There's no evidence human pheromones exist – no matter what you find for sale online

There’s no evidence human pheromones exist – no matter what you find for sale online
Whatever the adverts suggest, this isn’t going to increase your animal magnetism. Credit: Thinglass/Shutterstock

The idea of human pheromones is intuitively appealing, conjuring up the idea of secret signals that make us irresistible to potential partners. But this connection of pheromones with sex may be the wrong way to look at the issue – because despite 45 years of study and various claims over the years there's still not a lot of evidence that human pheromones exist at all.

The study of pheromones of all kinds is problematic – even the definition is controversial. The word comes from the Greek pherein (to transfer), and hormōn (to excite) and was defined by Karlson and Luscher in 1959 as:

Substances which are secreted by an individual and received by a second individual of the same species, in which they release a specific reaction, for instance a definite behaviour or developmental process.

The snag is that that while many researchers agree on the basic properties of pheromones, there is considerable debate over which olfactory (sense of smell) cues represent pheromones. For example, many species use odours to identify characteristics such as species, sex, relatedness and social status. Many researchers label these as pheromones; others feel that by the above definition they're really just smells.

Similarly not all potential pheromones are secreted externally – some species of salamanders transfer to another salamander by directly injecting them into the bloodstream. Some scientists believe that the response to a should provide an evolutionary advantage to both the sender and the receiver of the signal, and do so unconsciously.

So a lack of consensus on pheromones' definition has led to the over-use of this term. Instead many scientists use the term semiochemicals to refer to chemicals that transmit some form of specific message that can influence a recipient's physiology and behaviour.

Studying smells is hard

Given these problems why are researchers so interested in pheromones at all? Generally olfaction is one of the most crucial forms of communication in the animal world. Odours have the greatest potential range of any method of animal communication, can be transmitted in total darkness and around obstacles. Unlike signals to be seen or heard, odours also remain in the environment for extended periods, providing the opportunity to lay signals – such as when marking territory.

There’s no evidence human pheromones exist – no matter what you find for sale online
That’s right - just two dabs behind the antennae and they’re all over me. Credit: L. Shyamal, CC BY-SA

But studying human pheromones is problematic for a number of reasons beyond definition. Olfactory research can be extremely tricky to conduct: smells are invisible and hard to control, there is no real standardised system for labelling and evaluating odours, and a wealth of potentially confounding variables need to be controlled for. Also the problem is that humans can evaluate signals in a variety of quite divergent ways – it's rare that we show simplistic stimulus–response reaction.

Four pheromone candidates

Four specific substances have been identified as possible human pheromones.

In the 1970s and 1980s, there was a strong focus on testosterone-derived androstenone and androstenol, possible pheromones in pigs also found in human armpits. A number of studies have investigated the effect of these substances on , focusing on social interactions and the evaluation of sexual partners. Despite a general pattern for these substances to increase social contact between males and females, findings are extremely inconsistent.

In the 1990s the focus shifted to the similar androstadienone and oestratraenol, an oestrogen-derived substance produced in pregnant women. These were the compounds studied in several experiments that examined the vomeronasal organ (VNO) – a tubular structure located in the nasal cavity which, in some species, is involved in processing pheromones.

Several studies documented finding a VNO in more than 90% of human participants, and reported that stimulating the VNO with artificially-created "putative human pheromones" seemed to stimulate the recipients. This suggested the existence of human pheromones, as a functioning VNO would provide humans the ability to process pheromones.

However, more recent studies cast doubt on this idea, with no evidence that the few VNOs identified in humans have any functional receptor cells to detect anything – the VNO isn't actually connected to the brain. And those putative "synthetic human pheromones" provided to the studies that claimed to show evidence of their effect on the VNO? It's been pointed out that they had been provided by EROX – a firm with a commercial interest in patenting and selling them. You'll find EROX and scores of other firms selling similar products on the internet today.

Research into these four pheromone candidates suffers from all sorts of problems. The substances are used in concentrations between several and millions of times higher than they occur naturally in humans. Experiments tend to be beset with methodological and statistical issues, leading to a contradictory or inconclusive findings. Publication bias leaves it likely that only positive results are published, artificially increasing the amount of supposedly supportive evidence, and findings have often not been independently replicable.

In any case, even if these substances do effect and behaviour it doesn't necessarily mean they're pheromones – there are numerous odours from plants or from industrial chemicals that can produce a behavioural reaction in humans.

The way forward

Tristram Wyatt, in his recent paper for the Royal Society, suggests that we move away from the sexual focus on pheromones. Instead we should focus not just on the substance present but on the range of odours that humans are capable of producing from a variety of sites on the body.

Wyatt's suggestion is the secretions from the areola of mothers' lactating breasts is a good place to start looking, as smell is very important to suckling behaviour in animals. Any baby, presented with the secretions of any mother, will respond with nipple-searching behaviour, even while asleep.

The search for human pheromones taps into our mysterious sense of smell and appeals to us on an emotional level. Of course, there are also strong commercial motivations to demonstrating their existence and the products that might follow. There is already a well-documented history of this occurring in the field of olfaction research – and these motivations inevitably muddy the water. We need to address these issues with a much more rigorous approach if the science is to progress.

Explore further

Study shows some male pheromones may cause other males to be more cooperative

This story is published courtesy of The Conversation (under Creative Commons-Attribution/No derivatives).
The Conversation

Citation: There's no evidence human pheromones exist – no matter what you find for sale online (2015, March 4) retrieved 17 September 2019 from
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.

Feedback to editors

User comments

Mar 04, 2015
"Theres no evidence" except that there is. Bait and switch. When was that sweaty shirt experiment done? In the 1940's? There are a huge number of studies showing "evidence". Even if you limit the definition to vaporous emissions which affect the behavior of others. Farting comes to mind, LOL. As does bad breath, vomit and the smell of death (putrescine and cadaverine). Its without doubt that they do exist, but its also without doubt that their effects will be mostly marginal in beings with 'free will'. Although, spill a liter of putrescine and cadaverine onto the floor and see how "marginal" the response will be, LOL. (please do NOT do that!)

Mar 04, 2015
Others, like Mark Sergeant, have fallen far behind the experimental evidence that links the pheromone-controlled fixation of nutrient-dependent RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions to cell type differentiation in species from microbes to humans. To conceal their ignorance, they want you to believe there are no human pheromones.

All they are claiming is that human pheromones do not elicit the same affects on behavior as the pheromones of other species because our hormone-organized and hormone-activated behaviors are more complex.

Systems complexity dictates how food odors cause differences in behavior based on past experience. Anyone who claims there are no human pheromones is making those claims based on their inability to accurately predict the response of a particular person to specific food odors or to species-specific pheromones, both of which are epigenetically linked to the physiology of reproduction in all vertebrates and invertebrates.

Mar 04, 2015
For reviews of what is known by serious scientists about links from food odors and pheromones to cell type differentiation via what is known about physics, chemistry, and the conserved molecular mechanisms of biologically-based cause and effect see:

Feedback loops link odor and pheromone signaling with reproduction

Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model.

Amino acid coevolution induces an evolutionary Stokes shift.

Human pheromones and food odors: epigenetic influences on the socioaffective nature of evolved behaviors.http://www.ncbi.n...24693349

See also:

If you believe reports from human pheromone-deniers, you're not a serious scientist.

Mar 05, 2015
No human pheromone? Most guys can tell you there is, what it smells like and where the smell comes from. Normal guys that is but I would guess the Big Bang cast and many here would be going huh?

Mar 05, 2015

a lot more chemical communication going on that we are unaware of
-- Charles Wysocki

The question arises: Why aren't people like Charles Wysocki aware of what is known to others about human pheromones? AChemS 2011 ISHE Powerpoint SSSS poster

Making Sense of Scents: Smell and the Brain http://www.brainf...e-brain/ research suggests that your nose can outperform your eyes and ears, which can discriminate between several million colors and about half a million tones. "It's time to give our sense of smell the recognition it deserves," said Vosshall.

Mar 05, 2015
My main research interest is in the evolution of pheromones (molecules used for chemical communication) and animal behaviour. The second edition of my book Pheromones and Animal Behavior, published by Cambridge University Press earlier this year, won the Best Postgraduate Textbook Award of the Society of Biology 2014.

It may be that we will find that there are no pheromones in humans. But we can be sure that we shall never find anything if we follow the current path. We need to start again.

Competing interests

I have no competing interests.

Supporting the "evolution industry" probably is a competing interest, since the evolution industry supports his research. Others, like me, have been "Combating Evolution to Fight Disease" http://www.scienc...88.short -- but there is obviously competition for funding.

Mar 07, 2015
I think most people smell horrible most of the time and generally get very little in the way of my own odor. People seem to smell things on me which vary.

I think the perception of "food" may be a "pheromone effect" since women tend to bang dudes that furnish food gifts of some sort or another over not. Basically, it would be weak if it did exist due to the amount of conscious motive in our actions. There would be dozens of compounds eliciting differing results depending on differing situations vs phenotypes.n

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more