Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 61, Issue 3, pp 371–384 | Cite as

Why do blue-eyed men prefer women with the same eye color?

Original Article

Abstract

The human eye color blue reflects a simple, predictable, and reliable genetic mechanism of inheritance. Blue-eyed individuals represent a unique condition, as in their case there is always direct concordance between the genotype and phenotype. On the other hand, heterozygous brown-eyed individuals carry an allele that is not concordant with the observed eye color. Hence, eye color can provide a highly visible and salient cue to the child’s heredity. If men choose women with characteristics that promote the assurance of paternity, then blue-eyed men should prefer and feel more attracted towards women with blue eyes. To test these predictions, close-up photos of young women and adult men with either blue or brown eyes were rated for their attractiveness by young women and men observers with either blue or brown eyes (N=88). The eye color in the photographs of each model was manipulated so that a same face would be shown with either the natural eye color (e.g., blue) or with the other color (e.g., brown). Both blue-eyed and brown-eyed female participants showed no difference in their attractiveness ratings for male models of either eye color. Similarly, brown-eyed men showed no preference for either blue-eyed or brown-eyed female models. However, blue-eyed men rated as more attractive the blue-eyed women than the brown-eyed ones. We interpret the latter preference in terms of specific mate selective choice of blue-eyed men, reflecting strategies for reducing paternity uncertainty. In a second study, a group of young adults (N=443) of both sexes and different eye colors (blue, brown, and green) were asked to report the eye and hair color of their romantic partners. Their responses indicated the presence of assortative mating by eye color as well as, to a less degree, for hair color. Most importantly, blue-eyed male respondents were the group with the largest proportion of partners of same eye color. These findings 1) indicate that blue-eyed men do prefer women with the same eye color and 2) specifically suggest the presence of a male adaptation for the detection of extra-pair paternity based on eye color, as a phenotypically based assurance of paternity (i.e., when the father’s and offspring’s phenotypes match) as well as a defense against cuckoldry (i.e., when the phenotypes do not match).

Keywords

Assortative mating Eye color Paternity confidence 

Supplementary material

265_2006_266_MOESM1_ESM.xls (894 kb)
S1Evolutionary games (XLS 914 kb)

