IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0080234.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Olfactory Performance Is Predicted by Individual Sex-Atypicality, but Not Sexual Orientation

Author

Listed:
  • Lenka Nováková
  • Jaroslava Varella Valentová
  • Jan Havlíček

Abstract

Many previous studies have reported robust sex differences in olfactory perception. However, both men and women can be expected to vary in the degree to which they exhibit olfactory performance considered typical of their own or the opposite sex. Sex-atypicality is often described in terms of childhood gender nonconformity, which, however, is not a perfect correlate of non-heterosexual orientation. Here we explored intrasexual variability in psychophysical olfactory performance in a sample of 156 individuals (83 non-heterosexual) and found the lowest odor identification scores in heterosexual men. However, when childhood gender nonconformity was entered in the model along with sexual orientation, better odor identification scores were exhibited by gender-nonconforming men, and greater olfactory sensitivity by gender-conforming women, irrespective of their sexual orientation. Thus, sex-atypicality, but not sexual orientation predicts olfactory performance, and we propose that this might not be limited to olfaction, but represent a more general phenomenon.

Suggested Citation

  • Lenka Nováková & Jaroslava Varella Valentová & Jan Havlíček, 2013. "Olfactory Performance Is Predicted by Individual Sex-Atypicality, but Not Sexual Orientation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(11), pages 1-1, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0080234
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0080234
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0080234
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0080234&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0080234?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nathan Berg & Donald Lien, 2006. "Same-sex sexual behaviour: US frequency estimates from survey data with simultaneous misreporting and non-response," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(7), pages 757-769.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mary Eschelbach Hansen & Michael E. Martell, 2014. "Self-Identified Sexual Orientation and the Lesbian Earnings Differential," Working Papers 2014-13, American University, Department of Economics.
    2. Botti, Fabrizio & Conte, Anna & D'Ippoliti, Carlo, 2015. "Not so classy after all: Identity utility and the risk of discrimination of LGB people," MPRA Paper 65125, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Katherine B. Coffman & Lucas C. Coffman & Keith M. Marzilli Ericson, 2017. "The Size of the LGBT Population and the Magnitude of Antigay Sentiment Are Substantially Underestimated," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(10), pages 3168-3186, October.
    4. William H Greene & Mark N Harris & Preety Srivastava & Xueyan Zhao, 2013. "Econometric Modelling of Social Bads," Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre Working Paper series WP1305, Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre (BCEC), Curtin Business School.
    5. Fernando Ruiz Vallejo & Diederik Boertien, 2021. "Do same-sex unions dissolve more often than different-sex unions? Methodological insights from Colombian data on sexual behavior," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 44(48), pages 1149-1164.
    6. Botti, Fabrizio & D’Ippoliti, Carlo, 2014. "Don’t ask don’t tell (that you’re poor). Sexual orientation and social exclusion in Italy," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 8-25.
    7. William Greene & Mark N. Harris & Preety Srivastava & Xueyan Zhao, 2018. "Misreporting and econometric modelling of zeros in survey data on social bads: An application to cannabis consumption," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(2), pages 372-389, February.
    8. Alex Acworth & Nicolas de Roos & Hajime Katayama, 2012. "Substance use and adolescent sexual activity," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(9), pages 1067-1079, March.
    9. Brendan Cushing‐Daniels & Tsz‐Ying Yeung, 2009. "Wage Penalties And Sexual Orientation: An Update Using The General Social Survey," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 27(2), pages 164-175, April.
    10. Greene, William & Harris, Mark N. & Knott, Rachel & Rice, Nigel, 2023. "Reporting heterogeneity in modeling self-assessed survey outcomes," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    11. Nathan Berg & Todd Gabel, 2013. "Effects of New Welfare Reform Strategies on Welfare Participation: Microdata Estimates from Canada," Working Papers 1304, University of Otago, Department of Economics, revised Feb 2013.
    12. Michael E. Martell, 2014. "HOW ENDAs EXTEND THE WORKWEEK: LEGAL PROTECTION AND THE LABOR SUPPLY OF BEHAVIORALLY GAY MEN," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 32(3), pages 560-577, July.
    13. Nathan Berg & Donald Lien, 2009. "Sexual orientation and self-reported lying," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 83-104, March.
    14. Sarah Brown & Mark N Harris & Preety Srivastava, 2013. "Modelling Illegal Drug Participation in Australia," Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre Working Paper series WP1303, Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre (BCEC), Curtin Business School.
    15. Bates Nancy & García Trejo Yazmín A. & Vines Monica, 2019. "Are Sexual Minorities Hard-to-Survey? Insights from the 2020 Census Barriers, Attitudes, and Motivators Study (CBAMS) Survey," Journal of Official Statistics, Sciendo, vol. 35(4), pages 709-729, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0080234. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.