PDA

View Full Version : NOL and RONE STUDY - Interesting



bjf
09-13-2004, 12:51 PM
A link to

this was posted on the research forum by Einstein, but I wanted to make sure there could be some discussion on

it:


Influence of Androstenol and Androsterone on the evaluation of men of varying attractiveness levels.

R.E. Maiworm, W.U. Langthaler. Münster. Chemical Signals in Vertebraes, 1992.

INTRODUCTION
The components

of human axillary secretions, especially odoriferous steroids, may take part in human olfactory communication in a

manner analogous to the odours from specialized skin glands in animals (Labows et al.,1982). Filsinger & Fabes

(1985), for expample, suggest that some of them (especially androstenol, androstenone) may be putative human

pheromones. With regard to androstenol and androstenone, evidence has been found for aconnection between these

odoriferous substances and the covert or open behavior of the receivers (e.g., assessment of person, self-ratings,

choice of locations: cf. Kirk-Smith, 1978; Filsinger & Fabes, 1985; Benton & Wastell, 1986). However, it has not

been shown that such substances function as human pheromones and induce a definite behavior or physiological

response.

In contrast to androstenol, androsterone is a weakly androgenic steroid. As a part of steroid

metabolism in the skin, androsterone is metabolized from dihydroepiandrosterone (Sharp et al., 1976; Kaufmann et

al., 1990). Androsterone is found in lipids coating the axillary hair and may be secreted by sebaceous glands (Toth,

1983). Labows et al. (1979) found no free androsterone in fresh apocrine Becretion, although free androsterone was

found after the secretion was acted on by bacteria. Androsterone is also found in human urine. This steriod has a

musky odor and olfactory properties (e.g., Bubjective intensity) similar to those of androstenol (Kloek, 1961).



Little information is available about the influence of androsterone on the open or covert behavior of

humans. Gustavson et al. (1987) used androsterone as a control odor to androstenol when testing its influence on

human choice behavior (rest room stalls). They did not find any effects of androsterone on the behavior of either

men or women.

In a previous study, androstenol, as well as androstenone, was found to influence the

self-ratings of the mood of female subjects. Furthermore, Maiworm and Langthaler (1990) found an effect of

androstenone on women's assessment of photographs of moderately attractive men. This effect was related to the

stage of the menstrual cycle.

The present study examines the potential influence of

5-alpha-androst-16-en-alpha-ol and 3-alpha-hydroxy-5-alpha-androsten-17-one on the assessment of the attractiveness

and other attributes of men. We hypothesized that, compared to two control groups (namely solvent and no treatment),

androstenol and androsterone will influence women's subjective ratings of the attractiveness and other attributes

of photographed men. The effects of the substances were expected to vary with the degree of the attractiveness of

the men, as determined from peer ratings.

METHODS
The double-blind study, in which 102 female students

(mean age = 23.3 years) participated, was conducted by two female experimenters. The subjects were paid a moderate

amount of money to participate.

In an earlier study photographs of 60 men and women had been taken under

standardized conditions. The attractiveness had been assessed by 118 female and male students. For the pre6ent

study, we choose 5 men from this sample whose mean attractiveness scores covered the range of the attractivenss

scores of the sample; namely, a scarely attractive man (value 24), a less attractive man (value 48), a moderately

attractive man (value 53), and two highly attractive men (value 65, 72).

At the beginning of each session, a

standardized questionnaire was administered to assess each subject's state of mood (EWL; Jahnke & Debus, 1978). One

of the three test substances was app1ied to the upper lip of each of ten subjects. The olfactory stimuli were stored

in air-tight, 2.5 ml plastic containers. Each container held 1.5 ml of either androstenol, androstenol, androsterone

(1 mg/ml), or the control stimulus ethanol (99%, research grade). In one control condition, no test substance was

applied. The subject subsequently rated five randomly presented photographs of men, one by one, on 30 bipolar

adjective scales developed in the course of a former study (Maiworm & Langthaler, 1990), and on a 100-point

attractiveness scale which ranged from "1" (indicating "not attractive") to "100" (indicating "highly attractive").

