Archives of Sexual Behavior

, Volume 38, Issue 5, pp 657–664 | Cite as

Men Do not Have a Stronger Preference than Women for Self-resemblant Child Faces

  • Paola BressanEmail author
  • Marco Bertamini
  • Alessandra Nalli
  • Arianna Zanutto
Original Paper


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.


Facial resemblance Paternal investment Paternal uncertainty Cuckoldry Sex differences 


  1. Apicella, C. L., & Marlowe, F. W. (2004). Perceived mate fidelity and paternal resemblance predict men’s investment in children. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, 371–378.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. 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
  4. Bressan, P., & Dal Martello, M. F. (2002). Talis pater, talis filius: Perceived resemblance and the belief in genetic relatedness. Psychological Science, 13, 213–218.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bressan, P., & Grassi, M. (2004). Parental resemblance in 1-year-olds and the Gaussian curve. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, 133–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. Euler, H. A., & Weitzel, B. (1996). Discriminative grandparental solicitude as reproductive strategy. Human Nature, 7, 39–59.Google Scholar
  10. Jansen, A., Smeets, T., Martijn, C., & Nederkoorn, C. (2006). I see what you see: The lack of self-serving body-image bias in eating disorders. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 45, 123–135.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Littlefield, C. H., & Rushton, J. P. (1986). When a child dies: The sociobiology of bereavement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 797–802.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Monin, B. (2003). The warm glow heuristic: When liking leads to familiarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 1035–1048.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Peskin, M., & Newell, F. N. (2004). Familiarity breeds attraction: Effects of exposure on the attractiveness of typical and distinctive faces. Perception, 33, 147–157.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Platek, S. M., Critton, S. R., Burch, R. L., Frederick, D. A., Myers, T. E., & Gallup, G. G. (2003). How much paternal resemblance is enough? Sex differences in the reaction to resemblance but not in ability to detect resemblance. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24, 81–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Platek, S. M., Raines, D. M., Gallup, G. G., 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
  17. Rhodes, G., Jeffery, L., Watson, T. L., Clifford, C. W. G., & Nakayama, K. (2003). Fitting the mind to the world: Face adaptation and attractiveness aftereffects. Psychological Science, 14, 558–566.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Volk, A., & Quinsey, V. L. (2002). The influence of infant facial cues on adoption preferences. Human Nature, 13, 437–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Yonelinas, A. P. (2002). The nature of recollection and familiarity: A review of 30 years of research. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 441–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 1S–27S.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Zebrowitz, L. A. (1997). Reading faces: Window to the soul? Oxford, England: Westview Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paola Bressan
    • 1
    Email author
  • Marco Bertamini
    • 2
  • Alessandra Nalli
    • 1
  • Arianna Zanutto
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Psicologia GeneraleUniversità di PadovaPadovaItaly
  2. 2.School of PsychologyUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK

Personalised recommendations