Self seeks like: many humans choose their dog pets following rules used for assortative mating

Abstract

Theoretical and experimental studies suggest that mating and pair formation are not likely to be random. Assortative mating, characterized as “self seeking like”, seems to be widely practiced in nature. Experimental evidence for it is strong among humans seeking a mate. Assortative mating increases the probability of finding a genetically similar mate, without fomenting inbreeding, achieving assortative mating without hindering the working of other mate-selection strategies that aim to maximize the search for “good genes”, optimizing the working of sex in evolutionary terms. Self seeking like seems to be a behavioural inborn trait among humans, and here we present evidence that the same behavioural mechanism seems to be at work when humans choose a pet. We show that in a significant proportion of human–pet pairs, sampled in pet beauty contests, the partners show much higher facial resemblances than can be expected by random pair formation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Bateson P (1983) Optimal outbreeding. In: Bateson P (ed) Mate choice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 257–277

    Google Scholar 

  2. Benezech M (2003) Man and the common dog: a common neuropsychiatric pathology? Ann Med Psychol 161:569–578

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bereczkei T, Gyuris P, Koves P, Bernath L (2002) Homogamy, genetic similarity, and imprinting; parental influence on mate choice preferences. Personality Individual Differences 33:677–690

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Berghe P van den (1983) Human inbreeding avoidance: culture in nature. Behav Brain Sci 6:91–123

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bredart S, French RM (1999) Do babies resemble their fathers more than their mothers? A failure to replicate Christenfeld and Hill (1995). Evol Hum Behav 20:129–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bressan P, Grassi M (2004) Parental resemblance in one-year-olds and the Gaussian curve. Evol Hum Behav 25:133–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Buss D (1989) Sex differences in human mate preferences: evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Brain Behav Sci 14:519–520

    Google Scholar 

  8. Buston PM, Emlen ST (2003) Cognitive processes underlying human mate choice: the relationship between self-perception and mate preference in Western society. http://www.pnas.orgycgiydoiy10.1073ypnas.1533220100

  9. Daly M, Wilson M (1982) Whom are newborn babies said to resemble? Ethol Sociobiol 3:69–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Davis CH (1995) The effect of assortative mating and environmental variation on selection for sexual reproduction. Evol Theory 11:51–53

    Google Scholar 

  11. DeBruine LM (2002) Facial resemblance enhances trust. Proc R Soc Lond B 269:1307–1312

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Dickinson JL, Koenig WD (2003) Desperately seeking similarity. Science 300:1887–1889

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Dieckmann U, Doebeli M (1999) On the origin of species by sympatric speciation. Nature 400:354–357

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Epstein E, Guttman R (1984) Mate selection in man: evidence, theory and outcome. Soc Biol 31:243–278

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Garrison R, Anderson E, Reeds S (1968) Assortative marriage. Soc Biol 15:113–127

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Genin E, Ober C, Weitkamp L, Thomson G (2000) A robust test for assortative mating. Eur J Hum Genet 8:119–124

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ho HS (1986) Assortative mating in unwed-birth parents? Adoptive and nonadoptive parents. Soc Biol 33:77–86

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Isles AR, Baum MJ, Ma D, Keverne EB, Allen ND (2001) Genetic imprinting: urinary odour preference in mice. Nature 409:783–784

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Jaffe K (1996) On the dynamics of the evolution of sex or why the sexes are, in fact, always two? Interciencia 21:259–267, 22:48 (erratum)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Jaffe K (1998) Sex, mate selection and evolution. In: Porto VW, Saravanan N, Waagen D, Eiben AE (eds) Evolutionary programming VII. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 1447. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 483–492

  21. Jaffe K (1999) On the adaptive value of some mate selection strategies. Acta Biotheor 47:29–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Jaffe K (2000) Emergence and maintenance of sex among diploid organisms aided by assortative mating. Acta Biotheor 48:137–147

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Jaffe K (2001) On the relative importance of haplo-diploidy, assortative mating and social synergy on the evolutionary emergence of social behavior. Acta Biotheor 49:29–42

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Jaffe K (2002) On sex, mate selection and evolution: an exploration. Comments Theor Biol 7:91–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Jaffe K, Chacon G (1995) Assortative mating: sex differences in mate selection for married and unmarried couples. Hum Biol 67:111–120

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kalick SM, Hamilton TE (1986) The matching hypothesis reexamined. J Personality Soc Psychol 51:673–682

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Kondrashov AS, Kondrashov FA (1999) Interactions among quantitative traits in the course of sympatric speciation. Nature 400:351–354

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Le Grand R, Mondloch CJ, Maurer D, Brent HP (2001) Early visual experience and face processing. Nature 410:890

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 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 24:43–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Lorenz K (1935) Der kumpan in der Umwelt des Vogels. J Ornithol 83:137–213

    Google Scholar 

  31. McLain DK, Setters D, Moulton MP, Pratt AE (2000) Ascription of resemblance of newborns by parents and nonrelatives. Evol Hum Behav 21:11–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Nesse RM, Silverman A, Bortz A (1990) Sex differences in ability to recognize family resemblance. Ethol Sociobiol 11:11–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Ochoa G, Jaffe K (1999) On sex, mate selection and the red queen. J Theor Biol 199:1–9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Oda R, Matsumoto-Oda A, Kurashima A (2002) Facial resemblance of Japanese children to their parents. J Ethol 20:81–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Parr L, de Waal F (1999) Visual kin recognition in chimpanzees. Nature 399:647–648

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Penton-Voak I, Perret DI (2000) Consistency and individual differences in facial attractiveness judgements: an evolutionary perspective. Soc Res 67:219–245

    Google Scholar 

  37. Regalski JM, Gaulin SJC (1993) Whom are Mexican infants said to resemble? Monitoring and fostering paternal confidence in the Yucatan. Ethol Sociobiol 14:97–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Roy MM, Christenfeld NJS (2004) Do dogs resemble their owners? Psychol Sci 15:361–363

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Rushton JP (1989) Genetic similarity, human altruism and group selection. Brain Behav Sci 12:503–559

    Google Scholar 

  40. Sinervo B, Clobert J (2003) Morphs, dispersal behavior, genetic similarity and the evolution of cooperation. Science 300:1849–1851

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Spuhler J (1968) Assortative mating with respect to physical characteristics. Soc Biol 15:128–140

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Thiessen D, Gregg B (1980) Human assortative mating and genetic equilibrium: an evolutionary perspective. Ethol Sociobiol 1:111–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Todd PM, Miller GF (1993) Parental guidance suggested: how parental imprinting evolves through sexual selection as an adaptive learning mechanism. Adapt Behav 2:5–47

    Google Scholar 

  44. Tregenza T, Wedell N (2000) Genetic compatibility, mate choice and patterns of parentage: invited review. Mol Ecol 9:1013–1027

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Wolf AP (1993) Westermarck redivivus. Annu Rev Anthropol 22:157–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Klaus Jaffe.

About this article

Cite this article

Payne, C., Jaffe, K. Self seeks like: many humans choose their dog pets following rules used for assortative mating. J Ethol 23, 15–18 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10164-004-0122-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Pets
  • Mate selection
  • Assortative mating
  • Sex
  • Evolution