After the assessment of the photographs, the questionnaire about the subject's mood state was again administered

and the subjects were interviewed (e.g., about menstrual cycle phase and oralcontracptive use). A multifactorial two

(experimental) by two (control) experimental design was used. The data were analyzed by a MANOVA with adjusted alpha

levels (SPSS; Statistical Package for Social Science; two factorial model and contrasts).

RESULTS
The

test substances and the phases of the menstrual cycle had an effect on the assessments (interaction, p < 0.006). The

use of oral contraceptives also influenced the evaluations (main effect, p < 0.034) and the phase of the menstrual

cycle (main effect p < 0.001). In accord with a previous study, the data showed that the assessment of men under the

influence of androstenol is related to menstrual cycle phase (p < 0.005; main effect). Relative to the third phase

(days 20-29), the evaluations concerning "open" (p < 0.05) were more positive during the first phase (days 1-9) and

the evaluations of "attractive" (p < 0.05) were more positive during the second phase (days 10-19). A relationship

between the influence of androsterone and menstrual cycle phase was present for the assessment "expressive" (p <

0.05 between the first and third and the second and third cycle phases). Androsterone was found to have a

significant impact on the subjects who rated the men as "warm" (p <0.01), "good" (p < 0.01), "masculine" (p < 0.05)

and "black" (p < 0.05), whereas androstenol significantly influenced the ratings of "black" (p. < 0.05). within one

of the control groups (no treatment), the assessment of the attributes "macho" was affected by the phase of the

menstrual cycle (p < 0.05). Androsterone raised the attractiveness ratings for the more attractive men, and lowered

the attractiveness ratings for the less attractive men. The ratings of the higher attractive men (photographs) were

more strongly influenced by the test substances than those of the scarcely or moderately attractive man (Table 1;

contrasts by MANOVA, t-tests, alpha level adjusted).

The subjects' ratings concerning the personality

profile and their mood states were within the range of values of the standard sample. A comparison (paired t-tests)

of the pre/post-test scores indicated that the women described themselves as less tired (p < 0.05), less sensitive

(p < 0.05), and less depressed (P < 0.05) under the androstenol condition at the end of the session than at the

beginning. within the androsterone condition, they also described themselves as less sensitivie (p < 0.05). At the

end of the test session the women described themselves as less-assured and more anxious under the androsterone

condition than under the control condition (p < 0.05).

DISCUSSION
The hypothesis concerning the influence

of androstenol and androsterone was confirmed. Both substances had an effect on the womens. subjective perception of

the attractiveness and other attributes of the photographed men, and this effect varied with the degree of

peer-rated attractivenss of the men. With respect to androsterone, this result was unexpected, since to our

knowledge this there is no mention of this phenomenon in the literature. However, we did not find a specific

pattern; factor analyses did not yield any components that explained a satisfactorily high percentage of the

variance. Since there was no significant difference in the ratings of the men between the control conditions

(ethanol, no treatment), androstenol and androsterone appear to have an impact on the assessments. Somehow, both

substances function as "levellers" by raising the evaluation of moderately attractive men and by lowering the

evaluation of the higher attractive man (tendency towards the mean). The effects of androstenol on the estimation of

other attributes were also found to be influenced by the menstrual cycle, which, in a previous study (Maiworm &

Langthaler, 1990), turned out to be more evident for androstenone. The men were evaluated much more negatively in

the third part of the menstrual cycle. Under the influence of both substances, the assessments of erotic attributes

(sexy, erotic) tended to be more negative, whereas the assessments of non-sexual attributes (e.g., emotional, warm,

sensitive, nice) tended to be more positive. Within the androstenol condition, the women described themselves as

being in a good mood (less depressed, active), whereas in the androsterone condition, they described themselves as

being less self-assured and courageous.