References

  1. Alexander RD (1979) Darwinism and human affairs. University of Washington, Seattle, WAGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander RD, Noonan KM (1979) Concealment of ovulation, parental care, and human social evolution. In: Chagnon NA, Irons W (eds) Evolutionary biology and human social behavior: an anthropological perspective. Suxbury, North Scituate, MA, pp 402–435Google Scholar
  3. Anderson KG (2006) How well does paternity confidence match actual paternity? Evidence from worldwide nonpaternity rates. Curr Anthropol 48:511–518Google Scholar
  4. Apicella CL, Marlowe FW (2004) Perceived mate fidelity and paternal resemblance predict men’s investment in children. Evol Hum Behav 25:371-378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ashton GC (1980) Mismatches in genetic markers in a large family study. Am J Hum Genet 32:601–613PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Baker RR, Bellis MA (1995) Human sperm competition: copulation, masturbation and infidelity. Chapman & Hall, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  7. Baumeister RF (2000) Gender differences in erotic plasticity: the female sex drive as socially flexible and responsive. Psychol Bull 126:347–374PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beals RL, Hoijer H (1965) An introduction to anthropology (3rd edn) MacMillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Beckman L (1962) Assortative mating in man. Eugen Rev 54:63–67Google Scholar
  10. Betzig L (1989) Causes of conjugal dissolution: a cross-cultural study. Curr Anthropol 30:654–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bito LZ, Matheny A, Cruickshanks KJ, Nondahl DM, Carino OB (1997) Eye color changes past early childhood. The Louisville twin study. Arch Ophthalmol 115:659–663PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Boas F (1928) Materials for the study of inheritance in man. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Bornstein MH (1973) Color vision and color naming: a psychophysiological hypothesis of cultural difference. Psychol Bull 80:257–285PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bryn H (1920) Researches into anthropological heredity: I. On the inheritance of eye-colour in man; II. The genetical relation of index cephalicus. Hereditas 1:186–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Burks BS (1938) Objectivity of report in family studies of heredity: a preliminary analysis. J Heredity 29:505–509Google Scholar
  16. Burley N (1982) The meaning of assortative mating. Ethol Sociobiol 4:191–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Buss DM, Schmitt DP (1993) Sexual strategies theory: an evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychol Rev 100:204–232PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cavalli-Sforza LL, Menozzi P, Piazza A (1994) The history and geography of human gene. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  19. Cerda-Flores RM, Barton SA, Marty-Gonzales LF, Rivas F, Chakrborty R (1999) Estimation of nonpaternity in the Mexican population of Nuevo Leon: a validation study with blood group markers. Am Journal Phys Anthropol 109:281–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Daly M, Wilson M (1982) Whom are newborn babies said to resemble? Ethol Sociobiol 3:69–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. DeBruine LM (2005) Trustworthy but not lust-worthy: context-specific effects of facial resemblance. Proc R Soc Edinb Sect B Biol Sci 272:919–922CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dolin PJ (1994) Ultraviolet radiation and cataract: a review of the epidemiological evidence. Br J Ophthalmol 78:478–482PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Eiberg H, Mohr J (1996) Assignment of genes coding for brown eye colour (BEY2) and brown hair colour (HCL3) on Chromosome 15q. Eur J Hum Genet 4:237–241PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Elston R (1961) Assortative mating in man. Transactions of the second international congress of human genetics, RomeGoogle Scholar
  25. Feinman S, Gill GW (1978) Sex differences in physical attractiveness preferences. J Soc Psychol 105:43–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fisher ML (2004) Female intrasexual competition decreases female facial attractiveness. Biol Lett 271:283–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Forgaard TS, Dzamarjia MT (2004) Innvandrerbefolkningen. In: Tronstad KR (ed) Innvandring og invandrere 2004, Statistisk Sentralbyrå, Oslo, Norway, pp 17–54Google Scholar
  28. Frost P (2006) European hair and eye color: a case of frequency-dependent sexual selection? Evol Hum Behav 27:85–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fuster V (1984) Extramarital reproduction and infant mortality in rural Galicia (Spain). J Hum Evol 13:457–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gangestad SW, Simpson JA (2000). The evolution of human mating: trade-offs and strategic pluralism. Behav Brain Sci 23:573–644PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gangestad SW, Thornhill R, Garver CE (2002) Changes in women’s sexual interests and their partners’ mate-retention tactics across the menstrual cycle: evidence for shifting conflicts of interest. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:975–982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gaulin SJC, Schlegel A (1980) Paternity confidence and paternal investment: a cross-cultural test of a sociobiological hypothesis. Ethology and Sociobiology 1:301–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gergen KJ (1967) The significance of skin color in human relations. Daedalus 96:390–406Google Scholar
