Human Pheromones in Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology

Articles published in Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology are Open Access. They are available for free in the following formats: PDF HTML EPUB XML

Each published article represents rapid movement towards a paradigm shift with regard to understanding the development of behavior. For example see:

Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic influences on the socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors by James V. Kohl (Published: 15 March 2012) Citation: Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology 2012, 2: 17338 – DOI: 10.3402/snp.v2i0.17338

Background: Olfactory cues directly link the environment to gene expression. Two types of olfactory cues, food odors and social odors, alter genetically predisposed hormone-mediated activity in the mammalian brain. Methods: The honeybee is a model organism for understanding the epigenetic link from food odors and social odors to neural networks of the mammalian brain, which ultimately determine human behavior. Results: Pertinent aspects that extend the honeybee model to human behavior include bottom-up followed by top-down gene, cell, tissue, organ, organ-system, and organism reciprocity; neurophysiological effects of food odors and of sexually dimorphic, species-specific social odors; a model of motor function required for social selection that precedes sexual selection; and hormonal effects that link current neuroscience to social science affects on the development of animal behavior. Conclusion: As the psychological influence of food odors and social orders is examined in detail, the socioaffective nature of olfactory cues on the biologically based development of sexual preferences across all species that sexually reproduce becomes clearer

Author’s synopsis:  Nutient chemicals calibrate individual survival and are metabolized to pheromones that standardize and control survival of species from microbes to man. The direct effect of food odors and pheromones on intracellular signaling and stochastic gene expression makes chemical cues as important to the understanding of human behavior as they are to the understanding of behavior in every other species on the planet. This is especially true for placental mammals with behavior that is genetically predisposed by maternal-fetal chemical exchanges, which influence sex differences in brain development. The study of behavior must include the study of sex differences in brain development.

Genetically predisposed sex differences in the brain and behavior are altered by chemical signals from the sensory environment throughout life. The plasticity of the mammalian brain and direct effect of chemical signals ensures our ability to adapt to our social environment in exactly the same way that honeybees adapt to their social environment.

The consistency of molecular biology across Creation exemplifies it. The consistency of Creation also argues against explanations of behavior that are based on anything that does not first involve conditioned responses to olfactory/pheromonal stimuli.  This means that researchers are no longer allowed to offer explanations of behavior for one person based on models that do not apply to all people.

Use of the same model for brain-based behavioral development may reduce the tendency to judge others by different standards than those we use to justify our own behavior.

A fear of pheromones (revisited)

Is 40 years too long to be afraid of human pheromones?

“I should think we might fairly gauge the future of biological science, centuries ahead by estimating the time it will take to reach a complete comprehensive understanding of odor. It may not seem a profound enough problem to dominate all the life sciences, but it contains, piece by piece, all the mysteries.” Lewis Thomas (Thomas, 1980) as quoted in (Kohl & Francoeur, 1995; 2002, p. 24). See also “A Fear of Pheromones” (Thomas, 1971).

In a series of 3 experiments researchers have shown an interaction of male axillary odor with fragrance that suggests the fragrance makes human body odor more attractive. Although the exact mechanism of this interaction is not known, fragrances seem to enhance sexual attractiveness and they may effectively modulate sexual arousal and mood response of women, especially when women are in the ovulatory phase of their cycle. Also odor cues are of most importance to women in the context of partner choice and women prefer the odor of psychologically dominant men (see for review Lenochova et al., 2012)

Androstenes, like androstadienone, are chemical constituents of human axillary sweat that affect the mood, physiology and social perception of heterosexual women in both laboratory and semi-realistic settings (Berglund, Lindstrum, & Savic, 2006; Havlicek, Murray, Saxton, & Roberts, 2010; Saxton, Lyndon, Little, & Roberts, 2008). Androstenol affects levels of luteinizing hormone and mood (Preti, Wysocki, Barnhart, Sondheimer, & Leyden, 2003; Shinohara, Morofushi, Funabashi, & Kimura, 2001; Shinohara, Morofushi, Funabashi, Mitsushima, & Kimura, 2000). Androsterone is one of two primary metabolites of dehydroepiandrosterone, which is found in much higher amounts in humans than in other primates and has been linked to testosterone levels and reproductive fitness in athletes participating in competitive sports (Kohl, 2007).