REFERENCES
Benton, D., and Wastell, V., 1986, Effects of

androstenol on human sexual arousal, Biological Psychology, 22:141-l47.
Filsinger, E.E., Braun, J.J., and Monte,

W.C., 1985, An examination of the effects of putative pheromones on human judgements, Ethology and Sociobiology, 6,

227-236.
Filsinger, E.E. and Fabes. R.A., 1985, Odor communication, pheromones and human families, Journal of

Marriage and the Familv, 47, 3 49-359.
Gustavson. A.R., Dawson, ME., and Bonnet, D.G., 1987, Androstenol, a

putative human pheromone, affects human (Homo sapiens) male choice performance. Journal of Comparative Psychology,

101, 210-212.
Jahnke, W., and Debus, G., 1978, Die Eigenschaftswörterliste. EWL. Hogrefe. Gottingen.
Kaufmann,

F.R., Stancyk, F.Z., and Gentzschein, E, 1990, DHT and DHTS metabolism in human genital skin. Fertility and

Sterilitv, 54, 251-254.
Kirk-Smith, M., Booth, D.A., Caroll, D., and Davies, P., 1978, Human social attitudes

affected by androstenol. Research Communications in Psychology. Psychiatry and Behavior, 3, 379-384.
Kloek, J.,

1961, The smell of some sex-hormones and their metabolites. Reflections and experiments concerning the significance

of smell for the mutual relation of the sexes. Psychiatria. Neurologia. Neurochirurgia, 64, 106-344.
Labows,

J.N., Preti, G., Hoelzle, E., Leyden, J., and Kligman, A., 1979, steriod analysis of human apocrine secretion.

Steriods, 34, 249-258.
Labows, J.N., McGinley, K.J., and Kligman, A., 1982, Perspectives on axillary odor.

Journal of the Society of Cosmetic Chemists., 34, 193-202.
Maiworm, R.E. & Langthaler, 1990, Influences of

androstenol, androsterone, menstrual cycle andoral contraceptives on the attractivity ratings of female probands.

Ninth Conaress of the ECCO. The Netherlands, 2-7.9, 1990.
Sharp, F., Hay, J.B., Hodgins, M.B., 1976, Journal Qf

Endocrinoloay, 70, 491.
Toth, I., and Faredin, L., 1983, Steriods excreted by human skin. Acta Medica Hungaria,

40, 139-145.

Traggard
09-13-2004, 01:04 PM
” Androsterone raised the attractiveness ratings for the more attractive men, and lowered the

attractiveness ratings for the less attractive men. The ratings of the higher attractive men (photographs) were more

strongly influenced by the test substances than those of the scarcely or moderately attractive

man”

Dam, that could

explain a lot of the different results people are getting. Rone decreases the perceived attractiveness if you are

ugly, and increase it if you are good looking? Never heard that before, but it does explain a lot.

BassMan
09-13-2004, 01:18 PM
Ok, I'm confused

here:



A) Androsterone raised the attractiveness ratings for the more attractive men, and lowered

the attractiveness ratings for the less attractive men.

B) Somehow, both substances function as "levellers" by

raising the evaluation of moderately attractive men and by lowering the evaluation of the higher attractive man

(tendency towards the mean). The two statements appear contradictory. What am I missing?

-Bass

Rover The Dog
09-13-2004, 01:24 PM
As far as the quote about

the Rone making those attractive more attractive and those not attractive less atractive -- by the way i really need

to learn how to quote

yeah i was concentrating on that as well...but you also have to take into consideration

that the attractiveness is greatly influenced with other pheromones such as -none and -nol and that these studies

were conducted when the person was only in contact with one mone. So if for instance you were to wear something

containing -none then you are perceived to be more attractive and the -rone will end up boosting the perception of

you. Thus this could be perhaps why rone in small amounts could end up being the thing that makes the mix.

bjf
09-13-2004, 01:42 PM
Ok, I'm confused

here:
The two statements appear contradictory. What am I missing?

-Bass

I couldn't

understand that either.

lordcrazyd
09-13-2004, 01:48 PM
the way you said it was

funny. If your "ugly" lol

jollysnowdevil
09-13-2004, 02:45 PM
interesting study.. wish

i could understand all the scientist mumbo jumbo.. the effect of the individual mones depended on there menstrual

cycle? interesting enough. think im going to stick to my own findings. too many different control factors in this

study for a lamen to worry about.

Pancho1188
09-13-2004, 03:20 PM
The results area includes the

facts, the discussion section includes the scientists conclusions. If you're confused, stick with the facts

(A in your little comparison). The second statement seemed to include both pheromones in one statement,

which is strange to do when you have differing results that contradict what you're saying.

