Results 1 to 1 of 1
  1. #1
    Sadhu bjf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Rep Power

    Default Pheromones, in context


    ume 33, No. 9 October 2002

    Pheromones, in context
    In a field plagued by murky results and marketing hype,

    a few things are finally becoming clear.

    Monitor staff
    Print version: page 46


    is a field of research where the opinions of experts range from gung-ho boosterism to outright skepticism, where

    accusations of data fudging and sexism fly, and where the popular press is always watching from the sidelines, ready

    to trumpet each new claim and counterclaim to the world as soon as it is made.

    On one side of the debate are

    the pheromone boosters, some of whom have founded companies that sell pheromone-based perfumes and pharmaceuticals.

    On the other side are skeptics who argue that the phrase "human pheromone" is a contradiction in terms. Between the

    two extremes lies a middle ground of researchers who are doubtful of the strongest claims but unwilling to ignore

    the possibility that humans, like many other animals, use chemicals to communicate.

    Among them is Martha

    McClintock, PhD, who can be credited with starting the human pheromone phenomenon. In 1971, the University of

    Chicago psychologist, then an undergraduate at Wellesley College, published a study showing that the menstrual

    periods of women who lived together tended to converge on the same time every month, an effect thought to be

    mediated by pheromones.

    Now, more than 30 years later, McClintock and others in the middle ground are finally

    making progress in understanding the effects of human pheromones. Many aspects of the field remain

    unclear--including the definition of the term "pheromone" itself (see sidebar on page 48)--but at least one

    conclusion can be drawn from the research conducted so far: Their effects are far more dependent on social and

    psychological context than originally suspected.

    Stop lights and sweaty underarms

    When McClintock first

    began studying menstrual synchrony in the 1970s, data addressing how one woman could affect the hormonal cycle of

    another was nonexistent. But it seemed plausible that pheromones were responsible, especially since one of the

    original definitions of the term described them as "ectohormones," substances that worked between individuals in

    much the same way that "endohormones," like testosterone and estrogen, worked within them.

    There were hints

    that the pheromones in question were associated with underarm secretions, but it took until 1998 for McClintock and

    Kathleen Stern, PhD, to show that fluids collected from a donor woman's underarms, when applied to the upper lip of

    a female recipient, could hasten or delay the recipient's menstrual period. The study fell short of identifying the

    exact chemicals responsible, but even many skeptics agree that it provides strong evidence for the existence of

    human pheromones.

    The pheromones thought to be responsible for menstrual synchrony are known as

    "primers"--substances that can influence long-term changes in hormone levels, such as those that take place during

    the menstrual cycle, the onset of puberty or pregnancy. But researchers were also eager to find evidence for human

    "releasers"--quick-acting pheromones that in non-human animals can trigger stereotypical behavioral responses, such

    as sexual intercourse. Although some were skeptical that any stimulus--auditory, visual, tactile or chemical--could

    elicit stereotyped behaviors in humans, others were more optimistic.

    Those researchers focused their attention

    on so-called sex attractants like androstenone, a substance found in boar saliva, and "copulins," primate vaginal

    secretions that supposedly triggered male mating behavior. When further research showed that these substances had

    mixed or minimal effects in humans, however, excitement within the scientific community died down. But interest

    continued outside the scientific community, and some researchers founded companies to develop and market

    pheromone-based products intended to boost self-confidence or sexual attractiveness. Two of the substances that

    received the most attention were the hormone-like chemicals androstadienone and estratetraenol, which are found in

    human sweat.

    "The idea was that men produce androstadienone and that's a sex attractant to women, and women

    produce estratetraenol and that's a sex attractant to men," explains McClintock, who is critical of the claims made

    by many commercial pheromone companies. "Then they backed off from the sex attraction and modulated it more, to say,

    'Well, it just makes you feel more self-confident and open to social communication.'

    "We have found that

    these compounds do have very interesting effects on psychological state and brain function," she adds, "but it's

    not the simple picture that was originally portrayed."

    In 2000, McClintock and then-graduate student Suma

    Jacob, PhD, now a medical resident at the University of California, Los Angeles, reported that androstadienone and

    estratetraenol's effects on behavior were both sex- and context-dependent. In one experiment, the chemicals

    improved women's mood but had the opposite effect on men; in another experiment, they kept women's mood from

    deteriorating over the course of the testing session, but didn't improve it. McClintock and Jacob concluded that if

    the substances were indeed pheromones, they were modulators, not releasers--substances that affect behavior by

    altering psychological state, not by triggering fixed responses.

    Meanwhile, researchers like Winnifred Cutler,

    PhD, one of those who founded companies to market pheromone-based perfume additives in the 1980s, were trying to

    show that the substances worked as advertised. In 1998, she reported that her male perfume additive significantly

    increased men's likelihood of having sex. Last spring, San Francisco State University psychologist Norma McCoy,

    PhD, reported similar results using Cutler's female perfume additive.

    In McCoy's view, their studies show

    that the pheromones work under real-world conditions, regardless of laboratory results. "I think that we've once

    and for all demonstrated that this pheromone, however it's constituted, does have powers over the other sex," she

    says. "There is something that makes women attractive, and it can be very, very powerful."

