See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/225106584

Differential use of sensory information in sexual

behavior as a function of sex

Article  in  Human Nature · September 1997

DOI: 10.1007/BF02912495

CITATIONS READS

126 2,359

2 authors, including:

Rachel Herz
Brown University
75 PUBLICATIONS   4,718 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Special Issue "Advances in Human Olfactory Perception" View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Rachel Herz on 09 March 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 DIFFERENTIAL USE OF SENSORY
INFORMATION IN SEXUAL BEHAVIOR
AS A FUNCTION OF GENDER

Rachel S. H e r z and Elizabeth D. CahiU

Monell Chemical Senses Center

Olfactory information is critical to mammalian sexual behavior. Based on

parental investment theory the relative importance of olfaction compared
with vision, touch, and hearing should be different for human males and
females. In particular, because of its link to immunological profile and
offspring viability, odor should be a more important determinant of sexu-
al choice and arousal for females than for males. To test this hypothesis a
questionnaire was developed and administered to 332 adults (166 males,
166 females). Subjects used a 1-7 scale to indicate how much they agreed
with a series of statements concerning the importance of olfactory, visual,
auditory, and tactile information for their sexual responsivity. The data
reveal that males rated visual and olfactory information as being equally
important for selecting a lover, while females considered olfactory infor-
mation to be the single most important variable in mate choice. Addi-
tionally, when considering sexual activity, females singled out body odor
from all other sensory experiences as most able to negatively affect de-
sire, while males regarded odors as much more neutral stimuli for sexual
arousal. The present results support recent findings in mice and humans
concerning the relation of female preferences in body odor and major
histocompatibility complex (MHC) compatibility and can be explained
by an evolutionary analysis of sex differences in reproductive strategies.
This work represents the first direct examination of the role of different
forms of sensory information in human sexual behavior.
XEYWORDS: Evolutionary principles; Gender differences; Odor; Sensory
information; Sexual behavior.

Received: January 27, 1997; accepted: March 15, 1997.

Address all correspondence to Rachel S. Herz, Monell Chemical Senses Center, 3500
Market St., Philadelphia, PA 19104. E-mail: herz@pobox.upenn.edu
Copyright 9 1997 by Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York
Human Nature, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 2 7 5 - 2 8 6 . 1045-6767/97/$1.00+.10
275
276 Human Nature, Vol. 8, No. 3, 1997

Gender differences in h u m a n reproductive strategies are typically char-

acterized by males having more sexual partners, and being less moti-
vated by commitment and more motivated by physical attractiveness,
than females (see Buss and Schmitt 1993 for review). In humans, as in
most mammals, females invest more than males do in reproduction and
offspring survival (Trivers 1972). Females are also always certain of ma-
ternity. By contrast, the cost of reproduction for males is low and pater-
nity is never certain. According to sexual selection theory (Darwin 1871;
Trivers 1972), then, males should mate with as many fertile females as
possible, while females should choose mates who are most likely to
secure offspring survival.
Buss and Schmitt (1993), among others, have proposed that the eval-
uation of female fertility is most simply assessed on the basis of physical
indications of youth and health (e.g., full lips, clear and smooth skin,
clear eyes, high activity level). Importantly, these signs of physical at-
tractiveness are determinable on the basis of visual inspection. That is,
male mate-search strategies are predominately based on the evaluation
of biological cues to fitness, with visual information being the most
important sensory variable for choice and interest. Females, on the other
hand, have been characterized as primarily concerned with evaluating
males' behavioral displays of commitment and contribution of resources
towards herself and her potential offspring (Buss and Schmitt 1993;
Greenlees and McGrew 1994; Landolt et al. 1995). That is, female mate-
search strategies have traditionally been described as primarily based on
the evaluation of nonbiological cues to a male's paternal potential.
A notable omission in current writing on sex differences in reproduc-
tive strategies is the evaluation of biological characteristics of male mates
by females. Indeed, in keeping with an evolutionary analysis of mate
selection parameters, parental investment theory (Trivers 1972) predicts
that females should be more concerned than males about physiologically
adaptive mating because females invest more in their offspring than do
males. Physiologically adaptive mating entails genetic compatibility be-
tween a specific mating couple such that allele combinations in offspring
will maximize disease protection from invading micro-organisms, and
minimize deleterious recessive mutations. It therefore follows that fe-
males should be most sensitive to biological cues that are indicative of a
male's immunological genotype.
Products of the MHC (major histocompatibility complex) play an im-
portant role in i m m u n e recognition (Hedrick 1994; Klein 1986). Several
studies have shown that MHC identity influences mate choice in mice
(Egid and Brown 1989; Potts et al. 1991; Yamazaki et al. 1976). Mice who
are genetically identical except for minor variations in MHC loci will
preferentially select mates who are dissimilar at these same loci. Impor-
tantly, the basis for this discrimination has been shown to be entirely
Sensory Information and Sexual Behavior 277

based on the odor-type of the mice (Boyse et al. 1987; Egid and Brown
1989; Yamazaki et al. 1979), and it is the female mouse who makes these
odor-based selections (Eklund et al. 1992).
Recent research has shown that human MHC type is an important
variable in human female mate choice, and that as with rodents, it is
demonstrated in response to body odor. Wedekind and colleagues (1995)
typed female and male students for their human leukocyte antigens (-A,
-B, and -DR), which correspond to the mouse MHC. Each male subject
then wore a T-shirt for two consecutive nights, after which the shirts
were collected and placed in identical cardboard boxes for the female
subjects to sniff and evaluate. For each female, half of the boxes con-
tained T-shirts from men who were similar to her in MHC-type, and half
contained T-shirts from men who were dissimilar. The results revealed
that females preferred the smell of males who were most dissimilar from
them in MHC-type, indicating that female preferences for male body
odor correlate with MHC complementarity. Data from fertility clinics has
also shown that MHC similarities between couples are associated with a
greater likelihood of infertility and spontaneous abortions (Ho et al.
1990; Koyama et al. 1991; Thomas et al. 1985; Weckstein et al. 1991). Thus
MHC complementarity, as detected by body odor, has direct bearing on
human reproductive fitness.
Despite its obvious importance, the concept of female mate-search
strategies based on the evaluation of biological/sensory cues has been
overlooked in the psychological literature on human mate choice. The
primary purpose of the present research was thus to examine the use of
various types of sensory information in mate selection and sexual inter-
est among males and females. Based on the reviewed literature, it was
hypothesized that olfactory stimuli would be relatively more important
for female mate choice and sexual interest than for male mate choice and
sexual interest. To evaluate this hypothesis, a questionnaire was devel-
oped which examined the importance of tactile, visual, olfactory, and
auditory qualities in evaluating potential sexual partners and in eliciting
sexual arousal.

METHOD

Materials
To assess how different types of sensory information are used by
males and females for evaluating sexual partners and inducing sexual
arousal, a questionnaire entitled the Sensory Stimuli and Sexuality Survey
was developed (see Appendix). The questionnaire consisted of 18 scalar
questions grouped under three topics: lover/potential lover choice, sex-
278 Human Nature, Vol. 8, No. 3, 1997

ual arousal during sexual activity, and sexual arousal during nonsexual
activity. The questions under each topic assessed the subjective impor-
tance of the sensory characteristics of sight, hearing, touch, and smell to
subjects' behavior regarding the topic in question. Subjects used a 1-7
likert scale (1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree) to indicate
their responses. General information regarding age, race, and education
level were also obtained from all subjects.

Subjects
The questionnaire was administered to 332 college students (166 fe-
males, 166 males) solicited from the University of Pennsylvania and
Drexel University. The average age of subjects was 19.75 years. Students
were approached by a female experimenter at various campus locations
(bookstore, class, library, and indoor and outdoor gathering places) and
asked if they would be willing to complete a short survey. Upon comple-
tion of the survey subjects were thanked for their participation.

RESULTS

To examine the overall response levels of males and females, all of the
ratings were first analyzed by gender. For each item topic it was found
that males used higher numeric ratings than did females, indicating that
they rated themselves as more strongly agreeing with each of the state-
ments than did females. This effect may be due to greater conservatism
in sexual attitudes among females (Hendrick et al. 1985; Sprecher 1989).
Nevertheless, because these gender differences were found it was con-
sidered statistically necessary to analyze the data from males and fe-
males independently. One-way ANOVA tests on the various sensory
stimuli within each topic (lover choice, arousal during sexual activity, arousal
during nonsexual activity) were conducted separately on the male and
female data. The mean responses (-+ s.e.) given by males and females
for each question are shown in Table 1. Where significant effects were
obtained, Newman-Keuls (p < 0.05) post hoc comparisons were
performed.
Lover choice. A significant main effect was found for both males and
females: F (3, 495) = 47.47; F (3, 485) = 44.95, respectively. Post hoc
comparisons indicate that for males, w h e n selecting a lover, looks and
smells are equally important, while for females, how someone smells is
the single most important variable in mate choice; in fact, smell is signifi-
cantly more important than how someone looks, feels, or sounds. More-
over, for females, the sound of someone's voice and how their skin
Sensory Information and Sexual Behavior 279

Table 1. Mean Ratings for the Importance of Various Sensory Experiences in

Sexual Partners' Interest and Arousal
Males s.e. Females s.e.
Lover Choice
Sight 5.79 0.083 5.15 0.080
Sound 4.93 0.083 4.48 0.116
Smell 5.79 0.079 5.58 0.089
Feel 5.27 0.104 4.63 0.108
Arousal during Sexual Activity
Sight 6.33 0.069 5.26 0.115
Imagine 5.36 0.120 4.73 0.135
Sexual Sounds 5.68 0.105 4.67 0.159
Music 4.40 0.094 4.99 0.130
Body Smells 4.95 0.121 4.41 0.142
Non-Body Smells 4.93 0.118 4.78 0.139
Touch/Feel 6.12 0.088 6.00 0.104
Arousal during Nonsexual Activity
Sight 5.53 0.106 4.59 0.124
Imagine 5.60 0.098 4.75 0.128
Sexual Sounds 4.52 0.124 3.55 0.135
Music 3.64 0.128 4.43 0.132
Body Smells 3.88 0.121 3.62 0.128
Non-Body Smells 4.13 0.114 4.10 0.136
Touch/Feel 4.41 0.138 4.53 0.146

feels did not differ in importance, while for males, the feel of skin was
more important than the sound of a voice.
During sexual activity. The first question under this topic asked wheth-
er subjects had previous sexual experience, and if not then respondents
were told to skip to the next item topic (question 13). Twenty-six females
(15.7%) and fifteen males (9%) answered negatively. Therefore the num-
ber of males and females who responded to the questions under this
topic differed. A significant main effect was obtained for both males and
females: F (6, 900) = 48.47; F (6, 828) = 22.70, respectively. Post hoc
comparisons indicate that what males see and what they feel/touch are
most arousing during sex, and there was no statistical difference be-
tween these means. Males rated human sexual sounds to be the next
most arousing sensory experience, followed by what they could imag-
ine, which in turn was more arousing than olfactory experience. Fra-
grances and body odors were moderately arousing for men, and there
was no statistical difference between the ratings given to these two types
of olfactory experience. Music was the least arousing sensory experience
for males in the context of sex. Females rated what they feel/touch to be
the most arousing stimulus during sexual activity, followed by what
280 Human Nature, Vol. 8, No. 3, 1997

they can see. The mean ratings given to these two experiences were
significantly different. Following visual stimuli, the next most arousing
experiences were music, sexual sounds, non-body smells, and imagined
scenarios, which all affected female arousal equally. Notably, females
rated fragrances (non-body smells) to be significantly more arousing
than body smells. Indeed females rated body smells as the least arousing
sensory experience during sexual activity, and significantly more nega-
tive than any of the other sensory experiences.
When not engaged in sexual activity. A significant main effect for both
males and females was obtained: F (6, 978) = 62.28 and F (6, 954) =
22.30, respectively. Post hoc comparisons indicate that for males and
females visual experience, both imagined and real, was most arousing.
Next most arousing for males were hearing human sexual sounds and
tactile stimuli. These two means did not differ from each other. Olfactory
stimuli were not especially arousing to males out of the context of sex,
and fragrances and body odors did not differ in this regard. Males rated
music to be the least arousing of all the sensory experiences assessed.
For females, following visual experience, the next most arousing stimuli
were touch and music. These two means did not differ from each other.
Non-body smells were significantly more arousing than body smells to
females, and hearing human sexual sounds was the least arousing sen-
sory experience.

DISCUSSION

The Sensory Stimuli and Sexuality Survey revealed that males rated
visual and olfactory information as being equally important for selecting
a lover, while females considered olfactory information to be the single
most important variable in mate choice. Additionally, when considering
sexual activity, females singled out body odor from all other sensory
experiences as most able to affect desire negatively, while males re-
garded odors as much more neutral stimuli for sexual arousal and were
most aroused by visual and tactile experience. These results support the
hypothesis that olfactory information is relatively more important for
female mate choice and sexual arousal than for male mate choice and
sexual arousal.
Vision and olfaction do not have the same functional significance for
the behaviors involved in human reproduction. We have equated olfac-
tory information as relevant to offspring viability, and visual information
as relevant to fertility. There are also physical range differences in the
information that can be conveyed by vision versus olfaction. Vision
provides distal information to attract males and females to each other
over some physical distance (e.~., across a crowded room), while olfac-
Sensory Information and Sexual Behavior 281

tion provides proximal information for screening against incompatible

mating partners when in close physical range. The consequences of
relying on visual relative to olfactory information for mate selection are
predicted to be different for males and females owing to the different
costs and limitations of reproduction for each sex (Trivers 1972). Accord-
ingly, sex differences in the importance of olfaction versus vision in
sexual behavior are expected. The data reported here support this
proposition.
Our survey results show that female sexual interest is more affected
by body odor than any other sensory stimulus. Earlier research has
shown that human female olfactory acuity varies with menstrual cycle
phase, with highest sensitivity shown at ovulation and lowest during
menstruation (Doty et al. 1981). The coincidence of ovulation with olfac-
tory peak acuity is further indirect evidence for the importance of olfac-
tion in human female sexual behavior. Our data also reveal that males
are interested in olfactory information about females during mate
choice. This finding suggests that males are also invested in offspring
viability. Notably, the present study did not contrast biological/sensory
characteristics with resource status and commitment potential. Thus, it
is not known whether or how sensory variables outweigh behavioral
variables in mate selection for females in contrast to males.
The Sensory Stimuli and Sexuality Survey showed that during the
context of sexual activity, males considered visual and tactile stimuli to
be most arousing, but that females were more aroused by tactile stimuli
than any other sensory experience. When not engaged in sexual activity,
both men and women were most aroused by actual or imagined visual
stimuli. Aspects of these results are both consistent with and divergent
from previous literature. Research on sexual arousal in women has re-
ported that women are typically most aroused by tactile stimulation
during sexual activity (Ellis and Symons 1990; Faust 1980; Symons 1979),
and that mares are most affected by visual cues (Buss 1987, 1994; Ellis
and Symons 1990; Feingold 1990, 1992; Greenlees and McGrew 1994;
Landolt et al. 1995). The present results show that men are strongly
affected by tactile stimuli as well, and that when not already sexually
engaged, women and men become most aroused by visualizable stimuli.
A differentiation between men and women in arousal produced by arti-
ficial odors versus body odors, and music versus human sexual sounds,
was also revealed by the data. Women were less aroused by body odors
and human sexual sounds both in and out of the context of sex than by
fragrances and music. By contrast, males rated body odors and fra-
grances equally and rather neutrally. Additionally, males could be quite
aroused by human sexual sounds both in and out of the context of sex,
but not by music. One way to conceptualize these findings is that fe-
males prefer auditory and olfactory stimuli that are not directly sexual,
282 Human Nature, Vol. 8, No. 3, 1997