As for the -mones

having more impact on the attractive...I'd say that that has a lot to do with the "nothing to lose" factor. If

you're not attractive, you'll still have that stigma going for you no matter what. You can't really move down

too much, and -mones are just an "edge" to get someone to like you more. However, when you're attractive, there's

a lot more room to move. The stakes are higher. The difference between, "Wow, he's hot..." and, "I want to @*#$

him now!" is very small. Also, many things can turn a woman off... "I can't go out with someone shorter than me,"

for instance (recent post, of course). The tables can go against you if she just gets the thought into her head

that you're not all that (i.e. you look like a snobby prick when wearing -none...who'll want you then?). It's

like rating sports superstars. When you suck, you suck. There's no, "Well, he sucks, but if he hit a homerun

tomorrow he'd be pretty good." No, you'd consider it a fluke and still think he sucks unless he kept doing it.

(big movie reference helping me out here) However, if you're judging the great from the best in the world...

"Well, he has 3,000 hits, he's a hall of famer!!!" to not the best... "Well, he only had 2,997 hits. He had

nothing else going for him besides his hits, so now he was a great player but not hall of fame worthy." Three hits,

and *snap* it's gone.

I hope that explains the potential reasoning behind that part of the article. Any

thoughts?

bjf
09-13-2004, 03:35 PM
Read

the first and last sentence of every paragraph. :)


Seriously though ;) it also said it lowers the

perceived attractiveness for good looking people in one part of the literature.

DrSmellThis
09-13-2004, 10:23 PM
...excellent post, and a

classic study. Maiworm does some of the most interesting work of any pheromone researcher, especially on -rone.

CptKipling
09-14-2004, 05:40 PM
Ok, I'm

confused here:
The two statements appear contradictory. What am I missing?

-Bass
Yeah, I still don't

get it.

DrSmellThis
09-14-2004, 06:47 PM
I agree that it's unclear as

written. Also interesting is that both mones increased positive attributes but decreased erotic/sexy attributes. To

be sure, replication is needed with more kinds of conditions to decipher everything.

a.k.a.
09-14-2004, 09:06 PM
The subjects'

ratings concerning the personality profile and their mood states were within the range of values of the standard

sample. A comparison (paired t-tests) of the pre/post-test scores indicated that the women described themselves as

less tired (p < 0.05), less sensitive (p < 0.05), and less depressed (P < 0.05) under the androstenol condition at

the end of the session than at the beginning. within the androsterone condition, they also described themselves as

less sensitivie (p < 0.05). At the end of the test session the women described themselves as less-assured and more

anxious under the androsterone condition than under the control condition (p < 0.05).



I’d

be pretty stressed myself, if I had to rate a bunch of photographs while 1mg/ml of Androsterone was wafting right up

my nose.

I think the lack of clarity comes from the fact that there was a difference in the ratings

of individual photos, but there wasn’t a shift in the number of photos perceived as attractive/unattractive.



The results seem to suggest that attractive men can get an edge with pheromones (or at least Rone and Nol), whereas

unattractive men are better off without them.

I’d like to see a study where women have to rate 2 minute

encounters with (actual) men (vs. photographs) wearing reasonable concentrations of Rone & Nol (eg. SOE

unscented).

PS What does it mean to rate a photograph “black” on a bipolar scale? (Science is a trip. I much

prefer testimonials.)

a.k.a.
09-14-2004, 09:31 PM
Dam, that could

explain a lot of the different results people are getting. Rone decreases the perceived attractiveness if you are

ugly, and increase it if you are good looking? Never heard that before, but it does explain a lot.

I

was thinking the same thing, but, then again, the success rate in this forum seems to increase with age; whereas

most of the "nothing happened" posts seem to come from young guys that rate themselves as at least fairly

attractive.
I'm short, skinny and have a big nose.

belgareth
09-14-2004, 09:41 PM
I was thinking

the same thing, but, then again, the success rate in this forum seems to increase with age; whereas most of the

"nothing happened" posts seem to come from young guys that rate themselves as at least fairly attractive.
I'm

short, skinny and have a big nose.
There's other factors that might be skewing the reported results. On

is that older guys have had more opportunity to learn to read body language making it a little more likely that they

will notice minor things. Two is that older guys usually have more patience for testing and learning how to get the

most from pheromones.

