Archives of Sexual Behavior

, Volume 37, Issue 1, pp 64–77

Social Perception of Facial Resemblance in Humans

  • Lisa M. DeBruine
  • Benedict C. Jones
  • Anthony C. Little
  • David I. Perrett
ORIGINAL PAPER: MINOT SPECIAL ISSUE

Abstract

Two lines of reasoning predict that highly social species will have mechanisms to influence behavior toward individuals depending on their degree of relatedness. First, inclusive fitness theory leads to the prediction that organisms will preferentially help closely related kin over more distantly related individuals. Second, evaluation of the relative costs and potential benefits of inbreeding suggests that the degree of kinship should also be considered when choosing a mate. In order to behaviorally discriminate between individuals with different levels of relatedness, organisms must be able to discriminate cues of kinship. Facial resemblance is one such potential cue in humans. Computer-graphic manipulation of face images has made it possible to experimentally test hypotheses about human kin recognition by facial phenotype matching. We review recent experimental evidence that humans respond to facial resemblance in ways consistent with inclusive fitness theory and considerations of the costs of inbreeding, namely by increasing prosocial behavior and positive attributions toward self-resembling images and selectively tempering attributions of attractiveness to other-sex faces in the context of a sexual relationship.

Keywords

Faces Resemblance Kin recognition Social perception Assortative mating 

References

  1. Alberts, S. C. (1999). Paternal kin discrimination in wild baboons. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 266, 1501–1506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Austin, W., & McGinn, N. C. (1977). Sex differences in choice of distribution rules. Journal of Personality, 45, 379–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bailenson, J. N., Garland, P., Iyengar, S., & Yee, N. (2006). Transformed facial similarity as a political cue: A preliminary investigation. Political Psychology, 27, 373–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bateson, P. (1980). Optimal outbreeding and the development of sexual preferences in Japanese quail. Zietschrift fur Tierpsychologie, 53, 231–244.Google Scholar
  5. Bateson, P. (1983). Optimal outbreeding. In P. Bateson (Ed.), Mate choice (pp. 257–278). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bereczkei, T., Gyuris, P., Koves, P., & Bernath, L. (2002). Homogamy, genetic similarity, and imprinting; parental influence on mate choice preferences. Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 677–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berg, S. J., & Wynne-Edwards, K. (2001). Changes in testosterone, cortisol, and estradiol levels in men becoming fathers. Mayo Clinical Proceedings, 76, 582–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bittles, A. H. (2001). Consanguinity and its relevance to clinical genetics. Clinical Genetics, 60, 89–98.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bittles, A. H., Grant, J. C., Sullivan, S. G., & Hussain, R. (2002). Does inbreeding lead to decreased human fertility? Annals of Human Biology, 29, 111–130.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blomqvist, D., Andersson, M., Küpper, C., Cuthill, I. C., Kis, J., Lanctotk, R. B., et al. (2002). Genetic similarity between mates and extra-pair parentage in three species of shorebirds. Nature, 419, 613–615.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brédart, S., & French, R. M. (1999). Do babies resemble their fathers more than their mothers? A failure to replicate Christenfeld and Hill (1995). Evolution and Human Behavior, 20, 129–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bressan, P. (2002). Why babies look like their daddies: Paternity uncertainty and the evolution of self-deception in evaluating family resemblance. Acta Ethologica, 4, 113–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bressan, P., & Grassi, M. (2004). Parental resemblance in one-year-olds and the Gaussian curve. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, 133–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bressan, P., & Martello, M. F. D. (2002). Talis pater, talis filius: Perceived resemblance and the belief in genetic relatedness. Psychological Science, 13, 213–218.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bressan, P., Bertamini, M., Nalli, A., & Zanutto, A. (submitted). Effect of self-resemblance in child faces on hypothetical parental investment choices in men and women. Archives of Sexual Behavior.Google Scholar
  16. Buckingham, G., DeBruine, L. M., Little, A. C., Welling, L. L. M., Conway, C. A., Tiddeman, B. P., et al. (2006). Visual adaptation to masculine and feminine faces influences generalized preferences and perceptions of trustworthiness. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27, 381–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bukacinski, D., Bukacinski, M., & Lubjuhn, T. (2000). Adoption of chicks and the level of relatedness in common gull, Larus canus, colonies. Animal Behaviour, 59, 289–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Burley, N. (1983). The meaning of assortative mating. Ethology and Sociobiology, 4, 191–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Burnstein, E., Crandall, C., & Kitayama, S. (1994). Some neo-Darwinian decision rules for altruism: Weighing cues for inclusive fitness as a function of the biological importance of the decision. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 773–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Byard, P. J., Poosha, D. V., Satyanarayana, M., & Rao, D. C. (1985a). Family resemblance for components of craniofacial size and shape. Journal of Craniofacial Genetic Developmental Biology, 5, 229–238.Google Scholar
