Liking Your Own Perfume Is Not the Same as Wanting Fragrance Around You

Is enjoying your own perfume the same as wanting fragrance in the space around you? In a survey of 1,102 adults in Germany, 62.2% of people who preferred fragrance-free products said they used fragranced products to feel more attractive. Preferences about fragrance did not divide neatly into simple support or opposition.

The main aim of this paper, published in 2020, was to investigate how self-reported adverse reactions to fragranced products related to product choices, use of information, and avoidance of fragranced places. It also examined support for fragrance-free spaces and policies, along with effects on everyday life and work.

People reporting sensitivity and people preferring fragrance-free products overlap, but are not the same

The study analyzed a German-language online survey conducted in 2019. Participants were aged 18–65 and sampled to be representative in terms of age, sex, and region; the completion rate was 83%. Questions covered fragranced-product use, health effects participants associated with those products, experiences in public spaces and workplaces, and preferences for fragrance-free options.

The paper defined 219 respondents, or 19.9% of the sample, as fragrance-sensitive because they reported experiencing one or more adverse health effects from exposure to fragranced products. This was a survey classification based on self-report, not a medically confirmed diagnosis.

Meanwhile, 458 people, or 41.6%, preferred fragrance-free products when available. Of those reporting sensitivity, 62.6% preferred fragrance-free products, but only 29.9% of those preferring fragrance-free products reported sensitivity. These populations overlap: they are neither independent comparison groups nor the same group.

Using fragrance to feel attractive differed from preferences about other people

Overall, 72.5% said they used products such as perfume or deodorant to feel more attractive. This included 54.8% of those reporting sensitivity and 62.2% of those preferring fragrance-free products.

By comparison, 45.4% of all respondents considered people using fragranced personal-care products more attractive than people who did not. In a separate question, 44.8% found being near someone wearing perfume or a similar product attractive. The two questions are similar, but ask about different things.

The author suggests that preferences for fragrance types and concentrations, the ability to choose for oneself, and distinctions between product uses may all play a role. For example, preferring fragrance-free spaces or laundry products while still wanting one’s own perfume need not be contradictory. Since the survey did not explore the reasons in detail, explanations for the answers remain hypotheses.

Fragrance can be a reason for avoiding places or facilities

Among those reporting sensitivity, 51.1% said they had been prevented from going somewhere to avoid exposure to fragranced products that would make them feel unwell. Of those not reporting sensitivity, 9.7% reported a similar experience.

When entering a business or similar place and smelling air fresheners, 48.4% of the sensitive group said they would want to leave as quickly as possible, compared with 5.7% of the others. Experiences of being unable or reluctant to use public toilets were reported by 43.8% versus 9.1%. The survey also asked about avoiding handwashing because of fragranced soap.

These answers describe personal experiences, not measurements of actual fragrance exposure. Even so, they indicate that some people feel fragranced environments affect the places they can use and the choices they make in daily life.

Reading ingredient information does not translate directly into product use

Overall, 28.3% said they read product information to learn about fragrances, rising to 44.7% in the sensitive group. Information about a particular fragrance ingredient was said to influence purchasing decisions by 31.8% overall and 54.3% of the sensitive group.

If they knew a fragranced product emitted hazardous air pollutants, 48.2% of all respondents said they would not use it. This was a statement of intention in response to a hypothetical question, not an observation of subsequent purchases or use.

The author argues that simply providing information does not automatically change behavior. Her interpretation is that dialogue needs to account for multiple factors, including preferences, habits, a desire to feel attractive, and trust in information. The paper also discusses advertising and psychological inconsistencies, but it was not an experiment that isolated their causal effects.

Preferences for fragrance-free options vary by product and place

Fragrance-free laundry after washing was preferred by 36.5% of respondents, while 48.1% preferred a fragrance. In contrast, 58.4% preferred hotels without fragranced air, and 57.0% preferred airplanes without it. Whether fragrance is wanted depends on what it is used in and where.

Support for fragrance-free policies was also uneven: 46.4% supported them for healthcare facilities and professionals, 33.2% for workplaces, and 21.6% supported banning air fresheners in toilets. The corresponding figures were higher in the sensitive group, at 63.9%, 54.3%, and 45.7%, but support was not universal. Many respondents were unsure about policies such as those for workplaces.

Effects on everyday life and the author’s recommendations

Illness, missed work, or job loss in the previous year attributed to fragranced products in the workplace was reported by 5.5% overall and 22.4% of the sensitive group. The paper also estimated an economic burden using self-reported lost income, medical expenses, and other costs.

However, the annual cost is reported inconsistently: €14.5 billion in the abstract, main text, and table, but €14.8 billion in the heading, conclusion, and supplementary calculation. The supplement extrapolates adult response proportions to Germany’s total population, including children, so the population covered by the estimate also requires care. This is an estimate derived from survey responses, not economic losses individually verified as caused by fragrance. It should not be adopted without qualification as a precise societal cost.

In light of these difficulties and preferences, the author recommends fragrance-free public spaces and product options, reduced use, and better ingredient information. These are policy views drawn from the survey, not the results of trials comparing the effectiveness of the proposed measures.

The survey relied on self-reports at a single point in time, without chemical measurements or medical diagnoses. The original paper also acknowledges that the response options and the focus on fragrance may have guided answers. The proportions cannot simply be transferred to children or older adults excluded from the sample, or to everyday settings in Japan.

Summary

Even among people who reported adverse reactions to fragrance, more than half used fragranced products to feel more attractive. Meanwhile, preferences for fragrance-free options extended beyond the sensitive group and varied across spaces, products, and policies.

The study showed a complex overlap between fragrance preferences, experiences of health effects, use of information, and the ability to choose where to go. Enjoying one’s own fragrance is not a reason to assume that others want the same scent around them. The findings underline the value of asking about the specific reasons behind people’s preferences. The author recommends looking beyond information provision to consider fragrance-free choices and the way public spaces are managed.

The author states that she received no funding for this research work itself, while the survey was supported by university discretionary research funds. She declared no competing interests.

Reference

Klaschka U. Between attraction and avoidance: from perfume application to fragrance-free policies. Environmental Sciences Europe. 2020;32:98. doi:10.1186/s12302-020-00377-8