DrSmellThis
09-14-2004, 10:57 PM
A.K.A., the "black" thing could have been a control condition, an

arbitrary dimension to test "method variance", or to get a handle on how much the experimental method itself might

have contributed to results. I'm not sure how neutral or arbitrary "black" is, though, as "black" may have

attraction connotations to some people. But it would be a design and statistical trick to reduce error variance,

which is like noise, to get a clearer picture of the "true effect" of experimental conditions (i.e., the -mones),

independent of method. Essentially, you are measuring a kind of noise, so you can factor it out (there are other

kinds of noise as well you can measure). Since they only used one method in this study (unless I'm missing

something) it might be like a calibrater that they could use for replications, in which they vary procedures across

the same "black" control condition, if that all makes sense. Then you'd be measuring what the type of experimental

method is doing to the results, and would potentially be able to put together information from different methods to

form a clearer picture of what you're trying to detect (the effect of pheromones).

In experimental design

theory, it's called improving "construct validity", where you're trying to test the pure effect of a real

theoretical force that you think exists in nature, like an astronomer or subatomic physicist trying to measure a

mysterious, faint, unknown force through all the "noise" and see it as clearly as possible. In this case, it's the

theoretical force of pheromones. To have strong construct validity, you must at least use multiple methods and

measure multiple aspects of what you're interested in (both the independent and dependent variables.) That's how

you determine accurate effect sizes, and work your way closer to measuring the real causes of things

scientifically, in terms of how much of a cause various things are relative to each other (e.g., any supposed

"independent forces" from visual, auditory, cognitive and olfactory information) and relative to the total variation

in the phenomenon you're looking at (e.g., attraction). We are far from being able to talk scientifically about the

relative causes of attraction, as these are not simple matters.

So do you all want to know one important reason

why I am not automatically impressed by studies "published in peer reviewed journals"? Well, although construct

validity is the most important type of validity you need to have in science, according to every cutting

edge expert in scientific research; most research published in journals having to do with human beings, such as

human pheromone research, has faulty, poor construct validity. And most people, even scientists, who consume

research have very little idea how to think about this issue critically, if they even acknowledge it as an

issue. This is one reason they end up thinking unsound, unscientific thoughts about the causes of things they are

interested in (e.g., being unable to think scientifically about how much pheromones really are a cause of

attraction, and being blissfully unaware that they can't!).

So if that is what Maiworm, et al, were

doing, it would be an indication they knew what they were doing with research design more than most. It's an

advanced, sophisticated procedure, even for a professional researcher. But I'd have to look at it closer, or have

access to more information, to do more than make an educated guess that that's what it was. They did not do a great

job of explaining this, and a few other things in the published version of the study. Oh well, it's hard to

find state of the art methodological researchers. But maybe there's a doctoral dissertation somewhere on one of

Maiworm's bookshelves that explains it.
:type:

Tiger4
09-15-2004, 06:42 AM
I think the study is flawed at

best. They don't define exactly what they mean as "attractive". Attractiveness is somewhat of a whimsical thing.

On the other hand, most tend to agree that facial symmetry is the key to attractiveness. There was a study done not

to long ago which concluded that if we go by facial symmetry, Densel Washington is regarded as the most attractive.

People such as Robert Deniro or Tom Cruise are pretty much assymmetric but they still have lots of ladies. So would

it be safe to assume that if Robert Deniro or Tom Cruise wore rone, it would make them less attractive to

women?

I read of a study where it determined that women who sniffed copulins were more strongly attracted to men

with less masculine features. Women who sniffed none however were more likely to be drawn towards men with more

masculine features such as a broad chiseled chin.

None of these studies mean that certain types of pheromones

will repel women when worn by certain individuals. A man's natural pheromones are more likely to do that if their

immune systems are very similar.

a.k.a.
09-15-2004, 07:08 AM
My girlfriend LOVES Denzel

Washington. I think George Clooney is the only screen idol that she drools over more than Denzel.
She thinks Tom

Cruise is dorky and Robert Deniro is downright creepy.

