Effect of Biological Relatedness on Perfume Selection for Others: Preliminary Evidence

Abstract

People tend to choose perfumes to complement their body odour. As kin share some body odour qualities, their ability to select complementary perfumes for relatives might be higher compared with selection for nonrelatives. We tested this in two studies, comparing selection of a perfume for a target man by himself and by either a familiar but unrelated individual (girlfriend; Study 1) or a relative (sister; Study 2). Target men applied the two perfumes (own or other’s choice) to their axillae and then wore cotton pads for 12 hr. Collected perfume-body odour blends and perfumes alone were assessed by rater panels. In Study 1, the blends were rated as nominally more pleasant when body odours were mixed with the perfumes selected by girlfriends compared with those selected by target men themselves. In Study 2, body odours mixed with perfumes selected by sisters were rated significantly more attractive than those mixed with perfumes selected by target men. No significant differences were found for attractiveness and pleasantness ratings when perfumes were rated alone, suggesting that it was the resulting blends that were uniquely different. Our results indicate that sisters might be particularly tuned to select suitable perfumes for their siblings.

Interdisciplinary challenges for elucidating human olfactory attractiveness

“…This is very consistent with the fact that individual preferences for perfume ingredients (for use on self ) correlate with a person's MHC genotype [128,129]. Perfumes selected for oneself may thus enhance the individual genetic/olfactory signature (see also [130] for a discussion of perfume-body odour interaction being an example of culture-gene coevolution), and the selection of perfume by a biologically related individual (sister versus girlfriend or oneself ) enhances the attractiveness of the perfume/men's body odour blend [131]. Human body odour is very complex in itself, and understanding the hardly predictable perceptual quality that emerges when it is mixed with a perfume represents an additional significant challenge for the field of human chemical communication.…”

Perfume experts' perceptions of body odors: Toward a new lexicon for body odor description

“…For instance, perfumers commonly use the OSMOZ system (see http://www.osmoz.com/encyclopedia/olfactory-groups), which classifies fragrances into 10 main categories, each of which further consists of four subcategories. Such a system allows for the relatively easy classification of odors which captures relatively fine nuances between individual fragrances and has been successfully used in research on perfume selection (Sobotková, Fialová, Roberts, & Havlíček, ). Here we aimed to develop a similar tool specifically tailored for body odors.…”

Human Body Odour Composites Are Not Perceived More Positively than the Individual Samples

“…However, it remains an open question as to whether composites made of individual odours that are more variable in hedonic quality would be perceived simply as an average of the constituents or whether such mixtures would show some different, emergent quality. Previous studies investigating interactions between individual body odour and perfume have shown that qualities of the resulting blends cannot be reliably predicted ( Sobotková et al., 2017 ). In a related study, one of the components was kept constant (i.e., the odour donors applied the same perfume), nevertheless the variability in hedonic quality of the blends was comparable with that seen in the body odours alone ( Lenochová et al., 2012 ).…”

“…All women were using hormonal contraception to avoid changes in olfactory perception during the menstrual cycle (Martinec Nováková, Havlíček, & Roberts, 2014). Following the procedure used in previous studies, we assumed no systematic fluctuation in olfactory ability over time due to hormonal contraceptive use, and thus scheduling of assessments was unrestricted (e.g., Fialová et al., 2016 ; Kohoutová, Rubešová, & Havlíček, 2011 ; Sobotková, Fialová, Roberts, & Havlíček, 2017 ). Raters received 100 CZK (approximately US$5) as compensation for their time.…”