Physiology & Behavior 68 (1999) 241–250

Brief Communication
Rapid mood change and human odors
Denise Chen* and Jeannette Haviland-Jones
Rutgers University
Received 29 May 1998; received in revised form 22 March 1999; accepted 7 July 1999

Abstract
We demonstrate an immediate effect of airborne chemicals on human moods. We collected six groups of underarm odors, respec-
tively, from five prepubertal girls, five prepubertal boys, five college women, five college men, five older women, and five older men. In
addition, we collected odors from homes of these donors, making them a seventh group of odor. Three hundred and eight odor observers
ranked the seven groups of odors of little girls, little boys, college women, college men, older women, older men, and homes by their per-
ceived pleasantness, intensity, perceived masculinity, and age of the donors, among other qualities. On a separate task, the same odor ob-
servers assessed their depressive, hostile, and positive moods twice, once before and once a few minutes after they sniffed one of the
above seven groups of odors. Exposure to underarm odors for under 2 min led to significant, rapid, and small changes in the nonclinical
depressive mood of the odor observers. The mood changes were independent of the observers’ perceptions of odor qualities. Odors per-
ceived as unpleasant and intense were as likely to relieve a depressive mood as were pleasant odors. © 1999 Elsevier Science Inc. All
rights reserved.
Keywords: Airborne chemical communication; Mood; Odor judgment; Humans

1. Introduction hand, given the evidence that odors can affect people without
their conscious awareness [5,14,15], it is also possible that the
Animals are known to produce airborne chemicals that
emotional impact of natural body odors may be independent of
elicit long-term physiological and endocrinological effects
how the odors are consciously perceived.
(e.g., estrous synchronization) [1,2] and immediate behav-
Animal [1] and dermatological literature [6,9] suggests
ioral responses (e.g., approach, avoidance) [1] including
that odors across different developmental stages vary in bio-
mood changes (fear) [3,4,]. Human airborne chemicals also
logical properties, making them possibly identifiable by age
elicit long-term endocrinological effects (e.g., menstrual
and gender. Research on human olfactory identification of
synchronization) [5]. Rudimentary olfactory identification
gender, however, is inconclusive. The majority of the stud-
(e.g., kin from nonkin, self from others, familiar from unfa-
ies examined only the olfactory identification of the gender
miliar individuals) has been demonstrated in humans [6–9].
of young adults, and relied on the direct-questioning method
What has not been studied is whether mere exposure to such
of asking people to pick the right odor. Six out of the nine
odors has a short-term effect on the behavior of the odor re-
studies found evidence supporting human identification of
cipients, and whether the effect is contingent upon, or inde-
the gender of young adults based on hand [16], breath [17],
pendent of, the recipients’ perceptions of the odor qualities
and T-shirt [8,18] odors while the three studies based on un-
and their inferences about the source of the odors.
derarm odors [19] did not. One interpretation of these re-
Research shows that synthetic odors have an effect on mood
sults is that what is identified is odor intensity/pleasantness,
and memories [10–13] such that pleasant scents tend to have a
and not gender per se [6,19]. It remains unclear whether dis-
positive effect, whereas unpleasant chemicals tend to have a
crimination is possible in young adults and in other age
negative effect. According to this hedonic congruency model, it
groups such as prepubertal children and older adults. A re-
seems likely that natural body odors perceived to be pleasant
cently published study showed that neither adults nor chil-
should affect people positively, and that body odors perceived
dren themselves identified gender of 9-year-old children
to be unpleasant should affect people negatively. On the other
[20]. However, hygiene and soap usage in donor children
was not controlled, which, as an adult study has suggested
* Corresponding author. Monell Chemical Senses Center, 3500 Market [21], could have hampered gender identification. Further,
Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104. the direct questioning methods may have tapped only the
E-mail address: chen@monell.org more conscious level of discrimination.
0031-9384/99/$–see front matter © 1999 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
PII: S0031-9384(99)00 1 4 7 - X
242 D. Chen and J. Haviland-Jones / Physiology & Behavior 68 (1999) 241–250
The purpose of this study is to investigate: (1) whether
underarm odors from different age and gender groups have
a differential impact on the mood of young adult men and
women observers who smell the odors; and (2) whether the
emotional responses to odors are contingent upon the ob-
servers’ perceptions of odor qualities (e.g., pleasantness, in-
tensity) and inferences about odor source (e.g., donor age
and gender).
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Participants and design
2.1.1. Odor donors
Underarm odors were collected from 30 donors of six
age-by-gender groups: (1) five little girls (mean 6 SD 5
5 6 1.48 years, specific age 5 3, 4, 5, 5, 7); (2) five little
boys (mean 6 SD 5 6 6 1.22 years, specific age 5 5, 5, 6,
6, 8); (3) five college women (mean 6 SD 5 20 6 1.14
years, specific age 5 18, 19, 20, 20, 21); (4) five college
men (mean 6 SD 5 23 6 3.28 years, specific age 5 19,
21, 21, 25, 27); (5) five older women (mean 6 SD 5 71 6
5.28 years, specific age 5 64, 68, 73, 76, 76); and (6) five
older men (mean 6 SD 5 73 6 8.44 years, specific age 5
58, 74, 76, 78, 78). All were Caucasian, healthy, not on hor-
mone treatment, and nonsmoking. The college women were
not pregnant and reported regular menstrual cycles (i.e., be-
tween 27 to 33 days per cycle). All donors were recruited
through ads from the New Brunswick, NJ area. The children
were recruited from day care centers, young adults from a
state university, and older adults from faculty/staff from the
same university, and from a senior activity center. All re-
ceived $10 and three T-shirts for their participation.
