Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science

Living Edition
| Editors: Todd K. Shackelford, Viviana A. Weekes-Shackelford

Phenotypic Resemblance and Kinship Detection

  • Lisa DeBruine
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_1535-1

Many types of cues can correlate with genetic relatedness. Contemporary researchers categorize potential kinship cues in two main classes: contextual and phenotypic (reviewed in Penn and Frommen 2010).

Contextual cues include information such as spatial location, timing of association, mating history, and state-dependent association (e.g., during the hormonal state that characterizes recent childbirth), as well as interactions between such factors. For example, co-residence duration is generally positively correlated with measures of altruism and incest avoidance between siblings (Lieberman et al. 2003). However, individuals who have experienced maternal perinatal association (i.e., the close association between your mother and a newborn potential sibling) show high levels of altruism and incest avoidance towards that sibling and do not show effects of co-residence duration (Lieberman et al. 2007).

Phenotypic cues are physical cues that correlate with genetic relatedness, such as odor,...

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

References

  1. Alvergne, A., Faurie, C., & Raymond, M. (2007). Differential facial resemblance of young children to their parents: Who do children look like more? Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 135–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Bressan, P., & Dal Martello, M. F. (2002). Talis pater, talis filius: Perceived resemblance and the belief in genetic relatedness. Psychological Science, 13, 213–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bressan, P., Bertamini, M., Nalli, A., & Zanutto, A. (2009). Men do not have a stronger preference than women for self-resemblant child faces. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38(5), 657–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, J. L., & Eklund, A. C. (1994). Kin recognition and the major histocompatability complex: An integrative review. The American Naturalist, 143, 435–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Christenfeld, N. J. S., & Hill, E. A. (1995). Whose baby are you? Nature, 378, 669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dal Martello, M. F., & Maloney, L. T. (2006). Where are kin recognition signals in the human face? Journal of Vision, 6, 1356–1366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dal Martello, M. F., DeBruine, L. M., & Maloney, L. T. (2015). Allocentric kin recognition is not affected by facial inversion. Journal of Vision, 15(13), 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Daly, M., & Wilson, M. I. (1982). Whom are newborn babies said to resemble? Ethology and Sociobiology, 3, 69–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. DeBruine, L. M. (2002). Facial resemblance enhances trust. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 269, 1307–1312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. DeBruine, L. M. (2004a). Facial resemblance increases the attractiveness of same-sex faces more than other-sex faces. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 271(1552), 2085–2090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. DeBruine, L. M. (2005). Trustworthy but not lust-worthy: Context-specific effects of facial resemblance. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 272, 919–922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. DeBruine, L. M., Jones, B. C., & Perrett, D. I. (2005). Women’s attractiveness judgments of self-resembling faces change across the menstrual cycle. Hormones and Behavior, 47, 379–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. DeBruine, L. M., Jones, B. C., Little, A. C., & Perrett, D. I. (2008). Social perception of facial resemblance in humans. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37(1), 64–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. DeBruine, L. M., Smith, F. G., Jones, B. C., Roberts, S. C., Petrie, M., & Spector, T. D. (2009). Kin recognition signals in adult faces. Vision Research, 49, 38–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. DeBruine, L. M., Jones, B. C., Watkins, C. D., Roberts, S. C., Little, A. C., Smith, F. G., & Quist, M. (2011). Opposite-sex siblings decrease attraction, but not prosocial attributions, to self-resembling opposite-sex faces. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(28), 11710–11714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Giang, T., Bell, R., & Buchner, A. (2012). Does facial resemblance enhance cooperation? PLoS One, 7(10), e47809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Havlicek, J., & Roberts, S. C. (2009). MHC-correlated mate choice in humans: A review. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 34(4), 497–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Johnstone, R. A. (1997). Recognition and the evolution of distinctive signatures: When does it pay to reveal identity? Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 263, 1547–1553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Krupp, D. B., DeBruine, L. M., & Barclay, P. (2008). A cue of kinship promotes cooperation for the public good. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29(1), 49–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Krupp, D. B., DeBruine, L. M., Jones, B. C., & Lalumière, M. L. (2012). Kin recognition: Evidence for the perception of both positive and negative relatedness. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 25(8), 1472–1478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lieberman, D., Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2003). Does morality have a biological basis? An empirical test of the factors governing moral sentiments relating to incest. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 270(1517), 819–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lieberman, D., Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2007). The architecture of human kin detection. Nature, 225, 727–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Maloney, L. T., & Dal Martello, M. F. (2006). Kin recognition and the perceived facial similarity of children. Journal of Vision, 6, 1047–1056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McLain, D. K., Setters, D., Moulton, M. P., & Pratt, A. E. (2000). Ascription of resemblance of newborns by parents and nonrelatives. Evolution and Human Behavior, 21, 11–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pagel, M. (1997). Desperately concealing father: A theory of parent-infant resemblance. Animal Behaviour, 53, 973–981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Penn, D. J., & Frommen, J. G. (2010). Kin recognition: An overview of conceptual issues, mechanisms and evolutionary theory. In P. Kappeler (Ed.), Animal behaviour: Evolution and mechanisms (pp. 55–85). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Platek, S. M., Burch, R. L., Panyavin, I. S., Wasserman, B. H., & Gallup, G. G., Jr. (2002). Reactions to children’s faces: Resemblance affects males more than females. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23, 159–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Platek, S. M., Critton, S. R., Burch, R. L., Frederick, D. A., Meyers, T. E., & Gallup, G. G., Jr. (2003). How much paternal resemblance is enough? Sex differences in hypothetical investment decisions but not in the detection of resemblance. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24, 81–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Roberts, S. C., & Little, A. C. (2008). Good genes, complementary genes and human mate preferences. Genetica, 134(1), 31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Saxton, T. K., Little, A. C., Rowland, H. M., Gao, T., & Roberts, S. C. (2009). Trade-offs between markers of absolute and relative quality in human facial preferences. Behavioral Ecology, 20(5), 1133–1137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tiddeman, B. P., Burt, D. M., & Perrett, D. I. (2001). Prototyping and transforming facial textures for perception research. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 21(4), 42–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Watkins, C. D., DeBruine, L. M., Smith, F. G., Jones, B. C., Vukovic, J., & Fraccaro, P. J. (2011). Like father, like self: Emotional closeness to father predicts women’s preferences for self-resemblance in opposite- sex faces. Evolution and Human Behavior, 32(1), 70–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Welling, L. L. M., Burriss, R. P., & Puts, D. A. (2011). Mate retention behavior modulates men’s preferences for self-resemblance in infant faces. Evolution and Human Behavior, 32(2), 118–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of GlasgowGlasgowUK

Section editors and affiliations

  • Minna Lyons
    • 1
  1. 1.University of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK