Men Do not Have a Stronger Preference than Women for Self-resemblant Child Faces
- 378 Downloads
Are men more likely than women to take into account a child’s facial resemblance to themselves when making hypothetical parental investment choices? The benefits of self-resemblance in decreasing relatedness uncertainty are larger in men than in women for direct descendants. However, they are identical in men and women for collateral relatives, such as siblings, cousins, nephews, and nieces; these individuals can also be the recipients of parental-like altruism, which comes primarily from women. Published data are contradictory. In the present study, 14 men and 14 women were shown child faces and asked to judge their attractiveness, adoptability, and familiarity. The faces had been digitally manipulated to resemble (at three different resemblance levels, two of which were under recognition threshold) either the experimental participant, an acquaintance, or strangers. We found a significant preference for self-resemblant children in women, but not in men. This was not an artefact of women being better at detecting self-resemblance, given that at the highest resemblance level more men than women recognized themselves. Overall, face preference increased with face familiarity; for self-resemblant faces, this correlation was not mediated by conscious self-recognition. We discuss how the fast-response, multiple-question procedure used in previous experiments may have led to reports of a much larger self-resemblance preference in men than in women.
KeywordsFacial resemblance Paternal investment Paternal uncertainty Cuckoldry Sex differences
- Cleary, A. M., & Greene, R. L. (2005). Recognition without perceptual identification: A measure of familiarity? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58A, 1143–1152.Google Scholar
- Euler, H. A., & Weitzel, B. (1996). Discriminative grandparental solicitude as reproductive strategy. Human Nature, 7, 39–59.Google Scholar
- Zebrowitz, L. A. (1997). Reading faces: Window to the soul? Oxford, England: Westview Press.Google Scholar