2.1.2. Odor observers
The odor observers were 316 undergraduate students. All
received course credit for their participation. They were
screened for gross olfactory deficit at the end of the experi-
ment. Eight out of the original 316 observers (2%, five
women, three men) failed to meet the criteria and were ex-
cluded from subsequent analysis. The tests and criteria will
be described later under Olfactory Screening Tests. The fi-
nal odor observers consisted of 308 undergraduate students
(154 men, 154 women) ages 17 to 29 (mean 6 SD 5 19 6
1.64 years). Fifty-two percent described themselves as Cau-
casian, 24% Asian, 9% Hispanic, 8% African-American,
and 7% other. The majority of them (97%) were nonsmok-
ers. None of the women reported that they were pregnant.
2.1.3. Design
The experiment was a 7 (odor sources: little girls, little
boys, college women, college men, older women, older
men, home odors) 3 2 (observer gender) mixed-model de-
sign, with 22 observers in each cell. The percentage of
White, African-American, Hispanic, Asian, and other odor
observers were equally distributed across odor conditions
(p 5 0.691).
2.2. Odor stimuli collection
Adult donors were instructed not to use any fragrance/
antiperspirant nor to shave their underarms starting from 4
days prior to odor collection. Some used the fragrance-free
deodorant provided by the experimenter up to the day prior
to odor collection. Both child and adult donors were in-
structed not to eat any odorous food such as garlic and on-
ion both on the day before and on the days of odor collec-
tion. A diet diary was kept during odor collections to check
if dietary instructions were followed. Any strenuous activi-
ties by the donors on the days of odor collection were re-
ported.
Both child and adult donors took a bath/shower (or at
least washed their underarm regions) on the evening before
each odor collection with the fragrance-free soap and sham-
poo provided by the experimenter, taped a clean 4 3 40
gauze pad around each armpit the next morning, and kept
them on for 8 to 10 h. This was repeated for 3 days. Follow-
ing each day of collection, donors stored the pads in double
plastic bags in their freezer. Each day of odor collection, do-
nors wore a new T-shirt provided by the experimenter to
avoid odor contamination from laundry detergent. Donors
were instructed to leave open blank pads at home as con-
trols for environmental influences. On average, pads were
collected by the experimenter the same or the second day
after the collection was over, separated by donor age, gen-
der, and odor type, cut into 2 3 20 squares, placed in en-
closed glass jars, and frozen at 280 8C until used in testing.
Each donor contributed underarm sweat collected on a total
of 24 pads (two arms 3 3 days 3 four squares per pad).
Subsequent analyses revealed that donor diet, activity
level, and the length of time the pads had been worn did not
vary by odor conditions. The seven donors who reported to
have consumed garlic- or onion-flavored food on the days
of odor collection were evenly distributed in each age by
gender group (i.e., one little girl, one college man, one older
man, two college women, and two older women). Overall,
the majority of children and older adult donors reported to
be physically active such as engaging in play (children), or
gardening or exercising in the gym (older adults). More
young adults reported to engage in school-related work such
as attending classes and reading. A repeated-measures
ANOVA with the number of hours worn on Day 1, Day 2,
and Day 3 of odor collection as a within-subjects factor, and
with the seven odor conditions as a between-subject factor,
found no significant difference in the number of hours the
pads were worn on each day, F(2, 23) 5 0.794, p . 0.05,
nor in the number of hours the pads were worn for each
odor condition, F(10, 48) 5 1.448, p . 0.05.
2.3. Odor stimuli preparation
Odor stimuli were defrosted to room temperature at least
40 min before testing. The seven groups of odor stimuli (six
groups of underarm odors from little girls, little boys, col-
lege women, college men, older women, and older men, re-
 D. Chen and J. Haviland-Jones / Physiology & Behavior 68 (1999) 241–250
spectively, and one group of odors combined from the
homes of each donor) were each covered up in a 150 3 20
mm glass Petri dish. Glass Petri dishes were chosen over
plastic bottles because the latter gave off a plastic odor.
They were chosen over glass jars because Petri dishes’
short, flat, and wide surfaces allowed the pads to be evenly
spread out and allowed easier sniffing. Each dish of under-
arm odors contained five 2 3 20 pads representing each in-
dividual within that donor group. The home odor dish con-
tained six pads, one randomly drawn from each donor
group. The extra pad was hidden underneath the other five
pads, so that the home odor dish did not appear different
from the underarm odor dishes.
Each set of five groups of pads was reused for an average
of 7 days (mean 6 SD 5 6.62 6 2.50), and was tested on
an average of 13 observers (mean 6 SD 5 13.12 6 3.94).
The old pads were then discarded and new pads were used.
The pads were changed a total of eight times (or cycles).
Three sets of seven groups of odors were used at a cycle
during the first seven cycles, and two sets of seven groups
of odors were used during the last cycle. After being trans-
ferred into enclosed glass jars, the pads were refrozen in be-
tween the test days, as well as between sessions on a single
test day if the two sessions were separated by more than 3 h.
2.4. Testing condition
The experiment was described as a study of people’s re-
actions to various odors, and did not specify the source/type
of any odors. The odor observers were instructed not to
wear any fragrances or strongly scented deodorants to the
experiment. The experiment was administered by a single
experimenter who also did not use any of the above fra-
grances. On average, observers were either tested individu-
ally or two at a time in a room of approximately 6 meters
long and 3 meters wide. The room had seven windows; all
were opened in between the test sessions. When more than
one subject was tested at a time, they were seated apart from
one another, to ensure that they were not able to smell the
target odor assigned to each other.
The experiment consisted of three assessments, in their
chronological order: (1) olfactory impact on mood, (2) ol-
factory impact on memory recollections (not reported here),
and (3) odor judgment.
Observers smelled only one group of odors on the olfac-
tory-impact-on-mood task but smelled all seven groups of
odors on the odor-judgment task. For the purpose of clarity,
the odor-judgment task will be presented before the olfac-
tory-impact-on-mood task.