Unlike androstadienone or any other androstene, the mixture of androstenol and androsterone has been shown to cause changes in women’s flirtatious behavior and in their self-reported level of attraction to the man wearing the mixture (Kohl, Kelahan & Hoffmann, unpublished). The molecular mechanisms of this interaction, which apparently involve the effect of androstenol on hormones and the affect of androsterone on behavior, are well-known across species and are modeled in: Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic influences on the socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors.

References:

Berglund, H., Lindstrum, P., & Savic, I. (2006). Brain response to putative pheromones in lesbian women. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103(21), 8269-8274.

Havlicek, J., Murray, A. K., Saxton, T. K., & Roberts, S. C. (2010). Current Issues in the Study of Androstenes in Human Chemosignaling. In G. Litwack (Ed.), Vitamins & Hormones (Vol. Volume 83, pp. 47-81): Academic Press.

Kohl, J. V. (2007). The Mind’s Eyes: Human pheromones, neuroscience, and male sexual preferences. In M. R. Kauth (Ed.), Handbook of the Evolution of Human Sexuality (pp. 313-369). Binghamton: Haworth Press.

Kohl, J. V., & Francoeur, R. T. (1995; 2002). The Scent of Eros: Mysteries of Odor in Human Sexuality. New York: Continuum Press; 2nd ed. Lincoln NE: iUniverse Press.

Lenochova, P., Vohnoutova, P., Roberts, S. C., Oberzaucher, E., Grammer, K., & Havlicek, J. (2012). Psychology of Fragrance Use: Perception of Individual Odor and Perfume Blends Reveals a Mechanism for Idiosyncratic Effects on Fragrance Choice. PLoS ONE, 7(3), e33810.

Preti, G., Wysocki, C. J., Barnhart, K. T., Sondheimer, S. J., & Leyden, J. J. (2003). Male axillary extracts contain pheromones that affect pulsatile secretion of luteinizing hormone and mood in women recipients. Biol Reprod., 68(6), 2107-2113. Epub 2003 Jan 2122.

Saxton, T. K., Lyndon, A., Little, A. C., & Roberts, S. C. (2008). Evidence that androstadienone, a putative human chemosignal, modulates women’s attributions of men’s attractiveness. Horm Behav, 14, 14.

Shinohara, K., Morofushi, M., Funabashi, T., & Kimura, F. (2001). Axillary pheromones modulate pulsatile LH secretion in humans. Neuroreport., 12(5), 893-895.

Shinohara, K., Morofushi, M., Funabashi, T., Mitsushima, D., & Kimura, F. (2000). Effects of 5alpha-androst-16-en-3alpha-ol on the pulsatile secretion of luteinizing hormone in human females. Chem Senses., 25(4), 465-467.

Thomas, L. (1971). A Fear of Pheromones. New England Journal of Medicine, 285(7), 392-393.

Thomas, L. (1980). On Smell. New England Journal of Medicine, 302(13), 731-733.

No fooling; visual appeal is not determined by what we see

Background: Its role in guiding behavior determines the utility of sensory information, but recent results show that visual input is not directly responsible for guiding behaviors associated with classification of differences between animate and inanimate objects (Mahon, Anzellotti, Schwarzbach, Zampini, & Caramazza, 2009).  Researchers who claim that visual input has greater incentive salience than olfactory/pheromonal input could help others understand the development of human sexual behavior if they would only tell us what model they are using for their determination of relative salience.