  21. Byard, P. J., Poosha, D. V., Satyanarayana, M., Rao, D. C., & Russell, J. M. (1985b). Path analysis of family resemblance for cranio-facial traits in Andhra Pradesh nuclear families and twins. Annals of Human Biology, 12, 305–314.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Christenfeld, N. J. S., & Hill, E. A. (1995). Whose baby are you? Nature, 378, 669.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1982). Whom are newborn babies said to resemble? Ethology and Sociobiology, 3, 69–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1984). A sociobiological analysis of human infanticide. In G. Hausfater & S. Hrdy (Eds.), Infanticide: Comparative and evolutionary perspectives (pp. 487–502). New York: Aldine Press.Google Scholar
  25. DeBruine, L. M. (2002). Facial resemblance enhances trust. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 269, 1307–1312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. DeBruine, L. M. (2004a). Facial resemblance increases the attractiveness of same-sex faces more than other-sex faces. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 271, 2085–2090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. DeBruine, L. M. (2004b). Resemblance to self increases the appeal of child faces to both men and women. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, 142–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. DeBruine, L. M. (2005). Trustworthy but not lust-worthy: Context-specific effects of facial resemblance. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 272, 919–922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. DeBruine, L. M., Jones, B. C., & Perrett, D. I. (2005). Women’s attractiveness judgments of self-resembling faces change across the menstrual cycle. Hormones and Behavior, 47, 379–383.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Epstein, E., & Guttman, R. (1982). Mate selection in man: Evidence, theory, and outcome. Social Biology, 31, 243–276.Google Scholar
  31. Euler, H. A., & Weitzel, B. (1999). Grandparental caregiving and intergenerational relations reflect reproductive strategies. In J. M. van der Dennen, D. Smillie, & D. R. Wilson (Eds.), The Darwinian heritage and sociobiology: Human evolution, behavior, and intelligence (pp. 243–252). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.Google Scholar
  32. Fujita, K. (1993). Development of visual preference for closely related species by infant and juvenile macaques with restricted social experience. Primates, 34, 141–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gaulin, S. J., & Schlegel, A. (1980). Paternal confidence and paternal investment: A cross cultural test of a sociobiological hypothesis. Ethology and Sociobiology, 1, 301–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gaulin, S. J. C., McBurney, D. H., & Wartell, S. L. B. (1997). Matrilateral biases in the investment of aunts and uncles: A consequence and measure of paternity uncertainty. Human Nature, 8, 139–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Greenberg, L. (1979). Genetic component of bee odor in kin recognition. Science, 206, 1095–1097.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Griffin, A. S., & West, S. A. (2003). Kin discrimination and the benefit of helping in cooperatively breeding vertebrates. Science, 302, 634–636.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Griffiths, R., & Kunz, P. (1973). Assortative mating: A study of physiognomic homogamy. Social Biology, 20, 448–453.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Hames, R. (1987). Relatedness and garden labor exchange among the Ye’kwana. Ethology and Sociobiology, 8, 259–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hamilton, W. D. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behaviour, I. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7, 1–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Harris, R. N., Vess, T. J., Hammond, J. I., & Lindermuth, C. J. (2003). Context-dependent kin discrimination in larval four-toed salamanders Hemidactylium scutatum (Caudata Plethodontidae). Herpetologica, 59, 164–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hauber, M. E., & Sherman, P. W. (1998). Nepotism and marmot alarm calling. Animal Behaviour, 53, 1049–1052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Heth, G., Todrank, J., Busquet, N., & Baudoin, C. (2003). Genetic relatedness assessment through individual odour similarities in mice. Biological Journal of the Linnaean Society, 78, 595–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hill, C. T., Rubin, Z., & Peplau, L. A. (1976). Breakups before marriage: The end of 103 affairs. Journal of Social Issues, 32, 147–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hinsz, V. B. (1989). Facial resemblance in engaged and married couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6, 223–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Holmes, W. G., & Sherman, P. W. (1982). The ontogeny of kin recognition in two species of ground squirrels. American Zoologist, 22, 491–517.Google Scholar
  46. Irons, W. (1986). Incest: Why all the fuss? Paper presented at the Evolution and Human Behavior meeting, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  47. Jones, B. C., DeBruine, L. M., Perrett, D. I., Little, A. C., Feinberg, D. R., & Law Smith, M. J. (2008). Effects of menstrual cycle phase on face preferences. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37. doi:10.1007/s10508-007-9268y.