2.5. Olfactory screening tests
Two screening tests were given. One was a three-item
scratch-and-sniff test (Sensonics, Inc.) in which subjects
were asked to identify the correct name of a scent out of
four available choices for a total of three scents that are fa-
miliar to most people who are raised in this country (i.e.,
243
grass, root beer, coconut). The other was an androstenone
identification test. Androstenone is an odorous steroid be-
lieved to contribute to underarm odors [22,23]. Subjects
were presented with three bottles, and asked to identify over
two trials the only one bottle that contained an odor (5 mg
of 99% pure 5a-androst-16-en-3-one purchased from
Sigma). The order of the tests was random across subjects.
Two different tests were used because a previous study [24]
suggested that andronstenone sensitivity might not be di-
rectly related to overall olfactory sensitivity. Only subjects
who made no more than one mistake on the scratch-and-
sniff test regardless of their performance on the androsten-
one test, or subjects who correctly identified androstenone
on both trials regardless of their performance on the scratch-
and-sniff test, were included in the final analysis. Five
women (one each from the little-girl, little-boy, college-
women, college-men, and older-women odor condition) and
three men (one each from the little-girl, college-women, and
older-men odor condition) did not meet such criterion and were
excluded. The criterion was arbitrary, and aimed at exclud-
ing individuals who were sensitive to neither common/fa-
miliar odors nor one of the odorous ingredients of sweat.
Out of the final 308 observers who passed the screening
tests, one-third of women (34% or 52 women) and over one-
fourth of men (27% or 42 men) performed correctly on both
the scratch-and-sniff and the androstenone test. Sixty per-
cent of women (92 women) and close to 50% of men (48%
or 75 men) detected androstenone, compared with 56% of
each gender (86 females, 87 males) who correctly identified
the names of all three scents on the scratch-and-sniff test.
2.6. Experimental procedure
2.6.1. Odor judgment
Observers had all seven odors presented to them. Each
odor was ranked independently on perceived pleasantness,
intensity, and familiarity, and on perceived erotic quality/
allure, dependency/neediness for care and protection, and
perceived age and gender of the donor. The odors were re-
sorted before each ranking. There was a minimum of a 1-
min interval in between each ranking to minimize the ef-
fects of odor adaptation. The order of the evaluations was
random except for questions on age and gender, which al-
ways appeared last.
2.6.2. Olfactory impact on mood
The Differential Emotion Scale IV (DES) [25] consists
of 36 questions that assess how frequently observers experi-
enced 12 emotions. Each question is rated on a scale from 1
(rarely or never) to 5 (very often). Observers’ mood was
twice assessed on two different forms of the DES, once at
the beginning of the experiment, and once about 2 min later,
after they completed a brief demographic information form
and sniffed one target odor. All observers sniffed only one
type of odor. Neither observers nor the experimenter knew
which odor was presented. The experimenter randomly se-
lected one dish of odors from the seven dishes of odors. Be-
244 D. Chen and J. Haviland-Jones / Physiology & Behavior 68 (1999) 241–250
cause the identification number was written on the bottom
of the dish, the experimenter did not know which odor it
was. The identification was only uncovered and recorded
before the odor-judgment task. At the end of the day, the ex-
perimenter recorded the number of subjects in each odor
condition. If one condition was filled, subjects were as-
signed odors from the remaining conditions. With the ex-
ception of the last few subjects, the experimenter did not
know which condition the subjects were assigned to.
The perceived intensity of the target odor was defined as
the ranked intensity of that odor relative to the six other
odors. Other perceived qualities of the target odor were sim-
ilarly defined, based on how the target odor was ranked rel-
ative to the other odors on the odor judgment task.
When presented with the target odor, observers were in-
structed to first sniff all five pads in the dish one by one to
get an idea of what each smelled like. They were then in-
structed to take three quick sniffs followed by three long
sniffs of all the pads at once. This was done to ensure that
all subjects would smell the stimuli in a similar fashion, and
that each individual odor within the donor group was
smelled.
2.7. Statistical analyses
2.7.1. Odor judgment
To determine observers’ perceptions of odor qualities,
repeated-measures ANOVAs were conducted with rank
within each judgment category (for perceived pleasantness,
intensity, perceived masculinity and age of the odor donors,
respectively) as a within-subjects factor, and with observer
gender as a between-subjects factor.
To investigate whether observers on the odor-judgment
task might rank the target odor that they had been exposed
to earlier on the mood task to be less intense than observers
who had not been exposed to it, seven ANOVAs were per-
formed, with the rank of the perceived intensity for each tar-
get odor group relative to the other odors as a dependent
variable, and with odor condition (observers in that target
odor condition versus those who were not) as an indepen-
dent variable. Results indicate that observers in a particular
target odor condition did not rate the intensity of the target
odor any differently than those who were not in the condi-
tion except that observers who had been exposed to the
odors of college men on the mood task rated those odors to
be less intense than did observers who had not been exposed
to such odors (mean 5 5.77 versus 6.40, F(1, 304) 5 11.26,
p , 0.005). Consequently, ranked intensity for odors of col-
lege men by observers in that odor condition was adjusted
such that any rank less than 4 was increased by 4 (e.g., on a
scale where the maximum intensity ranking is 7, an inten-
sity ranking of 1 of college men’s odors by a subject in the
college men’s odor condition was adjusted to 5). This
brought the mean intensity rank for odors of college men by
observers in that condition equivalent to the same as those
not in that condition (mean 5 6.30 versus 6.40).