  34. Gladwell M (1999) True colors: hair dye and the hidden history of postwar America. New Yorker 3/22/99:70–81Google Scholar
  35. Gloor PA, Houdaille J, Menk R (1981) Taille et couleur des yeux: 10’064 élèves de l’Ecole Polytechnique de Paris, 1794–1874. Archives Suisses d’anthropologie générale 45:17–29Google Scholar
  36. Greiling H, Buss DM (2000) Women’s sexual strategies: the hidden dimension of extra-pair mating. Pers Individ Differ 28:929–963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hasstedt SJ (1995) Phenotypic assortative mating in segregation analysis. Genet Epidemiol 12:109–127PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hrdy SB (1992) Fitness trade-offs in the history and evolution of delegated mothering with special references to wet-nursing, abandonment, and infanticide. Ethol Sociobiol 13:409–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hrdy SB (2000) Mother nature. Random House, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  40. Hurst CC (1908) On the inheritance of eye-colour in man. Proc Roy Soc B 85–96Google Scholar
  41. Jablonski NG (2004) The evolution of human skin and skin color. Annu Rev Anthropol 33:585–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Jablonski NG, Chaplin G (2000) Skin deep. The Scientific American, October 2002, pp 74–81Google Scholar
  43. Javitt JC, Taylor HR (1995) Cataract and latitude. Documenta Ophthamologica 88(3–4):307–325Google Scholar
  44. Jorjani H, Engstrõm G, Liljedahl LE (1997) Genetic studies of assortative mating: a simulation study. I. Characteristics of the control populations. Acta Agric Scand 47:65–73Google Scholar
  45. Kinsey AC, Pomeroy AB, Martin CE, Gebhard PH (1953) Sexual behavior in the human female. Saunders, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  46. Koeslag JH, Koeslag PD (1994) Koinophilia. J Theor Biol 167:55–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Laumann EO, Gagnon JH, Michael RT, Michaels S (1994) The social organization of sexuality. University of Chicago, Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  48. Little AC, Penton-Voak IS, Burt DM, Perrett DI (2003) Investigating an imprinting-like phenomenon in humans: partners and opposite-sex parents have similar hair and eye colour. Evol Hum Behav 24:43–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lock-Andersen J, Wulf HC, Knudstorp ND (1998) Interdependence of eye and hair colour, skin type and skin pigmentation in a Caucasian population. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockholm) 78:214–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lykken DT, Tellegen A (1993) Is human mating adventitious or the result of lawful choice? J Pers Soc Psychol 65:56–58PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Maddox KB (2004) Perspectives on racial phenotypicality bias. Pers Soc Psychol Rev 8:383–401PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Maynard Smith J (1977) Parental investment: a prospective analysis. Anim Behav 25:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. McBurney DH, Simon J, Gaulin SJC, Geliebter A (2002) Matrilineal biases in the investment of aunts and uncles: replication in a population presumed to have high paternity certainty. Hum Nat 13:391–402Google Scholar
  54. McLain DK, Setters D, Moulton MP, Pratt AE (2000) Ascription of resemblance of newborns by parents and nonrelatives. Evol Hum Behav 21:11–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Miller GF, Todd PM (1998) Mate choice turns cognitive. Trends Cogn Sci 2:190–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Neale MC, Neale BM, Sullivan PF (2002) Nonpaternity in linkage studies of extremely discordant sib pairs. Am J Hum Genet 70:526–529PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pagel M (1997) Desperately concealing father: a theory of parent–infant resemblance. Anim Behav 53:973–981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Pearson K (1907) Reply to certain criticisms of G.U. Yule. Biometrika 8:159–315Google Scholar
  59. Pearson K, Lee A (1903) On the laws of inheritance in man: I. Inheritance of physical characters. Biometrika 2:357–462Google Scholar
  60. Pena SDJ, Chakraborty R (1994) Paternity testing in the DNA era. Trends Genet 10:204–209Google Scholar
  61. Perrett DI, Penton-Voak IS, Little AC, Tiddeman BP, Burt DM, Schmidt N, Oxley R, Barrett L (2002) Facial attractiveness judgments reflect learning of parental age characteristics. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:873–880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Platek SM, Burch RL, Panyavin IS, Wasserman BH, Gallup GG Jr (2002) Reactions to children’s faces: resemblance affects males more than females. Evol Hum Behav 23:159–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Platek SM, Raines DM, Gallup GG Jr, Mohamed FB, Thomson JW, Myers TE, Panyavin IS, Levin SL, Davis JA, Fonteyn LCM, Arigo DR (2004) Reactions to children’s faces: males are more affected by resemblance than females are, and so are their brains. Evol Hum Behav 25:394–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Post PW (1975) Cold injury and the evolution of “white” skin. Hum Biol 47:65–80PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Price RA, Vanderberg SG (1980) Spouse similarity in American and Swedish couples. Behav Genet 10:59–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Regalski JM, Gaulin SJC (1993) Whom are Mexican infants said to resemble? Monitoring and fostering paternal confidence in the Yucatan. Ethol Sociobiol 14:97–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Regan S, Judge HE, Gragoudas ES, Egan KM (1999) Iris color as a prognostic factor in ocular melanoma. Arch Ophthalmol 117:811–814PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Relethford JH, Lees FC, Byard PJ (1985) Sex and age variation in the skin color of Irish children. Curr Anthropol 26:396–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Rife DC (1933) Genetic studies of monozygotic twins. J Heredity 24:407–414Google Scholar