  48. Jones, B. C., Little, A. C., Boothroyd, L., DeBruine, L. M., Feinberg, D. R., Law Smith, M. J., et al. (2005a). Commitment to relationships and preferences for femininity and apparent health in faces are strongest on days of the menstrual cycle when progesterone level is high. Hormones and Behavior, 48, 283–290.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Jones, B. C., Perrett, D. I., Little, A. C., Boothroyd, L., Cornwell, R. E., Feinberg, D. R., et al. (2005b). Menstrual cycle, pregnancy and oral contraceptive use alter attraction to apparent health in faces. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B, 272, 347–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kahn, A., O’Leary, V. E., Krulewitz, J. E., & Lamm, H. (1980). Equity and equality: Male and female means to a just end. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 1, 173–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kendrick, K. M. (2000). Oxytocin, motherhood and bonding. Experimental Physiology, 85, 111S–124S.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kendrick, K. M., Hinton, M. R., & Atkins, K. (1998). Mothers determine sexual preferences. Nature, 395, 229–230.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Krupp, D. B., DeBruine, L. M., & Barclay, P. (in press). A cue of kinship promotes cooperation for the public good. Evolution and Human Behavior. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2007.08.002.
  54. Langlois, J., & Roggman, L. (1990). Attractive faces are only average. Psychological Science, 1, 115–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lieberman, D., Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2003). Does morality have a biological basis? Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 270, 819–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lieberman, D., Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2007). The architecture of human kin detection. Nature, 225, 727–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Little, A. C., DeBruine, L. M., & Jones, B. C. (2005). Sex-contingent face aftereffects suggest distinct neural populations code male and female faces. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 272, 2283–2287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Little, A. C., Penton-Voak, I. S., Burt, D. M., & Perrett, D. I. (2003). Investigating an imprinting-like phenomenon in humans: Partners and opposite-sex parents have similar hair and eye colour. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24, 43–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Little, A. C., Burt, D. M., & Perrett, D. I. (2006). Assortative mating for perceived facial personality traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 973–984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Maloney, L. T., & Dal Martello, M. F. (2006). Kin recognition and the perceived facial similarity of children. Journal of Vision, 6, 1047–1056.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. McLain, D. K., Setters, D., Moulton, M. P., & Pratt, A. E. (2000). Ascription of resemblance of newborns by parents and nonrelatives. Evolution and Human Behavior, 21, 11–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Nesse, R. M., Silverman, A., & Bortz, A. (1990). Sex differences in ability to recognize family resemblance. Ethology and Sociobiology, 11, 11–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Oda, R., Matsumoto-Oda, A., & Kurashima, O. (2002). Facial resemblance of Japanese children to their parents. Journal of Ethology, 20, 81–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Olsén, H. (1999). Present knowledge of kin discrimination in salmonids. Genetica, 104, 295–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Pagel, M. (1997). Desperately concealing father: A theory of parent-infant resemblance. Animal Behaviour, 53, 973–981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Penn, D., & Potts, W. (1998). MHC-disassortative mating preferences reversed by cross-fostering. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 265, 1299–1306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Penton-Voak, I. S., Perrett, D. I., & Peirce, J. W. (1999). Computer graphic studies of the role of facial similarity in judgments of attractiveness. Current Psychology, 18, 104–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Penton-Voak, I. S., Perrett, D. I., Castles, D. L., Kobayashi, T., Burt, D. M., Murray, L. K., & Minamisawa, R. (1999). Menstrual cycle alters face preference. Nature, 399, 741–742.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Perrett, D. I., Penton-Voak, I. S., Little, A. C., Tiddeman, B. P., Burt, D. M., Schmidt, N., et al. (2002). Facial attractiveness judgments reflect learning of parental age characteristics. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 269, 873–880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Pfennig, D. W., Sherman, P. W., & Collins, J. P. (1994). Kin recognition and cannibalism in polyphenic salamanders. Behavioral Ecology, 5, 225–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Platek, S. M. (2002). Unconscious reactions to children’s faces: The effect of resemblance. Evolution and Cognition, 8, 207–214.Google Scholar