2.7.2. Olfactory impact on mood
Mood scores before and after the odor exposure were
separately analyzed by Principal Components Analysis
(PCA) with varimax rotation. Principal Components Analy-
sis, similar to factor analysis, is a data reduction method
widely used in the social sciences. PCA successively ex-
tracts a small number of components that account for a large
amount of variance while varimax rotation makes the com-
ponents easier to interpret [26]. Three mood factors were re-
vealed based on the scree plot for both preodor mood and
postodor mood scores: depressive mood (like other mea-
sures of depression, includes sadness, inward hostility, dis-
gust, and anxiety associated with fear, shame, shy, and
guilt), hostile mood (anger and contempt), and positive
mood (interest, joy, and surprise). Factor loadings are pre-
sented in Table 1. Questions 4 and 31 had low loadings on
both mood tests. Question 31 also loaded on different fac-
tors on the second mood test. Consequently, both were ex-
cluded from subsequent analyses. The three-factor mood
structure in the present study was consistent with the three-
factor structure found by Stapley and Haviland [27]. No eth-
nicity difference was found in mood changes or in odor
judgment; therefore, subsequent analyses combined observ-
ers across different ethic backgrounds.
To investigate the relative predictive value of odors on
mood above and beyond observers’ preodor mood state, six
hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted,
two for each mood factor. The following variables were en-
tered as predictors in step 1: preodor mood, perceived inten-
sity of the target odor, odor conditions, and observer gender.
Odor conditions either appeared as individual odors
(dummy coded into six variables), or were grouped by do-
nor age (dummy coded into two variables) and donor gen-
der. Two-way interactions between observer gender and
odor conditions were entered as predictors in step 2. Any
three-way interactions were entered in step 3. As one of the
purposes of the study was to investigate whether mood
scores changed as a function of the target odor, the depen-
dent variable was changes in mood (defined as a preodor
mood factor subtracted from its postodor mood factor).
The seven perceived odor qualities (perceived intensity,
erotic quality, pleasantness, familiarity, donor dependency,
donor age, and gender) were not entered simultaneously in
the same regression because they were significantly corre-
lated with one another. Instead, separate regressions were
conducted as above, each controlling for one of the six re-
maining odor qualities. The same hierarchical multiple re-
gression analyses were also conducted with the adjusted
perceived intensity as one of the predictors.
The ability to detect androsterone was not entered as a pre-
dictor in the regression because it was not significantly corre-
lated with observed mood changes (point-biserial correlation
5 20.029, 20.069, 0.011 with depressive, hostile, and posi-
tive mood changes, respectively, p . 0.05), nor was it corre-
lated with observers’ accuracy at identifying the age and gen-
der of the odors (point-biserial correlation 5 0.067, p . 0.05).
 D. Chen and J. Haviland-Jones / Physiology & Behavior 68 (1999) 241–250 245

Table 1
Item content and factor loadings (Varimax rotation) of the pre-odor and post-odor mood scores

Item content on Preodor Components Postodor Components

Izard’s original scale Depressive Hostile Positive Depressive Hostile Positive
23. Feel bashful, embarrassed 0.680 0.793
28. Feel sick about yourself 0.667 0.677
35. Feel afraid 0.648 0.718
14. Feel mad at yourself 0.645 0.712
21. Feel sad and gloomy, almost like crying 0.645 0.678
5. Feel you can’t stand yourself 0.637 0.740
22. Feel like you did something wrong 0.624 0.749
34. Feel discouraged, like you can’t make it, nothing’s going right 0.612 0.725
7. Feel unhappy, blue, downhearted 0.603 0.626
10. Feel shy, like you want to hide 0.596 0.757
19. Feel fearful, like you are in danger, very tense 0.591 0.636
26. Feel like people laugh at you 0.585 0.681
6. Feel embarrassed when anybody sees you make a mistake 0.584 0.679
2. Feel sheepish, like you don’t want to be seen 0.583 0.748
1. Feel regret, sorry about something you did 0.572 0.622
12. Feel scared, uneasy, like something might harm you 0.562 0.637
27. Feel like things are so rotten they could make you sick 0.559 0.611
30. Feel like you ought to be blamed for something 0.520 0.635
36. Feel like people always look at you when anything goes wrong 0.508 0.608
24. Feel disgusted, like something is sickening 0.503 0.490 0.637
31. Feel the way you do when something unexpected happens 0.397 0.332 0.427 0.488
9. Feel like somebody is a low-life, not worth the time of day 0.778 0.830
16. Feel like somebody is “good for nothing” 0.774 0.838
33. Feel angry, irritated, annoyed with somebody 0.668 0.727
13. Feel mad at somebody 0.641 0.724
29. Feel like you are better than somebody 0.544 0.591
20. Feel like screaming at somebody or banging on something 0.421 0.505 0.644
4. Feel like somthing stinks, puts a bad taste in your mouth 0.480 0.434 0.440
15. Feel happy 0.705 0.623
3. Feel glad about something 0.667 0.658
25. Feel joyful, like everything is going your way, everything is rosy 0.646 0.613
18. Feel amazed, like you can’t believe what’s happened, it was so unusual 0.575 0.691
17. Feel so interested in what you’re doing that you’re caught up in it 0.568 0.647
32. Feel alert, curious, kind of excited about something 0.555 0.667
11. Feel like what you’re doing or watching is interesting 0.542 0.673
8. Feel surprised, like when something suddenly happens you had no idea would happen 0.348 0.516 0.650
Principal Components Analysis is used as the extraction method. Loadings on both components are displayed if the same item loads on two components
and their loading difference is less than 0.19.

Corrections for inclusion of multiple tests were taken to
protect the alpha levels. For example, to ensure that the sig-
nificance level for the variable of odor condition was 0.05,
the significance level of each of the six dummy variables to
represent the seven categories of odor condition had to be
less than 0.0083 to be considered significant. To ensure that
the significance level for the variable of donor age was 0.05,
the significance level of each of its two dummy variable had
to be less than 0.025 to be considered significant.