whereas males are more aroused by explicitly sexually associated stimu-

li. Other research has reported that males have more explicit sexual
fantasies than do females (e.g., Hardin and Gold 1989). The present
findings might also reflect gender differences in sexual conservatism
(Hendrick et al. 1985; Sprecher 1989).
Sex differences in social/grooming behavior regarding the use of fra-
grances are consistent with the finding that females are more aroused by
fragrances than by natural body odors. Females are far more likely to
buy and use artificial fragrance than are males. Two-thirds of all fra-
grance sales (a $5.1 billion industry) are for female products, and fe-
males do most of the purchasing (Annette Green, president, Fragrance
Foundation and Olfactory Research Fund, personal communication
1996). Moreover, in the prestige end of male fragrances it is primarily
w o m e n who buy fragrances for men as a gift item (Allan Mottus, pub-
lisher, The Informationist, a cosmetic trade journal, personal communica-
tion 1996). Women buy fragrances for themselves and for men because
of their interest in odors. By contrast, men are less concerned with
scenting themselves or smelling scent on women because they are less
intensely (either positively or negatively) affected by body odors.
The Sensory Stimuli and Sexuality Survey did not indicate whether
the interpersonal relationships referred to opposite sex or same sex part-
ners. Rather it was presumed that subjects would select their average
tendency. However, it was not expected that sexual orientation would
affect our interpretation of the results, as it has been reported that male
and female homosexuals interact with lovers in a sex stereotypical man-
ner consistent with heterosexual behavior (Gorman 1994).
Male and female mate choice strategies have traditionally been distin-
guished in terms of biologically driven versus behaviorally driven mo-
tivations, with males primarily reliant on biologically based visual cues
to indicate female fertility, and females on behavioral signs of resource
potential and commitment (Buss and Schmitt 1993; Greenlees and
McGrew 1994; Landolt et al. 1995). The present survey findings support
the previous literature on male mate-selection strategies, but more im-
portant, they demonstrate the significance of biological cues, and of
olfaction in particular, in female mate-selection strategies. It follows that
as a consequence of reproductive pressures, sex differences in sensi-
tivity to sensory stimuli may be shown in other realms. Many studies
have shown superior performance for males compared with females in
visuo-spatial ability (e.g., Linn and Peterson 1986; Watson and Kimura
1989), and a stable degree of female superiority for odor sensitivity (Cain
1982; Doty et al. 1981) and detection (Whisman et al. 1978) has also been
reliably found. The present study represents the first direct examination
of the role of different forms of sensory information in h u m a n sexual
behavior. Further research exvlorinz the evolutionary bases of sex differ-
Sensory Information and Sexual Behavior 283

ences in relation to h o w sensory information is processed in various

social and cognitive contexts w o u l d be highly valuable.

APPENDIX: Sensory Stimuli and Sexuality Survey

ID#
Please choose a n u m b e r from the following scale to a n s w e r each ques-
tion below:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree

In terms of a lover or potential lover:

1. _ _ H o w s o m e o n e looks can make a big difference to me.
2. _ _ H o w s o m e o n e s o u n d s (their voice) can make a big
difference to me.
3. ~ H o w s o m e o n e feels (their skin) can make a big difference
to me.
4. ~ H o w s o m e o n e smells can make a big difference to me.

During sexual activity with s o m e o n e else:

5. _ _ Check here if y o u have little or no sexual experience a n d
skip to question 13.
6. _ _ W h a t I see can arouse me.
7. _ _ S o m e t h i n g I imagine (beyond what is h a p p e n i n g ) can
arouse me.
8. _ _ Body smells can arouse me.
9. _ _ N o n - b o d y smells (e.g., fragrances, ambient odors) can
arouse me.
10. _ _ H u m a n sexual s o u n d s can arouse me.
11. _ _ Certain music can arouse me.
12. _ _ The touch or feel of certain things can arouse me.