  72. Platek, S. M., Burch, R. L., Panyavin, I. S., Wasserman, B. H., & Gallup, G. G. (2002). Reactions to children’s faces: Resemblance affects males more than females. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23, 159–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Platek, S. M., Critton, S. R., Burch, R. L., Frederick, D. A., Meyers, T. E., & Gallup, G. G. (2003). How much paternal resemblance is enough? Sex differences in hypothetical investment decisions but not in the detection of resemblance. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24, 81–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Platek, S. M., Raines, D. M., Gallup, G. G. Jr., Mohamed, F. B., Thomson, J. W., Myers, T. E., et al. (2004). Reactions to children’s faces: Males are more affected by resemblance than females are, and so are their brains. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, 394–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Poosha, D. V., Byard, P. J., Satyanarayana, M., Rice, J. P., & Rao, D. C. (1984). Family resemblance for cranio-facial measurements in Velanti Brahmins from Andhra Pradesh, India. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 65, 15–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Porter, R. H., Cernoch, J. M., & Balogh, R. D. (1984). Recognition of neonates by facial-visual characteristics. Pediatrics, 74, 501–504.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. Regalski, J. M., & Gaulin, S. J. (1993). Whom are Mexican infants said to resemble? Monitoring and fostering paternal confidence in the Yucatan. Ethology and Sociobiology, 14, 97–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Rowland, D., & Perrett, D. I. (1995). Manipulating facial appearance through shape and color. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 15, 70–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Rushton, J. P. (1988). Genetic similarity, mate choice, and fecundity in humans. Ethology and Sociobiology, 9, 329–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Rushton, J. P., & Nicholson, I. R. (1988). Genetic similarity theory, intelligence, and human mate choice. Ethology and Sociobiology, 9, 45–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Shepher, J. (1971). Mate selection among second generation Kibbutz adolescents and adults: Incest avoidance and negative imprinting. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 1, 293–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Sherman, P. (1977). Nepotism and the evolution of alarm calls. Science, 197, 1246–1253.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Silk, J. B. (2002). Kin selection in primate groups. International Journal of Primatology, 23, 849–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Spoon, T. R., Millam, J. R., & Owings, D. H. (2006). The importance of mate behavioural compatabilty in parenting and reproductive success by cockatiels, Nymphicus hollandicus. Animal Behaviour, 71, 315–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Storey, A. E., Walsh, C., Quinton, R., & Wynne-Edwards, K. (2000). Hormonal correlates of paternal responsiveness in men. Evolution and Human Behavior, 21, 79–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Thiessen, D., & Gregg, B. (1980). Human assortative mating and genetic equilibrium: An evolutionary perspective. Ethology and Sociobiology, 1, 111–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Tiddeman, B. P., Perrett, D. I., & Burt, D. M. (2001). Prototyping and transforming facial textures for perception research. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, Research, 21, 42–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Todrank, J., & Heth, G. (2001). Rethinking cross-fostering designs for studying kin recognition mechanisms. Animal Behaviour, 61, 503–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. van der Jeugd, H., van der Veen, I. T., & Larsson, K. (2002). Kin clustering in barnacle geese: Familiarity or phenotype matching? Behavioral Ecology, 13, 786–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Volk, A., & Quinsey, V. L. (2002). The influence of infant facial cues on adoption preferences. Human Nature, 13, 437–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Vos, D. R. (1995). Sexual imprinting in zebra-finch females: Do females develop a preference for males that look like their father? Ethology, 99, 252–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Westermarck, E. A. (1921). The history of human marriage (5th ed.). London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  93. Wilson, G. D., & Barrett, P. T. (1987). Parental characteristics and partner choice: Some evidence for Oedipal imprinting. Journal of Biosocial Science, 19, 157–161.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. Wolf, A. P. (1993). Westermarck redivivus. Annual Review of Anthropology, 22, 157–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Wolf, A. P. (1995). Sexual attraction and childhood association: A Chinese brief for Edward Westermarck. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  96. Zajonc, R. B., Adelmann, P. K., Murphy, S. T., & Niendenthal, P. M. (1987). Convergence in the physical appearance of spouses. Motivation and Emotion, 11, 335–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Zei, G., Astolfi, P., & Jayakar, S. D. (1983). Correlation between father’s age and husband’s age: A case of imprinting. Journal of Biosocial Science, 15, 116–117.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lisa M. DeBruine
    • 1
  • Benedict C. Jones
    • 1
  • Anthony C. Little
    • 2
  • David I. Perrett
    • 3
  1. 1.School of PsychologyUniversity of AberdeenAberdeenUK
  2. 2.School of PsychologyUniversity of StirlingStirlingUK
  3. 3.School of PsychologyUniversity of St. AndrewsSt. AndrewsUK

Personalised recommendations