The effect size d is reported. It is calculated at t times the
square root of the sum of one over the first sample size and one
over the second sample size. According to Cohen, d 5 0.20 in-
dicates a small effect size, d $ 0.50 indicates a medium effect
size, and d $ 0.80 indicates a large effect size [28].
3. Results
To examine whether pads from differ cycles varied in
their perceived pleasantness and intensity, two repeated-
measures ANOVAs were performed for perceived intensity
and perceived pleasantness respectively with the rank of the
seven groups of odors as a within-subjects factor and with
the cycle of the pads as a between-subjects factor. Although
there was a significant rank by cycle interaction, F(39,
1689) 5 2.254 and F(38, 1649) 5 2.438, p , 0.0001, for
pleasantness and intensity, respectively. Scheffe post hoc
analyses showed that none of the pairwise comparison
reached significance after the significance level for each
pair was adjusted. There were a total of 56 (seven odors 3
eight cycles) pairs of comparisons. The significance level
for each pair needed to be less than 0.0009 in order to
achieve an overall significance level of 0.05. Thus, we con-
clude that the perceived odor pleasantness and intensity re-
spectively did not differ by cycle.
3.1. Odor judgment
Odor observers ranked the seven odors on qualities such
as perceived pleasantness, intensity, and perceived gender
246 D. Chen and J. Haviland-Jones / Physiology & Behavior 68 (1999) 241–250
and age of the donors (Figs. 1 and 2). Home odors and odors
of children were perceived to be most pleasant, least in-
tense, most feminine, and youngest in age among the seven
target odors. The odors of college men followed closely by
odors of older women were perceived as most unpleasant,
intense, most masculine, and oldest in age. Odors of college
women and older men were in the middle. The finding that
odors of older women were judged more similar to odors of
college men than to odors of college women and that odors
of older men were judged more similar to odors of college
women than to odors of college men could be due to the
change in the hormonal profile in older women and men.
The estrogen/testosterone ratio has been found to decrease
in postmenopausal women [29,30] and increase in older
men [30–32]. Although apocrine gland activities are be-
lieved to stop in old age [9], the strong underarm odors found
in older women in this study seem to indicate otherwise.
There have been claims that people can discriminate gen-
der from the hand, breath, and T-shirt odors of young adult
men and women [8,16–18], but such results may have been
biased by age restrictions in the samples. When we added an
older adult sample, we found neither gender nor age identi-
fication was consistently accurate. Our results support Doty
and colleagues’ findings [6,19] that such discrimination
might have been based on observers’ perceptions of odor in-
tensity and pleasantness. The more intense and unpleasant
an odor, the older and more masculine the donors were
judged to be. This stereotypic rule led observers to misiden-
tify little boys as little girls, and to misidentify both college
men and older women as old men. Older men, whose odor
was judged moderate on most scales, might be classified as
any age or gender. Odors of college women were identified
as female, but their low intensity caused them to be easily
confused with children’s odors.
Fig. 1. Average rank of perceived odor pleasantness, intensity, and per-
ceived masculinity and age of the donors by odor conditions. Vertical bars
represent standard errors about the means. This is based on repeated mea-
sures ANOVAs, F(6, 301) 5 125.14, 266.24, 77.17, and 46.17, respec-
tively, p , 0.0001.
Fig. 2. Average rank of perceived erotic quality, intensity, familiarity, and
perceived dependency of the donors by odor conditions. Vertical bars rep-
resent standard errors about the means. This is based on repeated measures
ANOVAs, F(6, 301) 5 88.82, 266.24, 14.84, and 9.70, respectively, p ,
0.0001.
3.2. Olfactory impact on mood
The regression results for depressive mood are presented
in Tables 2 and 3, and mean changes in depression by odor
conditions are presented in Fig. 3. Based on research on the
effect of synthetic odors on mood and behavior [10–13], we
had predicted that mild and pleasant odors, such as the un-
derarm odors of children, would have an uplifting effect on
the mood of the observers, whereas intense and unpleasant
odors, such as the underarm odors from men, would in-
crease the hostile and depressive moods of the observers.
However, we actually found that even after preodor depres-
sive mood and perceived odor intensity had been controlled,
observers still reported lower ratings of depression when
presented with odors of older adults in contrast to younger
adults, and odors of women in contrast to men (b 5 20.166
and 20.144, p , 0.02, d 5 0.36 and 0.29, respectively,
small effect size). Identical results were obtained after the
perceived intensity had been adjusted for habituation (b 5
20.167 and 20.145, p , 0.02, d 5 0.36 and 0.29).
In particular, observers reported significantly lower rat-
ings of depression when presented with odors of older
women than when presented with odors of college men (b 5
20.287, p , 0.0001, d 5 0.82, large effect size). Again,
identical results were obtained after the perceived intensity
had been adjusted for habituation (b 5 20.290, p ,
0.0001, d 5 0.81).
ANCOVAs for each mood factor with the preodor mood
and perceived odor intensity as covariates, with odor condi-
tions and observer gender as independent variables, and
with the mood change as the dependent variable, yielded the
same result as the regression analyses.