W h e n I am not engaged in sexual activity:

13.__ Something I am looking at can make me feel sexually
aroused.
14.__ Something I imagine (beyond what is h a p p e n i n g ) can
make me feel sexually aroused.
1 5 . ~ Body smells can make me feel sexually aroused.
1 6 . ~ N o n - b o d y smells (e.g., fragrances, ambient odors) can
make me feel sexually aroused.
17.__ Hearing h u m a n sexual s o u n d s can make m e feel sexually
aroused.
18.__ Hearing certain music can make me feel sexually aroused.
284 Human Nature, Vol. 8, No. 3, 1997

19. _ _ T h e touch or feel of certain things can m a k e m e feel

sexually aroused.

O p t i o n a l S u p p l e m e n t a l Information:

Age:
Years of Education (current year in college):
Race:

The authors wish to thank Paul Rozin and Clark Macaulay for advice on the
construction of the Sensory Stimuli and Sexuality Survey and Lucia Jacobs and
Russ Mason for valuable discussions.

Rachel Herz completed her Ph.D. at the University of Toronto in 1992 and was a post-
graduate fellow at the University of British Columbia. She has been on faculty at the
Monell Chemical Senses Center in Philadelphia since 1994. Her research interests include
olfaction, cross-modal comparisons of sensory memory systems, context-dependent learn-
ing and memory, and evolutionary theory.
Elizabeth Cahill received her B.A. in psychology from Bucknell College in 1995 and
worked with Herz as a research technician in 1996-1997.

REFERENCES

Boyse, E. A., G. K. Beauchamp, and K. Yamazaki

1987 The Genetics of Body Scent. Trends in Genetics 3:97-102.
Buss, D. M.
1987 Sex Differences in Human Mate Selection Criteria: an Evolutionary Per-
spective. In Sociobiology and Psychology: Ideas, Issues, and Applications, C. C.
Crawford, M. Smith, and D. Krebs, eds. Pp. 335-351. London: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
1994 The Evolution of Desire: Strategies of Human Mating. New York: Basic
Books.
Buss, D. M., and D. P. Schmitt
1993 Sexual Strategies Theory: An Evolutionary Perspective on Human Mat-
ing. Psychological Review 100:204-232.
Cain, W.
1982 Odor Identification by Males and Females: Predictions Versus Perfor-
mance. Chemical Senses 7:129-141.
Darwin, C.
1871 The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. London: Murray.
Doty, R. L., P. Snyder, G. Huggins, and L. D. Lowry
1981 Endocrine, Cardiovascular and Psychological Correlates of Olfactory
Sensitivity Changes during the Human Menstrual Cycle. Journal of Compara-
tive and Physiological Psychology 95:45-60.
Sensory Information and Sexual Behavior 285

Egid, K., and J. L. Brown

1989 The Major Histocompatibility Complex and Female Mating Preferences
in Mice. Animal Behavior 38:548.
Eklund, A., K. Egid, and J. L. Brown
1992 Sex Differences in the Use of the Major Histocompatibility Complex for
Mate Selection in Congenic Strains of Mice. In Chemical Signals in Vertebrates,
R. L. Doty and D. Muller-Scwarze, eds. Pp. 213-217. New York: Plenum
Press.
Ellis, B. J., and D. Symons
1990 Sex Differences in Sexual Fantasy: An Evolutionary Psychology Ap-
proach. Journal of Sex Research 27:527-555.
Faust, B.
1980 Women, Sex and Pornography. New York: Macmillan.
Feingold, A.
1990 Gender Differences in Effects of Physical Attractiveness on Romantic
Attraction: A Comparison across Five Research Paradigm. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology 59:981-993.
1992 Gender Differences in Mate Selection Preferences: A Test of the Parental
Investment Model. Psychological Bulletin 112:125-139.
Gorman, M. R.
1994 Male Homosexual Desire: Neurological Investigations and Scientific
Bias. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 38:61-81.
Greenlees, I. A., and W. C. McGrew
1994 Sex and Age Differences in Preferences and Tactics of Mate Attraction:
Analysis of Published Advertisements. Ethology and Sociobiology 15:59-
72.
Hardin, K. M., and S. R. Gold
1989 Relationship of Sex, Sex Guilt, and Experience to Written Sexual Fanta-
sies. Imagination, Cognition and Personality 8:155-163.
Hedrick, P. W.
1994 Evolutionary Genetics of the Major Histocompatibility Complex. Ameri-
can Naturalist 143:945-964.
Hendrick, S., C. Hendrick, M. J. Slapion-Foote, and F. H. Foote
1985 Gender Differences in Sexual Attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 48:1630-1642.
Ho, H. N., T. J. Gill, R. P. Nsieh, H. J. Hsieh, and T. Y. Lee
1990 Sharing of Human Leukocyte Antigens in Primary and Secondary Re-
current Spontaneous Abortions. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
163:178-188.
Klein, J.
1986 Natural History of the Major Histocompatibility Complex. New York: John
Wiley and Sons.
Koyama, M., F. Saji, S. Takahashi, M. Takemura, Y. Samegima, T. Kameda, T.
Kimura, and O. Tanizawa
1991 Probabilistic Assessment of the HLA Sharing of Recurrent Spontaneous
Abortion Couples in the Japanese Population. Tissue Antigens 37:211-
217.
 286 Human Nature, Vol. 8, No. 3, 1997

