The scent of mating strategy: sociosexual orientation was associated with olfaction and body odor sniffing behavior in Chinese and American populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Human sexuality and mating behaviors have been linked to the subjective importance of olfaction and body odor in one’s life. This study aimed to investigate the relationships between sociosexual orientation, subjective importance of olfaction, and body odor sniffing behavior, and to determine whether there is gender and cultural consistency. METHODS: 1,904 Chinese college students and additional 861 participants from more general population (410 Chinese and 451 Americans) completed three questionnaires measuring sociosexual orientation, subjective importance of olfaction, and body odor sniffing behavior, respectively. RESULTS: The results of Study 1 indicated a significant association between sociosexual orientation, subjective importance of olfaction, and body odor sniffing behavior for both males and females. Besides, the subjective importance of olfaction mediated the relationship between sociosexual orientation and body odor sniffing behavior. Results of Study 2 suggested that the relationships were consistent across cultures. CONCLUSIONS: This study found positive correlations between sociosexual orientation, the subjective importance of olfaction, and body odor sniffing behavior. Subjective importance of olfaction played a mediating role in the relationship between sociosexual orientation and body odor sniffing behavior, and this relationship was consistent across genders and cultures. These findings provide valuable insights into the role of human mating strategies in olfaction.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".