Regression analyses respectively controlling for per-
ceived odor pleasantness, erotic quality, familiarity, and do-
nor dependency, age, and gender yielded results that are
 D. Chen and J. Haviland-Jones / Physiology & Behavior 68 (1999) 241–250 247

Table 2
Hierarchial multiple regressiona of preodor depressive mood, perceived odor intensity,b observer gender, and odor conditions (for individual odors) on
changes in depressive moodc
Variable R2 DR2 Incremental F Betad
Step 1
Preodor depressive mood 0.086 0.086 3.034** 0.112
Perceived odor intensity 0.011
Observer gender (w 5 1, m 5 0) 0.139*
Odor 1 (girlse 5 1, rest 5 0, cm 5 reference)f 20.136
Odor 2 (boys 5 1, rest 5 0, cm 5 reference) 20.136
Odor 3 (cw 5 1, rest 5 0, cm 5 reference) 20.136
Odor 4 (ow 5 1, rest 5 0, cm 5 reference) 20.287***
Odor 5 (om 5 1, rest 5 0, cm 5 reference) 20.108
Odor 6 (home 5 1, rest 5 0, cm 5 reference) 20.202*
Step 2
Observer gender 3 odor 1 0.095 0.009 0.475 0.026
Observer gender 3 odor 2 20.069
Observer gender 3 odor 3 0.051
Observer gender 3 odor 4 20.016
Observer gender 3 odor 5 0.028
Observer gender 3 odor 6 20.090
a
R 5 0.308, R2 5 0.095, F(15, 285) 5 1.991, p , 0.02, for the total equation.
b
Perceived odoar intensity 5 Ranked intensity of the target odor relative to the six other odors. The ranks were obtained from the odor judgment task.
c
Changes in depressive mood 5 postodor depressive mood 2 preodor depressive mood.
d
Beta weights are for the simultaneous entry of variables. Beta is the standardized multiple regression coefficient that allows comparisons of the relative
effects of the predictor variables. It indicates the predicted change (in standard deviation units) in the dependent variable of a mood difference for a standard
deviation change in a particular predictor, when all other predictor variables are held constant [39].
e
Girls 5 little girls, boys 5 little boys, cw 5 college women, cm 5 college men, ow 5 older women, om 5 older men, home 5 home odors, w 5 women,
m 5 men.
f
Each level of odor condition and each level of gender by odor condition is counted as significant only if p , 0.0083.
*p , 0.05, **p , 0.005, ***p , 0.0001.

Table 3
Hierarchial multiple regressiona of preodor depressive mood, perceived odor intensityb, observer gender, and odor conditions (by donor age and donor gender)
on changes in depressive moodc
Variable R2 DR2 Incremental F Betad
Step 1 0.081 0.081 3.701***
Preodor depressive mood 0.131*
Perceived odor intensity 20.001
Observer gender (w 5 1, m 5 0) 0.160***
Donor gender (w 5 1, m 5 0) 20.144**
Donor age 1 (ce 5 1, rest 5 0, ya 5 reference)f 20.090
Donor age 2 (oa 5 1, rest 5 0, ya 5 reference) 20.166**
Step 2 0.094 0.013 0.711
Observer gender 3 donor gender 0.046
Observer gender 3 donor age 1 20.074
Observer gender 3 donor age 2 20.038
Donor gender 3 donor age 1 0.133
Donor gender 3 donor age 2 20.051
Step 3 0.097 0.003 0.362
Observer gender 3 donor gender 3 donor age 1 0.073
Observer gender 3 donor gender 3 donor age 2 20.066
a
R 5 0.311, R2 5 0.097, F(13, 245) 5 2.018, p , 0.03, for the total equation.
b
Perceived odor intensity 5 ranked intensity of the target odor relative to the six other odors. The ranks were obtained from the odor judgment task.
c
Changes in depressive mood 5 postodor depressive mood 2 preodor depressive mood.
d
Beta weights are for the simultaneous entry of variables. Beta is the standardized multiple regression coefficient that allows comparisons of the relative
effects of the predictor variables. It indicates the predicted change (in standard deviation units) in the dependent variable of a mood difference for a standard
deviation change in a particular predictor, when all other predictor variables are held constant [39].
e
C 5 children, ya 5 young adults, oa 5 older adults, w 5 women, m 5 men.
f
Donor age 1 and donor age 2 are counted as significant only if p , 0.025 for each.
*p , 0.05, ** p , 0.02, ***p , 0.01.
248 D. Chen and J. Haviland-Jones / Physiology & Behavior 68 (1999) 241–250

odors of young men, men, and young adults. This could in-
dicate a subtle effect of airborne chemicals on human mood.
Even though the effect of airborne chemicals on mood is
very small, though significant, we believe that the rapid
mood change is impressive, given that observers smelled
the target odor for under 2 min, and given that the two mood
tests were only separated by 2 or 3 min. Longer exposure or
repeated exposure may show significant cumulative effects
on individual and group moods.
In addition, results of this study suggest that people may
differentially react to differences between odors of different
ages and gender, but may not be able to articulate them on a
simple discrimination task. For example, although under-
arm odors of older women and of young men had different
effects on observers’ depressive moods, both were per-
ceived to be intense, unpleasant, masculine, and aging on
odor judgment tasks. This could be because the mood as-
Fig. 3. Changes in depressive mood by odor conditions. Vertical lines rep- sessment task provided a relatively meaningful and self-rel-
resent standard errors about the mean. The part below zero indicates the evant context, whereas the simple discrimination task did
amount of reduction in depression after the observers smelled the target not. Context may be important to process olfactory informa-
odor. This is based on an ANCOVA with changes in depressive mood as tion. This is consistent with observations that meaningful
the dependent variable, observer gender, and odor condition as indepen-
scents trigger emotional memories [33,34]. Van Toller and
dent variables, and with preodor depressive mood and perceived intensity
of the target odor as covariates, F(6, 285) 5 2.771, p , 0.02. Kendal-Reed [35] made the distinction between an olfac-
tory experience that lends itself to linguistic description
(e.g., naming or labeling an odor) versus an olfactory expe-
identical to the regression analyses reported above that con- rience that is intuitive and nonlinguistic (e.g., emotional re-
trolled for perceived odor intensity. Namely, even after pre- lationship with one’s grandmother evoked by the smell of
odor depressive mood and perceived odor qualities (e.g., lavender water). Perhaps the mood task used in this work
pleasantness, erotic quality, familiarity, dependency, donor provided such a social linguistic environment for people to
age, donor gender) had been controlled, observers still re- describe something that may be social but may not be intrin-
ported significantly lower ratings of depression when pre- sically linguistic.