Landolt, M. A., M. L. Lalumiere, and V. L. Quinsey

1995 Sex Differences in Intrasex Variations in Human Mating Tactics: An
Evolutionary Approach. Ethology and Sociobiology 16:3-23.
Linn, M. C., and A. C. Peterson
1986 A Meta-Analysis of Gender Differences in Spatial Ability: Implications
for Mathematics and Science Achievement. In the Psychology of Gender: Ad-
vances Through Meta-Analysis, J. S. Hyde and M. C. Linn, eds. Pp. 67-101.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Potts, W. K., C. J. Manning, and E. K. Wakeland
1991 Mating Patterns in Seminatural Populations of Mice Influenced by
MHC Genotype. Nature 352:619-621.
Sprecher, S.
1989 Premarital Sexual Standards for. Different Categories of Individuals.
Journal of Sex Research 26:232-248.
Symons, D.
1979 The Evolution of Human Sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press.
Thomas, M. L., J. H. Harger, D. K. Wagner, B. S. Rabin, and T. J. Gill III
1985 HLA Sharing and Spontaneous Abortion in Humans. American Journal
of Obstetrics and Gynecology 151:1053-1058.
Trivers, R.
1972 Parental Investment and Sexual Selection: In Sexual Selection and the
Descent of Man, B. Campbell, ed. Pp. 136-179. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.
Watson, N. V., and D. Kimura
1989 Right-Hand Superiority for Throwing But Not Intercepting. Neuro-
psychologia 27:1399-1414.
Weckstein, L. N., P. Patrizio, J. P. Balmaceda, R. H. Asch, and D. W. Branch
1991 Human Leukocyte Antigen Compatibility and Failure to Achieve a Via-
ble Pregnancy with Assisted Reproductive Technology. Acta European Fertil-
ity 22:103-107.
Wedekind, D., T. Seebeck, F. Bettens, and A. J. Paepke
1995 MHC-Dependent Mate Preference in Humans. Proceedings of the Royal
Society of London B 260:245-249.
Whisman, M. L., J. W. Goetzinger, F. O. Cotton, and D. W. Brinkman
1978 Odorant Evaluation: A Study of Ehanethiol and Tetrahydrothiophene
as Warning Agents in Propane. Environment, Science, and Technology 12:1285-
1288.
Yamazaki, K., E. A. Boyse, V. Mike, H. T. Thaler, B. J. Mathieson, J. Abbot, J.
Boyse, Z. A. Zayas, and L. Thomas
1976 Control of Mating Preferences in Mice by Genes in the Major Histocom-
patibility Complex. Journal of Experimental Medicine 144:1324-1335.
Yamazaki, K., M. Yamaguchi, L. Baranoski, J. Bard, E. A. Boyse, and L. Thomas
1979 Recognition among Mice. Evidence from the Use of a Y-Maze Differen-
tially Scented by Congenic Mice of Different Major Histocompatibility
Types. Journal of Experimental Medicine 150:755-760.

View publication stats