Pancho1188
09-15-2004, 07:14 AM
I think the

study is flawed at best. They don't define exactly what they mean as "attractive". Attractiveness is somewhat of a

whimsical thing.
They can't define attractiveness. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." I have seen

many psychological studies performed on attractiveness, and not one has ever attempted to 'define it' in a

particular way. I think the general definition regarding these studies is "aesthetically pleasing" or "nice to look

at". It's like rating paintings, though...it depends on your opinion. In other words, "How attractive is this

person?" is the best you're ever going to get as far as specificity unless you elaborate to, "Would you like to

speak with this person?" or "Would you approach this man in a dark alley?" or "If this was the last man on earth and

the survival of the species relied on the two of you procreating, would you 'do' him?"

:thumbsup:

That's

why the first realization they found is symmetry. It's one of the only thing that knows no

cultural/age/gender/religious/sexual preference/racial bias.

a.k.a.
09-15-2004, 07:15 AM
Androsterone was found to

have a significant impact on the subjects who rated the men as "warm" (p <0.01), "good" (p < 0.01), "masculine" (p <

0.05) and "black" (p < 0.05), whereas androstenol significantly influenced the ratings of "black" (p. <

0.05).

Pheromones significantly increased the ratings of black. Does that mean the whole study is

nothing but noise?

DrSmellThis
09-15-2004, 12:31 PM
Good question! You are thinking critically about a "peer reviewed journal article," and not

just accepting it by authority. The answer is yes and no. It means only that noise may well be clouding our vision

to detect the real effect of pheromones that may be there. So yes, there's noise in the study that is interfering

in things. It doesn't look like they've found the way to filter it out, from the article. So even though this is

one of the most interesting reseachers studying pheromones, you still have to take it with a couple shakes of salt,

and the overall taste is not satisfying.

In particular, it means that the process of rating any trait in the

specific way that they did it, even an arbitrary one, might have influenced pheromone condition ratings a

certain amount, or vice versa. This is what I mean by "method effect". Another, more intuitive way of looking

at it is that the pheromones could influence the rating of any trait, even a neutral, random one. You're ready to

endorse anything at that point -- it could be "parrot" or "swiss cheese"! :) "Hey! Androsterone made subjects

rate these pictures as more "parrot"!" Either way, that amount, related to the 0.05 they quoted, is a first estimate

of the method effect. So the results you can take more seriously at this point, without more sophisticated

analysis or further information, are the ones with a smaller p value than 0.05, like 0.001 (the effect of ovulatory

phase).

Anyway, if you'd rate "black" by another method, you would see another method effect estimate, and the

more methods you use, the closer you'd get to seeing the theoretical "actual method effect" for that particular

procedure. But to do it right, you'd also want to measure more than one "arbitrary trait" in this case, like

"green" and "Portugese" or something (even parrot or swiss cheese!). Ideally, you'd get random adjectives from the

dictionary and keep pulling them out of a hat until you found some that appear to be "most neutral and arbitrary".

Three would be enough, realistically speaking.

But it's not even that simple. Since endorsing things is like

saying yes, and since saying yes to something is almost surely part of one's attraction to that thing, you are

presented with a problem in measuring the true method effect independent of your effect of interest (e.g.,

attracton). To get around this, you'd want to measure endorsing the same neutral thing in a "No" kind of way, like

"not black" or something. You could also leave the category optional and compare how many chose to rate it versus

not under the pheromone condition; and then compare that with the "endorsement effect" to get at the true method

effect. Research design isn't easy! I'd have to think about it more. But this is a cutting edge way of looking at

it that too few researchers are into as of yet. You are able to get much bigger effect sizes doing things this way,

and to get much more stunning results.

This kind of thing calibrates the measurement process for you. Research

on humans needs to be pretty damn sophisticated to be able to detect the kinds of complicated and subtle causal

forces you are studying. But once you get it aimed and focused, you can have a powerful and sensitive lens for

looking at human nature.

Until we start doing things like this in research, (and this just scratches the

surface) we'll have very little idea, scientifically speaking, how much pheromones effect anything! So don't

listen to anyone who tells you they already know. All human science researchers should do things like this in

every study to increase their construct validity. Do they? Too, too rarely. I know of no one in pheromone

research who does, as the field is not really attracting the most skilled research designers (I'll leave it to your

imagination whether or not I happen to fit into that category.:D). But these are the types of things Maiworm should

be thinking about in her office when putting studies together. And to expect biologist-types to know this stuff

without advanced training in psychological research (which I'm providing here, free of charge ;))? Forget it.