sented with odors of older adults in contrast to younger The hedonic congruency effect was found in previous
adults (b 5 20.166 to 20.17, p , 0.016 to 0.018), and studies but not in the present study. This could be due to a
odors of women in contrast to men (b 5 20.144 to 20.154, number of reasons. One of them could be that natural body
p , 0.013 to 0.019. odors carry biologically significant information that impacts
Rapid exposure (i.e., around 2 min) to odors also led to a on people differently from the way artificial fragrances or
nonsignificant change in the positive mood consistent with chemical irritants do. Another reason could be due to differ-
that found in the depressive mood. That is, when depression ences in analyses. The present study controlled for differ-
was significantly lightened, positive moods were nonsignif- ences due to subjects’ perceived odor intensity/pleasantness,
icantly elevated. There was no change in the hostile moods.
Mean changes in depressive, hostile, and positive mood, are
presented in Table 4. Although women reported higher rat- Table 4
ings of depression than did men (b 5 0.139, p , 0.02, d 5 Mean changes in depressive, hostile, and positive mood by types of odor
0.28, small effect size and identical results were obtained Depression Hostility Positive
after perceived intensity had been adjusted for habituation), Types of odor Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE
there was no interaction. Little girls 22.062 0.768 20.317 0.307 20.892 0.378
Little boys 22.078 0.788 20.408 0.311 21.147 0.383
College women 22.020 0.764 20.876 0.308 20.842 0.374
4. Discussion College men 20.0543 0.852 20.418 0.343 21.955 0.419
Older women 24.213 0.792 20.774 0.317 20.924 0.390
To summarize, our data demonstrate that airborne chem- Older men 21.688 0.758 20.908 0.303 20.859 0.381
icals produced by humans can modulate the moods of other Home odor 23.093 0.799 20.295 0.317 21.624 0.389
humans independent of perceived odor intensity and pleas- Children 22.072 0.597 20.400 0.229 21.008 0.295
antness, and independent of the attributions of the donors’ Young adults 21.002 0.568 20.629 0.221 21.385 0.281
age and gender. In particular, exposure to underarm odors Older adults 22.934 0.561 20.820 0.217 20.876 0.281
of older women, women, and older adults, led to a greater Women’s odors 22.766 0.455 20.658 0.175 20.874 0.224
reduction in depressive mood than exposure to underarm Men’s odors 21.239 0.454 20.576 0.175 21.305 0.226
 D. Chen and J. Haviland-Jones / Physiology & Behavior 68 (1999) 241–250
whereas previous studies did not. In addition, the intensity/
pleasantness of the odors in the present study was measured
relative to one another, and not in the absolute sense.
We found in this study that underarm odors differentially
impacted on the depressive mood but not on the positive
mood. One possible explanation is that almost all existing
mood tests have more items on negative than on positive
moods, a potential bias that might have made the tests more
sensitive to detecting negative than positive changes. An-
other plausible explanation is that the observed olfactory
impact on negative moods reflected a primordial impression
of men and young adults. In many species, including hu-
mans [36], males and young adults tend to be more aggres-
sive then females and older adults.
There are several important limitations of this study. For
one thing, target odors were not judged individually but were
judged as a group. It is possible that individual differences
exist within each donor group. However, the experimenter
observed that at least three of the five college men and two of
the five older women had strong odors. Thus, it was not sim-
ply the odor of one individual within the group that biased the
judgment of the entire group. Nevertheless, future studies
may want to evaluate the odors both on an individual as well
as on a group basis. Secondly, a number of studies have indi-
cated that the olfactory sensitivity in women varies by the dif-
ferent phases of their menstrual cycles [37,38]. However,
menstrual cycles of female observers were not recorded in
this study, largely because the olfactory screening tests would
already discriminate between the olfactorily more sensitive
observers from those who were not.
In conclusion, the findings of the present work replicate
and extent past research on olfactory identification of gen-
der. This work examines olfactory identification of gender
in conjunction with age from a developmental perspective,
and examines the effects of body odors from different ages
and genders on peoples’ mood. It demonstrates for the first
time that body odors carrying social-biological information
differentially bias odor recipients’ moods. This finding may
have an important implication for existing research on hu-
man perception and interaction.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to Dr. Erich Labouvie for helpful discus-
sions. We are also grateful to Drs. Julie Mennella, Mort
Bart, and Paul Vincenti for discussions, to Dr. Terry McGuire
for comments on the first draft, Dr. Pamela Dalton for com-
ments and suggestions on a later draft, and to the anonymous
reviewers for comments and suggestions. We thank all our
participants. This research was supported in part by Tova
Dissertation Fellowship from the Olfactory Research Fund.
References
[1] Brown RE, Macdonald DW. Social Odors in Mammals, vols 1 & 2.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985.
249
[2] McClintock MK. Pheromonal regulation of the ovarian cycle: en-
hancement, suppression, and synchrony. In: Vandenbergh JG, edi-
tor. Pheromones and Reproduction in Mammals. New York: Aca-
demic Press, 1983. pp. 113–49.
[3] Eisenberg JF, Kleiman DG. Olfactory communication in mammals.
Annu Rev Ecol Sys 1972;3:1–32.
[4] Rottman SJ, Snowndown CT. Demonstration and analysis of an alarm
pheromone in mice. J Comp Physiol Psychol 1972;81:483–90.
[5] Stern K, McClintock MK. Regulation of ovulation by human phero-
mones. Nature 1998;392:177–9.
[6] Doty R. Olfactory communication in humans. Chem Senses 1981;6:
351–76.
[7] Kaitz M, Eidelman AI. Smell-recognition of newborns by women
who are not mothers. Chem Senses 1992;17:225–9.