Evidence: Despite their social and biological relevance, no animal model supports any conclusion from cognitive neuroscience that suggests the perception of people is based on brain mechanisms specifically devoted to processing any class of visual information (see for review Hari & Kujala, 2009). In contrast, all animal models support the conclusion that the processing of olfactory/pheromonal information is both socially and biologically the most relevant class of stimuli (Kohl, 2012). This fact begs the question of why any face or body response to visual input from human conspecifics is enhanced by nudity (Hietanen & Nummenmaa, 2011). Indeed, the social brain network evolves perfectly fine in the absence of vision (Bedny, Pascual-Leone, & Saxe, 2009).

Context: Sexual behavior in unclothed mammals is preceded by social behaviors important for food acquisition, which allows all species to establish their ecological and social niche. In this context, what do brain imaging results linked to sexual responses, or more specifically to paraphilias, tell us about behavioral development in people? Is there a model for that (Karremans, Frankenhuis, & Arons, 2010)?

References:

Bedny, M., Pascual-Leone, A., & Saxe, R. R. (2009). Growing up blind does not change the neural bases of Theory of Mind. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A., 106(27), 11312-11317.

Hari, R., & Kujala, M. V. (2009). Brain Basis of Human Social Interaction: From Concepts to Brain Imaging. Physiological Reviews, 89(2), 453-479.

Hietanen, J. K., & Nummenmaa, L. (2011). The Naked Truth: The Face and Body Sensitive N170 Response Is Enhanced for Nude Bodies. PLoS ONE, 6(11), e24408.

Karremans, J. C., Frankenhuis, W. E., & Arons, S. (2010). Blind men prefer a low waist-to-hip ratio. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31(3), 182-186.

Kohl, J. V. (2012). Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic influences on the socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors. Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 2(Accessed March 15, 2012), http://www.socioaffectiveneuroscipsychol.net/index.php/snp/article/view/17338

Mahon, B. Z., Anzellotti, S., Schwarzbach, J., Zampini, M., & Caramazza, A. (2009). Category-Specific Organization in the Human Brain Does Not Require Visual Experience. Neuron, 63(3), 397-405.

Food odors and social odors

The convergence of findings detailed in these two recent publications (linked below) makes it harder to defend a model where attraction to androgenic physical features of human males depends on their automagically determined visual appeal. I’ve waited several years for publication of the paper by Lenochova et al., after I saw her preliminary poster presentation from an conference. The work by her and her colleagues supports our work with pheromone enhancement of natural body odor. If fragrance can enhance the appeal of natural body odor, we should be able to further enhance appeal by adding pheromones, as we have repeatedly shown.

Effects of fragrance are actually unconsious affects via their association with natural species-specific odors that differentially alter levels of luteinizing hormone and brain development in males compared to human females. Brain imaging tells that these unconscious affects are more important to the development of behavior than is conscious perception of visual input. Besides, there’s no animal model for effects of conscious perception on species-specific behavior.

Food odors and social odors

Nutrient chemicals up-regulate and pheromones down-regulate the complex calibration, standardization, and control of gene expression that is responsible for the development of ecological and social niches in species from microbes to man. The direct “epigenetic” effect of these “food” odors and “social” odors on intracellular signaling pathways is what makes these two types of chemical cues as important to understanding the development of human behavior as they are to understanding behavior in every other species. The honeybee is the model organism that has emerged for use to portray the involvement of sensory input from the environment in the development of human behavior. It may surprise some people to learn that the incentive salience of visual and auditory stimuli pales by comparison to that of olfactory/pheromonal input, but this neuroscientific fact would not come as a surprise to any other species of insect or mammal.

Kohl, J.V. (2012) Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic influences on the socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors. Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology, 2: 17338. http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/snp.v2i0.17338

Social odors

Fragrance use does not merely mask their natural odor production, it adds to the appeal of men’s axillary odors. Could cultural practices associated with fragrance use contribute to the complex calibration, standardization, and control of genotype and phenotypic expression frequencies in different ancestral species and modern man? Can the biological basis of culture be found in the chemistry of social odors?

