Jackie — exactly
All — or, perhaps it means you SHOULD wear perfume when you’re ovulating if you don’t want to get pregnant? BTW, how do they get guys to sign up to sniff unlaundered tee shirts? You gotta wonder what socio-economic group they represent. Just sayin’
Does it matter what socio-economic group they are from? They’re still men, aren’t they? We’re in 2010 and it still seems we can’t get away from prejudice and snobbery.
Different socioeconomic groups prefer different things because it’s part of their culture and how they grew up. While there’s a lot of biological reasons for attraction, your culture has a lot to do with what you perceive to be attractive. For example, Western culture prizes flat bellies and big boobs, whereas Asian culture prizes pure white skin and large eyes. It’s possible that there could be a difference, which we could see if the sample group was large enough.
Also, ovulation occurs about a week before menstruation. I would’ve thought the Brains would know better than that.
while you’re discussing preference, this study does not seem to be about a conscious or conditioned choice(they’re not responding to big boobs or blonde hair)…it appears that the males are reacting to an ‘unknown’…they’ve no idea what is in the shirt they’re smelling. i don’t think this test has anything to do with anything like ‘socioeconomic status’. it would be interesting to see this study conducted with a larger panel.
I don’t care. I wear perfume for ME. I don’t wear it to impress anyone else or attract a man. If he doesn’t like it he can take a hike.
@Jackie and Tsunamino: I think the “ovulation vs menstruation” confusion is due to the fact that the Beauty Brain who edited this post is missing a pair of ovaries. If you catch my drift.
Come on. Guys will “like” you better if you’re dumber than they are and can cook. That’s about all it takes.
@Janis: That’s not totally fair. Guys also need you to have big boobs if they’re going to “like” you better.
Two things, because really it pisses me off when science and language are so flippantly abused in a blog I usually enjoy reading.
“The study was designed to test the hypothesis that male testosterone levels can be effected by odor signals from females, especially during ovulation.”
First, effected (to bring about or execute) is the wrong verb. Affected (as in “to impact”) is the appropriate verb to use in this context. One effects a change which affects something else.
Secondly,
“Why Guys May Like You Better If You Don’t Wear Perfume”
This title is in no way supported by the study. Did the author of this post read it? I’m assuming someone up there in Beauty Brains central has a access to PubMed, or at the very least PsychInfo and could take a crack at drawing a much more reasonable and sound conclusion from the publication itself. Nowhere in the study was it suggested that men would prefer unperfumed women to those wearing scents. Instead the question was “whether scents that signal a woman’s level of reproductive fertility directly influence mating-related biological processes in men.” The primary dependent variable in both experiments for this particular study (that thing scientists are supposed to be attending to) was testosterone in saliva; an endocrine response that has nothing to do with conscious preference. The preference data was only part of the second experiment reported here and it merely confirmed what the literature already knew. In fact, perfume as a variable was excluded altogether because the t-shirt women were instructed to use non-perfumed soaps and avoid smelly foods and activities during the study.
For Pete’s Sake, you guys are supposed to be scientists! Sloppy writing and baseless conclusions are what I thought this blog was trying to get away from. It took me less than ten minutes to locate a copy of the study in question and read it. Instead, it’s quite clear that the author of this post made a half-assed extrapolation from the lame photo caption on the Science Daily annotated bibliography. Even that short summary made it pretty clear what the dependent variable was, something this author blew past in the attempt to make something that was already interesting “controversial”.
Also, just because someone is a “dude” doesn’t mean he gets a free pass for not knowing the difference between ovulation and menstruation, especially when the target audience for this pink website is probably pretty clear on the distinction.
Because the author could be assed to read the actual article (okay, maybe he read it but didn’t feel the need to report its contents), I’ll address some of the concerns/thoughts brought up in the comments:
@Designergrrl: Not unlike most psych studies, this one filled its subject ranks with students in need of credit. Many introductory classes require students to participate in research studies at the institution. The women wearing the shirts were also paid $10.
@ Lisa: SES data for the students was not reported, though you can infer what you will from the fact that they are young undergraduates at a state university. However, the primary dependent variable, salivary testosterone levels, are presumably free from sociocultural influence. I think it would be interesting to repeat this study at other universities across the globe and across a spectrum of education institutions (community college through the Ivies) to control for cultural and economic variables.
@ Joseph: The n for this study was pretty fair; 37 male subjects for the first experiment and 68 for the second.
I hope this comment comes across as a touch harsh. Normally I enjoy this blog for its thoughtful and measured response to the whoo-haah that is presented as science in beauty advertising, but lately the quality of posts has been diminishing. C’mon Brains.
*edit
The study did not find increased testosterone, but rather the ovulating scent prevented a decrease observed in response to control and non-ovulating scents.
Hey Jess – I think you’re taking this article a little too seriously. I think the readers understand that The Beauty Brains writers are being a little tongue in cheek.
Of all the beauty blogs I read daily (trust me, a while bunch of them), BeautyBrains is the one held to the highest standards. You can see so much dumbness written around on the web, but I always finish the daily catching up with this blog. I think it restores my faith in mankind (or at least in beauty junkies), to know that not some of us do THINK, in more complex ways than “ohhh it’s so preeeeetty”. So reading an article so badly written was a big disappointment. It failed at being funny and at being informative. While I didn’t take it “too seriously” and didn’t cry over it, I do agree entirely with Jess’ comments.
@Designergrrl. See what I said about losing faith in beauty junkies? It’s comments like yours that cause make me wonder if some girls can even see beyond pink and glitter.
So, what you’re saying is, the new style in perfumes should be called dirty sheets and forget the craze for clean fragrances?
Hahahahaha!
No, Jess was right on. I was a bit appalled by the conclusion that made up the title and how the small snippet nowhere supported it. Being “tongue in cheek” has nothing to do with it. It was shoddy analysis and kills the beauty brains’ credibility.
Oh God, Harper, grow up. The BBs are human beings and human beings make mistakes. If you want perfection go build an andoid.
There was definitely a “miss” on the tongue-in-cheek-ness here. I guess it’s hard to communicate silliness or sarcasm in a discussion post. Let’s set aside the poor editing that left the impression that ovulation and menstruation occur simultaneously — that was clearly an error. The title was typical of the occasional silly humor that makes this blog so much fun to read. And in the same spirit, my comment was simply an expression of the picture I had in my head of a bunch of “dudes” sniffing t-shirts. Whether for college credit or cash, it’s a goofy image.
Jami: Does being held to a certain level of professionalism and credibility escape you? I’m personally still amazed by the “effected” / “affected” error. Published scientists are used to submitting papers for peer review, and crap like that would effect an automatic REJECT.
@JR: I really appreciate that you’ve helped us catch errors that should never have made it through our editing process. Shame on us for getting sloppy.
But while our intention is to make this blog the best that we can we’re not striving for the same standards as a peer reviewed paper. It’s just a blog and we try to post something each and every day to educate and entertain our readers. We’ll try to be more careful in the future but I guarantee this won’t be the last mistake we make.
Thanks for reading…
{ 6 trackbacks }