  70. Ritgers-Aris CAE (1973) A reflectance study of the skin in Dutch families. J Hum Evol 2:123–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Sasse G, Muller H, Chakrborty R, Ott J (1994) Estimating the frequency of nonpaternity in Switzerland. Hum Hered 44:337–343PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Schiefenhovel W (1989) Reproduction and sex-ratio manipulation through preferential female infanticide among the Eipo, in the highlands of western New Guinea. In: Rasa AE, Vogel C, Voland E (eds) The sociobiology of sexual and reproductive strategies. Chapman & Hall, New York, pp 170–193Google Scholar
  73. Schmitt DP (2005) Fundamentals of human mating strategies. In: Buss DM (ed) The handbook of evolutionary psychology. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, pp 258–291Google Scholar
  74. Schmitt DP, Alcalay L, Allik J, Angleitner A, Ault L, Austers I et al (2004) Patterns and universals of mate poaching across 53 nations: the effects of sex, culture, and personality on romantically attracting another person’s partner. J Pers Soc Psychol 86:560–584PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Shackelford TK (2003) Preventing, correcting, and anticipating female infidelity: three problems of sperm competition. Evolution and Cognition 9:90–96Google Scholar
  76. Shackelford TK, LeBlanc GJ, Drass E (2000) Emotional reactions to infidelity. Cogn Emot 14:643–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Sigusch V, Schmidt G (1971) Lower-class sexuality: some emotional and social aspects in West German males and females. Arch Sex Behav 1:29–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Singh AD, Rennie IG, Seregard S, Giblin M, McKenzie J (2004) Sunlight exposure and pathogenesis of uveal melanoma. Surv Ophthalmol 49:419–428PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Solomon GEA, Johnson SC, Zaitchik D, Carey S (1996) Like father, like son: young children’s understanding of how and why offspring resemble their parents. Child Dev 67:151–171PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Sykes B, Irven C (2000) Surnames and the Y chromosome. Am J Hum Genet 66:1417–1419PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Symons D (1995) Beauty is in the adaptations of the beholder: the evolutionary psychology of human female sexual attractiveness. In: Abramson PR, Pinkerton SD (eds) Sexual nature, sexual culture. The University of Chicago, Chicago, pp. 80–118Google Scholar
  82. Thiessen D, Young RK, Delgado M (1997) Social pressures for assortative mating. Pers Individ Differ 22:157–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Trivers R (1972) Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Campbell B (ed) Sexual selection and the descent of man: 1871–1971. Aldine, Chicago, pp. 136–179Google Scholar
  84. Van den Berghe PL, Frost P (1986) Skin color preferences, sexual dimorphism, and sexual selection: a case of gene-culture co-evolution? Ethn Racial Stud 9:87–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Vinding T (1990) Pigmentation of the eye and hair in relation to age-related macular degeneration. An epidemiological study of 1000 aged individuals. Acta Ophthalmol 68(1):53–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Walster E, Aronson V, Abrahams D, Rottman L (1966) Importance of physical attractiveness in dating behaviour. J Pers Soc Psychol 4:508–516PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Wiederman MW (1997) Extramarital sex: prevalence and correlates in a national survey. J Sex Res 34:167–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Widemo F, Sæther SA (1999) Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: causes and consequences of variation in mating preferences. Trends Ecol Evol 14:26–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Williams GC (1975) Sex and evolution. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  90. Willoughby RR (1933) Somatic homogamy in man. Hum Biol 5:690–705Google Scholar
  91. Wilson GD, Barrett PT (1987) Parental characteristics and partner choice: Some evidence for oedipal imprinting. J Biosoc Sci 19:157–161PubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. Zanetti R, Rosso S, Martinez C, Navarro C, Scraub S, Sancho-Garnier H et al (1996) The multicentre south European study “helios” I: skin characteristics and sunburns in basal cell and squamous cell carcinomas of the skin. Br J Cancer 73:1440–1446Google Scholar
  93. Zei GP, Astolfi P, Jayakar SD (1981) Correlation between father’s age and husband’s age: a case of imprinting. J Biosoc Sci 13:409–418 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of TromsøTromsøNorway

Personalised recommendations