Lenochova, P., Vohnoutova, P., Roberts, S. C., Oberzaucher, E., Grammer, K., & Havlicek, J. (2012). Psychology of Fragrance Use: Perception of Individual Odor and Perfume Blends Reveals a Mechanism for Idiosyncratic Effects on Fragrance Choice. PLoS ONE, 7(3), e33810. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0033810

Human Pheromones: but No VNO; No Erox; No Human Pheromone Sciences

There are now many clear indicators that human pheromones (e.g., a mixture of androstenol and androsterone, or of ‘copulins’) cause changes in human behavior. For example, see our freely available olfactory research conference presentation: Human pheromones, epigenetics, physiology, and the development of animal behavior. Human pheromones enhance your appeal, naturally.

For contrast, see:

Press release: Human Pheromone Sciences Files for Termination of SEC Registration

What this press release signals may end an era during which the concept of pheromones seems to have been bastardized by linking chemicals that have no effect on human behavior to physiological changes via a non-functional human vomeronasal organ (VNO). Indeed, what was initially called their “proof of concept” predicts no effect on behavior because there is no functional human VNO. The weak physiological effects they showed are predicted with exposure to any virtually any sensory stimulus even if exposure is not consciously perceived.

Since their ‘marketing concept’ is also what popularized the concept of human pheromones, it is with some regret that I view their ‘disappearing act’ from the human pheromone marketing scene. Clearly, the mob mentality is primarily interesting in sex, not science. No doubt, many marketers will continue to rely on their original misrepresentations of cause and effect to sell the plethora of different products with spurious claims of effectiveness. But it should be more difficult for them to continue to fool consumers who may now be better informed.

For example, it has become clearer in the past two decades (since 1991) that basic principles of biology and levels of biological organization are required to link sensory cause to effects on hormones and their affects on behavior. This is the biology common to species from insects to other mammals, and the molecular biology of cause and effect is predictably the same across the Creation of species from microbes to man. We can now hope that this accurate conceptualization of how human pheromones affect behavior may become accepted,  in the absence of conflicting pseudoscientific claims. Acceptance of the enhancing effects of human pheromones, for example, may lead to better treatments for neurodegenerative diseases, like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s, prevention of autism spectrum disorders, and perhaps even to a vaccine for prevention of atherosclerosis and heart attack or stroke. If you decide to use human pheromones to enhance your appeal, you’re merely taking advantage of ongoing scientific research.

In that context, it may be purely coincidental that publication of my latest article in Socioaffective Neuroscience & Psychology on March 15, 2012 precedes the March 30, 2012 SEC announcement by only two weeks. But the announcement by Human Pheromone Sciences also could have been predicted by award-winning articles I authored in 2007, or co-authored in 2001, and even back to the first paper I co-authored in 1996 for the research journal Hormones and Behavior.

Since then, it has become increasingly clearer that human pheromones, like the pheromones of insects, cause the changes in hormones that cause changes in behavior.  So ends the highly effective VNO marketing ploy! We can now continue with accurate representations of cause and effect that have been detailed across species from microbes to man. Androstenol, for example, causes change in luteinizing hormone and mood in women. Androsterone is a highly individualistic hormonal indicator of human male reproductive fitness. With or without sandalwood masking odor, this combination of active ingredients enhances the appeal of a man wearing the mixture. Women respond with increased flirtatious behavior that exemplifies what is common to all animals that are influenced by pheromones. No human VNO is required. Good riddance to the false claims and misrepresentations of sensory cause and effect!

Pheromones are like food odors. Not every food is equally appealing. But we can enhance individual appeal with pheromones just like we can spice up the appeal of food. The common principle is that food odors are naturally responsible for food selection; and that human pheromone-enhancement is naturally responsible for sexual selection. Of course this means that human pheromone enhancement may get you selected, naturally. But that fact is no marketing ploy; it’s a biological fact. In this context, my technical publications will assure most people that I am not a marketer. I am a medical laboratory scientist!