[8] Russell MJ. Human olfactory communication. Nature 1976;260:520–2.
[9] Schaal B, Porter RH. “Microsmatic humans” revisited: the genera-
tion and perception of chemical signals. In: Slater PJB, Rosenblatt
JS, Beer C, Milinski M, editors. Advances in the Study of Behavior,
vol 20. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc., 1991. pp 135–199.
[10] Ehrlichman H, Bastone L. The use of odor in the study of emotion.
In: Van Toller S, Dodd GH, editors. Fragrance: The Psychology and
Biology of Perfume. New York: Elsevier Applied Science, 1992.
pp. 143–59.
[11] Ehrlichman H, Bastone L. Olfaction and emotion. In: Serby MJ,
Chobor KL, editors. Science of Olfaction. New York: Springer Ver-
lag, 1992. pp. 410–38.
[12] Schiffman SS, Sattely-Miller EA, Suggs MS, Graham BG. The ef-
fect of pleasant odors and hormone status on mood of women at
midlife. Brain Res Bull 1995;36:19–29.
[13] Schiffman SS, Suggs MS, Sattely-Miller EA. Effect of pleasant
odors on mood of males at midlife: comparison of African-Ameri-
can and European-American men. Brain Res Bull 1995;36:31–7.
[14] Badia P, Wesensten N, Lammers W, Culpepper J, Harsh J. Respon-
siveness to olfactory stimuli presented in sleep. Physiol Behav
1990;48:87–90.
[15] Schwartz GE. Levels of awareness and “awareness without aware-
ness”: From data to theory. In: Hameroff SR, Kaszniak AW, Scott
AC, editors. Towards a Science of Consciousness: The First Tuscon
Discussions and Debates: Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1996.
pp 279–93.
[16] Wallace P. Individual discrimination of humans by odor. Physiol
Behav 1977;19:577–9.
[17] Doty RL, Green PA, Ram C, Yankell SL. Communication of gender
from human breath odors: relationship to perceived intensity and
pleasantness. Horm Behav 1982;16:13–22.
[18] Schleidt M, Hold B, Attili G. A cross-cultural study on the attitude
towards personal odors. J Chem Ecol 1981;7:19–31.
[19] Doty RL, Orndorff MM, Leyden J, Kligman A. Communication of
gender from human axillary odors: relationship to perceived inten-
sity and hedonicity. Behav Biol 1978;23:373–80.
[20] Mallet P, Schaal B. Rating and recognition of peers’ personal odors
by 9-year-old children: an exploratory study. J Gen Psychol 1998;
125:47–64.
[21] Schleidt M. Personal odor and nonverbal communication. Ethol So-
ciobiol 1980;1:225–31.
[22] Brooksbank BW, Brown R, Gustafsson JA. The detection of 5a-
androst-16-en-3a-o1 in human male axillary sweat. Experientia
1974;30:864–5.
[23] Gower DB, Bird S, Sharma P, House FR. Axillary 5a-androst-16-
en-3-one in men and women: relationships with olfactory acuity to
odorous 16-androstenes. Experientia 1985;41:1134–6.
[24] Dorries KM, Schmidt HJ, Beauchamp GK, Wysocki CJ. Changes in
sensitivity to the odor of androstenone during adolescence. Dev
Psychobiol 1989;22:423–35.
[25] Izard CE, Libero DZ, Putnam P, Haynes OM. Stability of emotion
experiences and their relations to traits of personality. J Pers Soc
Psychol 1993;64:847–60.
250 D. Chen and J. Haviland-Jones / Physiology & Behavior 68 (1999) 241–250
[26] Stevens J. Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences,
2nd. ed.. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1992.
[27] Stapley JC, Haviland JM. Beyond depression: gender differences in
normal adolescents’ emotional experiences. Sex Roles 1989;20:
295–308.
[28] Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences.
New York: Academic Press, 1977.
[29] Judd HL, Korenman SG. Effects of aging on reproductive function
in women. In: Korenman SG, editor. Endocrine Aspects of Aging.
New York: Elsevier Biomedical Press, 1982. pp. 163–97.
[30] Perskey H. Psychoendocrinology of Human Sexual Behavior. New
York: Praeger Publishers, 1987.
[31] Kent JR, Acone AB. Plasma testosterone and aging in males. In:
Vermuelen A, editor. Androgens in Normal and Pathological Condi-
tions. Amsterdam: Excerpta Medica, 1966. pp. 31–5.
[32] Perskey H, Smith KD, Basu GK. Relation of psychological mea-
sures of aggression and hostility to testosterone production in man.
Psychosom Med 1971;33:265–77.
[33] Proust M. Remembering of things past (translated by GKS Moncri-
eff & T Kilmartin), vol. 1. New York: Random House, 1981.
[34] Synnott A. Roses, coffee and lovers: the meanings of smell. In: Gilert
A, editor. Compendium of Olfactory Research, 1982–1994. Dubuque,
IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, 1995. pp. 117–28.
[35] Van Toller S, Kendal-Reed M. A possible protocognitive role for
odor in human infant development. Brain Cognit 1995;29:275–93.
[36] Wilson M, Daly M. competitiveness, risk taking, and violence: the
young male syndrome. Ethol Sociobiol 1985;6:59–73.
[37] Doty RL, Snyder PJ, Huggins GR, Lowry LD. Endocrine, cardio-
vascular, and psychological correlates of olfactory sensitivity
changes during the human menstrual cycle. J Comp Physiol Psychol
1981;95:45–60.
[38] Pause BM, Bernfried S, Krauel K, Fehm-Wolfsdorf G, Ferstl R. Ol-
factory information processing during the course of the menstrual
cycle. Biol Psychol 1996;44:31–54.
[39] Lewis-Beck MS. Applied Regression: An Introduction. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1980.