Archives of Sexual Behavior

, Volume 40, Issue 6, pp 1263–1270 | Cite as

Preference for Facial Self-Resemblance and Attractiveness in Human Mate Choice

  • Ferenc KocsorEmail author
  • Rita Rezneki
  • Szabolcs Juhász
  • Tamás Bereczkei
Original Paper


Empirical studies present considerably consistent data about human mate choice, from which we may infer that it tends to be homogamous for various traits. However, different experiments on facial resemblance led to contradictory results. To obtain additional data about the preference for self-resembling potential mates, male and female composite faces were modified in a manner to resemble subjects. Volunteers were asked to choose a potential partner from three images in different situations: self-resembling faces, non-resembling faces (both with the same degree of other-rated attractiveness), and images which were rated by others as more attractive than the self-resembling faces. Women did not show any preference for similarity; they preferred the most attractive male and female faces. In contrast, men preferred the most attractive images of the opposite sex to self-resembling faces and the self-resembling to non-resembling faces. The self-resemblance of same-sex faces was preferred by neither men nor women. Our results support the hypothesis that both facial similarity (i.e., cues of shared genes) and observer-independent features of attractiveness (i.e., honest signals of genetic quality) play an important role in males’ mate choice. The lack of choice for self-resemblance on the female side in this particular study might reflect their more complex decision-making rules that are probably based on other cues beside visual stimuli.