    Charles Wysocki,

    PhD, of the Monell Chemical Senses Center, disagrees. "There's no good evidence in the biomedical literature that

    these are human pheromones," he says. According to his analysis of McCoy's data, the additive appeared to work only

    because women who received the placebo and the "pheromone" started out with different levels of sexual activity,

    then regressed toward the mean--a statistical flaw disguised by the study's data analysis methods.


    too, remains skeptical. Social and psychological conditions are important mediators of pheromonal effects, she says,

    and any claims that a particular product will increase the user's opportunities for sexual intercourse regardless

    of context are, in her opinion, misleading.

    "It's like saying that if you see a red light, you cannot control

    yourself from stopping no matter the circumstance," says McClintock. "Human behavior just isn't like that in any


    A dead-end duct?

    The debate over whether pheromones affect human behavior is hardly over, but at

    least enough evidence has been collected that a consensus has emerged on some effects, such as menstrual synchrony.

    In contrast, the biological details of how pheromones affect humans remain "a total mystery," according to Cornell

    University psychologist Robert Johnston, PhD, although a few tantalizing clues are beginning to emerge.


    1999, Noam Sobel, PhD, and his colleagues at Stanford University used functional magnetic resonance imaging to show

    that the human brain responded to androstadienone even when subjects were unable to smell it, a result confirmed in

    a later study by Jacob, McClintock and their colleagues. In 2001, Ivanka Savic, PhD, and her colleagues at the

    Karolinska Institute in Sweden reported that androstadienone and estratetraenol affected men and women's brains

    differently: The former boosted hypothalamic activity only in women, while the latter increased hypothalamic

    activity only in men. The hypothalamus influences the pituitary gland's release of hormones, so it is in a key

    position to affect reproductive behavior.

    Despite these suggestive neuroimaging results, it remains unclear how

    the presence of pheromones is communicated to the brain. In many animals, a pair of tiny ducts in the nasal septum

    called the vomeronasal organ (VNO) is responsible for detecting pheromones, but the evidence for a working human VNO

    is mixed at best. Because the main olfactory epithelium, where ordinary smells are detected, can also detect

    pheromones in some animals, the absence of a VNO would not rule out the possibility of human pheromones. But its

    presence would be a major support for the pheromone boosters.

    In a series of experiments in the 1990s,

    researchers at the University of Utah claimed to have shown not only that the human VNO existed, but that

    adrostadienone and estratetraenol elicited different electrical responses in the VNOs of men and women. The result

    parallels that of Savic's neuroimaging study and, if true, would provide for a pathway for pheromones to influence

    the brain. However, because the Utah group is also heavily invested in a pheromone-based pharmaceutical company,

    many researchers are skeptical of their results, especially since no one has yet discovered a functional nerve

    linking the VNO to the human brain.

    "I don't see any serious scientific flaws in the experiments they've

    published, but then again, they haven't published everything they've done," says Michael Meredith, PhD, a

    professor of neuroscience at Florida State University, who recently reviewed the evidence for the human VNO. He

    concluded that the evidence remains equivocal, and that only further research--by other groups of researchers--will

    resolve the debate. Bernard Grosser, MD, chair of the psychiatry department at the University of Utah, acknowledges

    that a pathway from VNO to brain remains to be found, but he says he is confident that one exists. "Anyone who has

    gone in and duplicated the work we've done has found essentially the same results," he says.

    In some ways, the

    VNO question is a distraction from the main issue, which is how pheromones affect human behavior. Knowing the answer

    to one question tells you very little about the other, says Sobel, now a professor of psychology at the University

    of California, Berkeley. Ultimately the question of whether there is such a thing as a human pheromone will depend

    on tying specific chemicals to specific neural, behavioral or psychological responses--and on coming to some

    agreement about what a pheromone is in the first place.

    Future research

    Future studies may settle some of

    these controversies. McCoy hopes to extend her work on sex pheromones to postmenopausal women. McClintock intends to

    study the influence of odors given off by breast-feeding women on the fertility of other women. Meredith, Johnston

    and others plan to continue studying the biological mechanisms by which chemical messages affect social behavior in

    rodents and other animals.

    How important these substances are in everyday life remains an open question. But

    whether or not one believes that human pheromones are sex attractants, as McCoy and Cutler do, there are still a

    number of social domains in which chemical messages could have an important effect, says McClintock.


    animals, [pheromones] are involved very strongly in care of offspring, in recognizing members of your social group,

    in recognizing family members," she says. "In thinking about what the normal function might be, we know from the

    animal work that we need to think broadly in social terms and that the same compound might serve differently in

    different contexts.

    "The field of physiological or biopsychology typically looks at how biology causes changes

    in behavior," she adds. "What we're trying to do is say that that's a very reductionist approach, and what is

    really important is to realize that psychology and social interaction also regulate the biology."

    Discussion on

    this topic can be found by clicking

    Last edited by oscar; 07-29-2004 at 09:41 AM. Reason: Inserting Link

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Using Pheromones for Attraction & Bonding -Article
    By Io_Sono in forum Pheromone Discussion
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 03-09-2005, 07:42 PM
  2. Do Pheromones Work
    By Tom in forum Pheromone Discussion
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 09-10-2004, 04:47 PM
  3. Pheromones in Context
    By jvkohl in forum Pheromone Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-04-2002, 04:59 PM
  4. The Ethics of Exogenous Pheromones
    By Whitehall in forum Archives 1
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 04-17-2002, 06:22 AM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-06-2002, 06:47 AM


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts