Can People Really Smell Fear?

koosen/iStock via Getty Images
koosen/iStock via Getty Images

Fictional characters, and even real-life folks, often talk about animals and people—particularly snarling dogs and knife-wielding lunatics—being able to “smell fear” on people. No one ever seems to be able to describe just what fear smells like, though.

The lack of detail—Is it musty? Does it have a hint of vanilla?—leads one to think that the smell of fear is more metaphorical than literal. But scientific evidence suggests that fear might really have a chemical component that we sense through our noses without even realizing it. The matter is far from settled, though.

Right Under Your Nose

In 2009, a team of German researchers collected sweat from two groups of students, one where the sweat came from exercising on bikes and one where it came from the stress of waiting to give a graded oral presentation.

A third group of students, lying in fMRI scanners and wearing modified oxygen masks, then smelled air odorized by the two groups’ sweat. Asked about what they were smelling, the students didn’t even notice an odor in half of the trials. When they did notice they were smelling something, they were unable to tell the difference between the two sources and rated both as low in intensity, weakly pleasant, unfamiliar, and having no effect on their own emotions.

The brain scans told a very different story, though. After smelling the sweat of the students nervously waiting for their exams, the smellers’ brains showed increased activity in areas that are involved with empathy and processing social signals and the emotional states of other people. The sweat from exercise didn’t cause these same activations, suggesting that the nervous students’ sweat contained some sort of chemical signal of their anxiety that triggered a response in the smellers’ brains without registering as the sensory experience of a smell.

That same year, a pair of psychologists at Rice University collected sweat from different volunteers while they watched horror movies or slapstick comedies, and then asked other volunteers to smell the sweat while they looked at images of faces that switched expressions from happy to ambiguous to fearful. As the faces morphed, the volunteers were asked to indicate whether they thought the expressions were happy or fearful.

The smellers were more likely to judge the ambiguous faces as fearful after being exposed to the the horror watchers’ sweat than when they smelled the comedy watchers’ sweat or a control sweat. That behavioral change suggests that not only did the sweat contain some chemical signal that communicated emotion, but also affected people’s visual perception of emotions and biased them towards the one being communicated by the sweat (that second part is consistent with other findings that emotional cues from faces and voices can regulate each other).

Just last month, Dutch psychologists found evidence that fear-induced sweat not only biases someone who smells it toward seeing fear, but might also push them to feel it themselves. Volunteers either watched scenes from a scary movie or from Jackass, and their sweat was collected. People in another group were then exposed to the smell of one of the sweats while they took a visual test that asked them to find a target object on screens full of different items. While this was going on, the researchers recorded their facial expressions and tracked their eye movements.

The people who got the horror sweat made facial expressions suggesting fear or anxiety shortly after they were exposed to the sweat. The Jackass-sweat smellers, meanwhile, made disgusted faces. (This was determined by comparing their faces to “distinctive facial-muscle signatures” associated with emotions. For more on face reading, check out Paul Ekman and his facial action coding system.) The two sweats also appeared to have affected the smellers’ behavior, with the horror sweat smellers attempting to acquire more sensory information while exposed to the sweat by taking bigger sniffs and scanning more and fixing their gaze less during the visual exercise.

What the Nose Knows

What all this, and a bunch of other studies looking at the same sort of thing, suggests is that humans might not communicate by just sight, sound, and touch. Like other animals, we might also use chemical signals embedded in our sweat, and maybe elsewhere, to let each other know about our emotional states.

That has been a contentious idea for a very long time, with some people claiming “definitive evidence of human pheromones,” and others saying “no, not so fast.” While there’s a good amount of evidence for behavioral and physiological changes in people in response to “chemosignals,” no one has been able to nail down just what the chemicals are that trigger these responses, and how people detect them. The vomeronasal organ, which many animals use to detect pheromones, is present in some humans, but doesn’t appear functional. When scientists can find them in people, the genes that code for their receptors don’t seem to have done their job, and their sensory neurons have little or no connection with the central nervous system.

Those are two very important dots that need to be connected before the line between someone’s sweaty armpit and someone else’s schnoz can be drawn clearly.

Looking to Downsize? You Can Buy a 5-Room DIY Cabin on Amazon for Less Than $33,000

Five rooms of one's own.
Five rooms of one's own.
Allwood/Amazon

If you’ve already mastered DIY houses for birds and dogs, maybe it’s time you built one for yourself.

As Simplemost reports, there are a number of house kits that you can order on Amazon, and the Allwood Avalon Cabin Kit is one of the quaintest—and, at $32,990, most affordable—options. The 540-square-foot structure has enough space for a kitchen, a bathroom, a bedroom, and a sitting room—and there’s an additional 218-square-foot loft with the potential to be the coziest reading nook of all time.

You can opt for three larger rooms if you're willing to skip the kitchen and bathroom.Allwood/Amazon

The construction process might not be a great idea for someone who’s never picked up a hammer, but you don’t need an architectural degree to tackle it. Step-by-step instructions and all materials are included, so it’s a little like a high-level IKEA project. According to the Amazon listing, it takes two adults about a week to complete. Since the Nordic wood walls are reinforced with steel rods, the house can withstand winds up to 120 mph, and you can pay an extra $1000 to upgrade from double-glass windows and doors to triple-glass for added fortification.

Sadly, the cool ceiling lamp is not included.Allwood/Amazon

Though everything you need for the shell of the house comes in the kit, you will need to purchase whatever goes inside it: toilet, shower, sink, stove, insulation, and all other furnishings. You can also customize the blueprint to fit your own plans for the space; maybe, for example, you’re going to use the house as a small event venue, and you’d rather have two or three large, airy rooms and no kitchen or bedroom.

Intrigued? Find out more here.

[h/t Simplemost]

This article contains affiliate links to products selected by our editors. Mental Floss may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.

Who Were the Actual Brooks Brothers?

Phillip Pessar, Flickr // CC BY 2.0
Phillip Pessar, Flickr // CC BY 2.0

Brooks Brothers has been a mainstay of American formal wear for more than 200 years. The company’s suits have been worn by 40 U.S. presidents. They have supplied uniforms to the American armed forces and suits to regular people for their most important life events: going to the prom, attending their first job interview, getting married.

But in July 2020, the firm filed for bankruptcy, likely a victim of the working-from-home trend and the move towards more casual clothing. The Brooks Brothers’s name has been woven into the fabric of American fashion, yet a certain mystery surrounds the people behind the business. Who were the original Brooks Brothers, anyway?

The firm that would go on to be known as Brooks Brothers was established on April 7, 1818, by 45-year-old Henry Sands Brooks and his younger brother, David, as H & D. H. Brooks and Co. Before setting up the store, Henry Sands Brooks had been a provisioner for traders and seafarers, and likely did brisk business in New York City’s seaport. Their shop was situated on the corner of Catherine and Cherry streets in Lower Manhattan, a major shopping district that supported a number of clothing stores. It was said Brooks was something of a dandy with an eye for fashion.

Brooks Brothers ran a full-page ad celebrating its centenary in 1918.New York Evening Post // Public Domain

Henry Sands Brooks died in 1833, and the store passed to his eldest son, Henry Jr. When he died in 1850, Brooks Sr.’s four younger sons Daniel, John, Elisha, and Edward inherited the firm and renamed it Brooks Brothers. At this point, the store began to stand out from the crowd. The brothers adopted their familiar logo of a sheep suspended by a ribbon representing the Golden Fleece. This ancient symbol hearkened back to the Greek legend of Jason and the Argonauts, and was used by tailors and wool merchants across Europe as a sign of quality. By embracing this symbol, the brothers were announcing the caliber of their goods and aligning themselves with the prestige of European fashion.

While building a brand on traditional quality, the brothers also saw an opportunity to modernize. Brooks Brothers began specializing in ready-to-wear suits—an innovation that made “gentlemen’s clothing” accessible and affordable to ordinary Americans. An advertisement in New York’s Evening Post in June 1850 stated that Brooks Brothers ‘have on hand a large stock of ready-made clothing, suited to the tastes and wants of purchasers.’ Brooks Brothers also capitalized on the California Gold Rush by selling their ready-made suits to gold-seekers who didn’t have time to wait for a tailor to construct bespoke suits.

Business boomed in the years leading up to the Civil War, a time when the company benefited from slavery. Much of the cotton used by Brooks Brothers was picked by enslaved laborers in the South. The company also manufactured the types of uniforms worn by enslaved people forced to work as house servants.

Perhaps as a result of their experience making such clothing, Brooks Brothers was given a large contract by the Union government at the start of the Civil War to provide tens of thousands of uniforms for enlisted soldiers. A scandal blew up when the garments were delivered: it was obvious that the uniforms were of low quality, missing buttons or buttonholes, and made from cheap scraps of cloth glued instead of sewn together. When the outfits were exposed to wind and rain, they fell apart. In the rush to manufacture them for the war effort, Brooks Brothers had, in fact, substituted cheap and flimsy material instead of the usual grade of cloth—they were allowed to, according to the provisions written into their contract.

The New York state legislature launched an investigation, accusing the company of profiteering. When asked how much money the company had made by downgrading the cloth, Elisha Brooks prevaricated. “I think that I cannot ascertain the difference without spending more time than I can now devote to that purpose,” Brooks told lawmakers. Ultimately, Brooks Brothers agreed to replace 2350 of the substandard uniforms at a cost of $45,000.

An illustration of looters throwing trousers and other garments out of the Brooks Brothers store during New York City's draft riots appeared on the front page of Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper on August 1, 1863.Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper, 19th Century American Newspapers, Gale Primary Sources // Public Domain

The company’s association with outfitting the Union Army got them into trouble again in July 1863. The casualties among members of New York regiments were increasing as the war showed no signs of resolution. In New York City, working class people protested against the draft, and the protests quickly turned into a riot of racist violence and looting. Brooks Brothers’s Cherry Street store was one of the establishments it targeted. Harper’s Weekly reported that “a large number of marauders paid a visit to the extensive clothing-store of Messrs. Brooks Brothers … there they helped themselves to such articles as they wanted, after which they might be seen dispersing in all directions, laden with their ill-gotten booty.”

Brooks Brothers’s reputation didn’t suffer for long, however. At his second presidential inauguration in March 1865, Abraham Lincoln wore a greatcoat made by the company. It featured an eagle embroidered into its lining with the motto “One Country, One Destiny.” Lincoln was wearing the same coat when, just two weeks later, he was assassinated at Ford’s Theatre in Washington, D.C. After his death, Mary Todd Lincoln gave the coat to Alphonse Donn, a doorman at the White House, who kept it for the rest of his life. Donn’s family eventually sold the coat to the United States Capitol Historical Society, and it is now in the Ford’s Theatre museum's collection.

Brooks Brothers continued to grow and expand. The company introduced enduring fashions such as the button-down polo shirt in 1896, the sack suit in 1901, and their own version of a British regimental tie, the striped rep tie, in 1902.

For more than 200 years, the company has outfitted presidents, Wall Street traders, and businesspeople, becoming an iconic American brand with worldwide appeal. But today, their future may be less certain.