The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Odor identification by males and females: predictions vs performance
Abstract
More than 200 males and females estimated the identifiability of 80 common odorous objects (e.g., chocolate, beer, mustard, rubber). The two genders agreed rather closely in their estimates. The groups also agreed closely in their relative judgements of whether males or females could identify the objects better. Both groups anticipated that males would be superior for only a small number of substances, mainly substances that seem stereotypically ‘male’ (e.g., cigar butts, beer, machine oil). The groups anticipated female superiority for not only stereotypically ‘female’ substances (e.g., Ivory soap, Johnson's baby powder, nail polish remover), but also for virtually all foods, including foods presumably consumed equally by both sexes (e.g., potato chips, Juicy Fruit gum, grape drink). The results suggested the existence of a second stereotype, namely that females will be superior at identifying all substances not clearly in the male domain. An experiment that explored the performance of 46 males and females over five sessions revealed general female superiority. The superiority extended to odors considered ‘male’. Males seemed educable and could apparently overcome their disadvantage eventually with merely some help in the retrieval of odor names. Blockage of retrieval seems a strong limiting factor in odor identification for females as well as for males. Irrespective of gender, when persons have the veridical name of a well-known odor made available by one or another means, they exhibit considerable talent at identifying objects by smell.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
TASTE PREFERENCES AND FOOD INTAKE
Drewnowski, A. (1997) · Annual Review of Nutrition · doi:10.1146/annurev.nutr.17.1.237 · Cited by 1,045
An initial evaluation of the functions of human olfaction
Stevenson, R. J. (2010) · Chemical Senses · doi:10.1093/chemse/bjp083 · Cited by 689
Food neophobia among the Finns and related responses to familiar and unfamiliar foods
Tuorila, H., Lähteenmäki, L., Pohjalainen, L., & Lotti, L. (2001) · Food Quality and Preference · doi:10.1016/s0950-3293(00)00025-2 · Cited by 603
Identifying objects by touch: An “expert system”
Klatzky, R. L., Lederman, S. J., & Metzger, V. A. (1985) · Perception & Psychophysics · doi:10.3758/bf03211351 · Cited by 583
Sex Differences in Human Olfaction: A Meta-Analysis
Sorokowski, P., Karwowski, M., Misiak, M., Marczak, M. K., Dziekan, M., Hummel, T., & Sorokowska, A. (2019) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00242 · Cited by 422
Metadata
- Authors
- Cain, W. S.
- Venue
- Chemical Senses
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1982
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 129-142
- ISSN
- 0379-864X (ISSN-L)
- 1464-3553
- OpenAlex
- W1964136277
- Cited by
- 192
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 1.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Odor identification by males and females: predictions vs performance. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/chemse/7.2.129
- The paper
- Cain, W. S. (1982). Odor identification by males and females: predictions vs performance. Chemical Senses. https://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/7.2.129
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.