Facial similarity Homogamy Sex differences in mate choice 


  1. Bateson, P. P. G. (1983). Optimal outbreeding. In P. P. G. Bateson (Ed.), Mate choice (pp. 257–277). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bereczkei, T., & Csanaky, A. (1996). Mate choice, marital success, and reproduction in a modern society. Ethology and Sociobiology, 17, 23–45. doi: 10.1016/0162-3095(95)00104-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bereczkei, T., Gyuris, P., Köves, P., & Bernáth, L. (2002). Homogamy, genetic similarity, and imprinting: Parental influence on mate choice preferences. Personality and Individual Differences, 33, 677–690. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00182-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bereczkei, T., Gyuris, P., & Weisfeld, G. E. (2004). Sexual imprinting in human mate choice. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 271, 1129–1134. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2003.2672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bereczkei, T., Vörös, A., Gál, A., & Bernáth, L. (1997). Resources, attractiveness, family commitment: Reproductive decisions in mate choice. Ethology, 103, 681–699. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0310.1997.tb00178.x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blouin, S. F., & Blouin, M. (1988). Inbreeding avoidance behaviors. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 3, 230–233. doi: 10.1016/0169-5347(88)90164-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cunningham, M. R., Barbee, A. P., & Pike, C. L. (1990). What do women want? Facialmetric assessment of multiple motives in the perception of male facial physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 61–72. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.59.1.61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. DeBruine, L. M. (2002). Facial resemblance enhances trust. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 269, 1307–1312. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2002.2034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. DeBruine, L. M. (2004). 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. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2002.2034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2004.3003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. DeBruine, L. M., Jones, B. C., & Perrett, D. I. (2005). Women’s attractiveness judgements of self-resembling faces change across the menstrual cycle. Hormones and Behavior, 47, 379–383. doi: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2004.11.006.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fink, B., Grammer, K., & Matts, P. J. (2006). Visible skin color distribution plays a role in the perception of age, attractiveness, and health in female faces. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27, 433–442. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2006.08.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (1998). Menstrual cycle variation in women’s preferences for the scent of symmetrical men. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 265, 927–933. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1998.0380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (2008). Human oestrus. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 275, 991–1000. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2007.1425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Godoy, R., Eisenberg, D. T. A., Reyes-García, V., Huanca, T., Leonard, W. R., McDade, T. W., et al. (2008). Assortative mating and offspring well-being: Theory and empirical findings from a native Amazonian society in Bolivia. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29, 201–210. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2007.12.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grammer, K. (1993). 5-Alpha-androst-16en-3alpha-on: A male pheromone? Ethology and Sociobiology, 14, 201–208. doi: 10.1016/0162-3095(93)90006-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Helgason, A., Pálsson, S., Guðbjartsson, D. F., Kristjánsson, Þ., & Stefánsson, K. (2008). An association between the kinship and fertility of human couples. Science, 319, 813–816. doi: 10.1126/science.1150232.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Herz, R. S., & Inzlicht, M. (2002). Sex differences in response to physical and social factors involved in human mate selection: The importance of smell for women. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23, 359–364. doi: 10.1016/S1090-5138(02)00095-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Holmes, W. G. (1995). The ontogeny of littermate preferences in juvenile golden-mantled ground squirrels: Effects of rearing and relatedness. Animal Behaviour, 50, 309–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Holmes, W. G., & Sherman, P. W. (1983). Kin recognition in animals. American Scientist, 71, 46–55. doi: 10.1006/anbe.1995.0247.Google Scholar
  21. Hönekopp, J., Bartholomé, T., & Jansen, G. (2004). Facial attractiveness, symmetry, and physical fitness in young women. Human Nature, 15, 147–167. doi: 10.1007/s12110-004-1018-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jacob, S., McClintock, M. K., Zelano, B., & Ober, C. (2002). Paternally inherited HLA alleles are associated with women’s choice of male odour. Nature Genetics, 30, 175–179. doi: 10.1038/ng830.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jaffe, K., & Chacon-Puignau, G. (1995). Assortative mating—sex-differences in mate selection for married and unmarried couples. Human Biology, 67, 111–120.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Johnston, V. S., Hagel, R., Franklin, M., Fink, B., & Grammer, K. (2001). Male facial attractiveness: Evidence for hormone-mediated adaptive design. Evolution and Human Behavior, 22, 251–267. doi: 10.1016/S1090-5138(01)00066-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kalick, S. M., Zebrowitz, L. A., Langlois, J. H., & Johnson, R. M. (1998). Does human facial attractiveness honestly advertise health? Longitudinal data on an evolutionary question. Psychological Science, 9, 8–13. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mascie-Taylor, C. G. N. (1988). Assortative mating for psychometric characters. In C. G. N. Mascie-Taylor & A. J. Boyce (Eds.), Human mating patterns (pp. 61–82). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Mascie-Taylor, C. G. N. (1995). Human assortative mating: Evidence and genetic implications. In A. J. Boyce & V. Reynolds (Eds.), Human populations: Diversity and adaptations (pp. 86–105). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Nesse, R. M., Silverman, A., & Bortz, A. (1990). Sex differences in ability to recognize family resemblance. Ethology and Sociobiology, 11, 11–21. doi: 10.1016/0162-3095(90)90003-O.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pawlowski, B. (2003). Variable preferences for sexual dimorphism in height as a strategy for increasing the pool of potential partners in humans. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 270, 709–712. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2002.2294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Penton-Voak, I. S., & Chen, J. Y. (2004). High salivary testosterone is linked to masculine male facial appearance in humans. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, 229–241. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2004.04.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Penton-Voak, I. S., & Perett, D. I. (2000). Female preference for male faces changes cyclically: Further evidence. Evolution and Human Behavior, 21, 39–48. doi: 10.1016/S1090-5138(99)00033-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Penton-Voak, I. S., Perrett, D. I., Castles, D. L., Kobayashi, T., Burt, D. M., Murray, L. K., et al. (1999a). Menstrual cycle alters face preference. Nature, 399, 741–742. doi: 10.1038/21557.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Penton-Voak, I. S., Perrett, D. I., & Peirce, J. W. (1999b). Computer graphic studies of the role of facial similarity in judgements of attractiveness. Current Psychology, 18, 104–117. doi: 10.1007/s12144-999-1020-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Perrett, D. I., Lee, K., Penton-Voak, I., Burt, D. M., Rowland, D., Yoshikawa, S., et al. (1998). Effects of sexual dimorphism and facial attractiveness. Nature, 394, 884–886. doi: 10.1038/29772.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Platek, S. M., Burch, R. L., Panyavin, I. S., Wasserman, B. H., & Gallup, G. G. (2002). Reactions to children’s faces: Resemblance matters more for males than females. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23, 159–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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
  37. Platek, S. M., Raines, D. M., Gallup, G. G., Mohamed, F. B., Thomson, J. W., Myers, T., 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. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2004.08.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Potts, W. K., Manning, C. J., & Wakeland, E. K. (1991). Mating patterns in seminatural populations of mice influenced by MHC genotype. Nature, 352, 619–621. doi: 10.1038/352619a0.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Read, A. F., & Harvey, P. H. (1988). Genetic relatedness and the evolution of animal mating patterns. In C. G. N. Mascie-Taylor & A. J. Boyce (Eds.), Human mating patterns (pp. 115–131). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Roberts, S. C., Little, A. C., Gosling, L. M., Jones, B. C., Perrett, D. I., Carter, V., et al. (2005). MHC-assortative facial preferences in humans. Biology Letters, 1, 400–403. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2005.0343.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rushton, J. P. (1988). Genetic similarity, mate choice, and fecundity in humans. Ethology and Sociobiology, 9, 329–333. doi: 10.1016/0162-3095(88)90025-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rushton, J. P. (1989). Genetic similarity, human altruism, and group selection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 503–518. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X00057320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Saxton, T. K., Little, A. C., Rowland, H. M., Gao, T., & Roberts, S. (2009). Trade-offs between markers of absolute and relative quality in human facial preferences. Behavioral Ecology, 20, 1133–1137. doi: 10.1093/beheco/arp107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Scarbrough, P. S., & Johnston, V. S. (2005). Individual differences in women’s facial preferences as a function of digit ratio and mental rotation ability. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 509–526. doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2005.03.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Scheib, J. E., Gangestad, S. W., & Thornhill, R. (1999). Facial attractiveness, symmetry and cues of good genes. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 266, 1913–1917. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1999.0866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Shackelford, T. K., & Larsen, R. J. (1999). Facial attractiveness and psychical health. Evolution and Human Behavior, 20, 71–76. doi: 10.1016/S1090-5138(98)00036-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Spoon, T. R., Millam, J. R., & Owings, D. H. (2006). The importance of mate behavioural compatibility in parenting and reproductive success by cockatiels, Nymphicus hollandicus. Animal Behaviour, 71, 315–326. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2005.03.034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Spuhler, J. N. (1968). Assortative mating with respect to physical characteristics. Biodemography and Social Biology, 15, 128–140. doi: 10.1080/19485565.1968.9987763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Thiessen, D. (1999). Social influences on human assortative mating. In M. C. Corballis & S. G. Lea (Eds.), The descent of mind: Psychological perspectives on hominid evolution (pp. 311–323). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Thiessen, D., & Gregg, B. (1980). Human assortative mating and genetic equilibrium: An evolutionary perspective. Ethology and Sociobiology, 1, 111–140. doi: 10.1016/0162-3095(80)90003-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Thornhill, N. W. (1990). The evolutionary significance of incest rules. Ethology and Sociobiology, 11, 113–119. doi: 10.1016/0162-3095(90)90032-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Thornhill, R., & Gangestad, S. W. (1999a). Facial attractiveness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3, 452–460. doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01403-5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Thornhill, R., & Gangestad, S. W. (1999b). The scent of symmetry: A human sex pheromone that signals fitness? Evolution and Human Behavior, 20, 175–201. doi: 10.1016/S1090-5138(99)00005-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Thornhill, R., Gangestad, S. W., Miller, R., Scheyd, G., McCullough, J. K., & Franklin, M. (2003). Major histocompatibility genes, symmetry and body scent attractiveness in men and women. Behavioral Ecology, 14, 668–678. doi: 10.1093/beheco/arg043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Uddin, L. Q., Kaplan, J. T., Molnar-Szakacs, I., Zaidel, E., & Iacoboni, M. (2005). Self-face recognition activates a frontoparietal “mirror” network in the right hemisphere: An event-related fMRI study. NeuroImage, 25, 926–935. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.12.018.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wedekind, C., & Füri, S. (1997). Body odour preferences in men and women: Do they aim for specific MHC combinations or simply heterozygosity? Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 264, 1471–1479. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1997.0204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wedekind, C., Seebeck, T., Bettens, F., & Paepke, A. J. (1995). MHC-dependent mate preference in humans. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 260, 245–249. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1995.0087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ferenc Kocsor
    • 1
    Email author
  • Rita Rezneki
    • 1
  • Szabolcs Juhász
    • 1
  • Tamás Bereczkei
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Psychology, Faculty of HumanitiesUniversity of PécsPecsHungary

Personalised recommendations