Facial resemblance increases the attractiveness of same-sex faces more than other-sex faces

Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Volumn 271, Issue 1552, 2004, Pages 2085-2090

  DeBruine, Lisa M ^a  

^a MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Attractiveness; Faces; Inbreeding avoidance; Kin recognition; Self resemblance

Indexed keywords

INBREEDING AVOIDANCE; KIN RECOGNITION;

ADAPTATION; ADULT; ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; FACE; FEMALE; GENDER IDENTITY; HUMAN; HYPOTHESIS; IMAGE PROCESSING; INBREEDING; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; PERCEPTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECOGNITION; RELATIVE; SEX DIFFERENCE;

ADULT; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; FACE; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; SEX FACTORS;

EID: 17044423019     PISSN: 09628452     EISSN: 14712970     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2004.2824     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Alberts, S. C. 1999 Paternal kin discrimination in wild baboons. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 266, 1501-1506. (doi: 10.1098/rspb. 1999.0807)
2. Bateson, P. 1983 Optimal outbreeding. In Mate choice (ed. P. Bateson), pp. 257-278. Cambridge University Press.
3. Beecher, M. D. 1991 Successes and failures of parent-off-spring recognition in animals. In Kin recognition (ed. P. G. Hepper), pp. 94-124. Cambridge University Press.
4. Bereczkei, T., Gyuris, P., Koves, P. & Bernath, L. 2002 Homogamy, genetic similarity, and imprinting; parental influence on mate choice preferences. Person. Indiv. Diff. 33, 677-690.
5. Bittles, A. H. & Neel, J. V. 1994 The costs of human inbreeding and their implications for variations at the DNA level. Nature Genet. 8, 117-121.
6. Bornstein, R. F. 1989 Exposure and affect: overview and meta-analysis of research, 1968-1987. Psychol. Bull. 106, 265-289.
7. Buston, P. M. & Emlen, S. T. 2003 Cognitive processes underlying human mate choice: the relationship between self-perception and mate preference in Western society. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 8805-8810.
8. DeBruine, L. M. 2002 Facial resemblance enhances trust. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 269, 1307-1312. (doi:10.1098/rspb. 2002.2034)
9. Dion, K., Berscheid, E. & Walster, E. 1972 What is beautiful is good. J. Person. Social Psychol. 24, 285-290.
10. Eagly, A. H., Ashmore, R. D., Makhijani, M. G. & Longo, L. C. 1991 What is beautiful is good, but...: a meta-analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype. Psychol. Bull. 110, 109-128.
11. Griffths, R. & Kunz, P. 1973 Assortative mating: a study of physiognomic homogamy. Social Biol. 20, 448-453.
12. Halberstadt, J. & Rhodes, G. 2003 It's not just average faces that are attractive: computer-manipulated averageness makes birds, fish, and automobiles attractive. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 10, 149-156.
13. Harnes, R. 1987 Relatedness and garden labor exchange among the Ye'kwana. Ethol. Sociobiol. 8, 259-284.
14. Hamilton, W. D. 1964 The genetical evolution of social behaviour, I. J. Theor. Biol. 7, 1-16.
15. Hancock, P. J. B. & Ross, K. 2002 What's a pretty face worth (II): factors affecting offer levels in the dictator game. Paper presented at the Human Behavior and Evolution Society Meeting, Rutgers University, 19-23 June 2002.
16. Hauber, M. E. & Sherman, P. W. 2001 Self-referent phenotype matching: theoretical considerations and empirical evidence. Trends Neurosci. 24, 609-616.
17. Hinsz, V. B. 1989 Facial resemblance in engaged and married couples. J. Social Person. Relation. 6, 223-229.
18. Johnston, R. A. & Barry, C. 2001 Best face forward: similarity effects in repetition priming efface recognition. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 54, 383-396.
19. Keller, M., Thiessen, D. & Young, R. K. 1996 Mate assortment in dating and married couples. Person. Indiv. Diff. 21, 217-221.
20. Langlois, J. & Roggman, L. 1990 Attractive faces are only average. Psychol. Sci. 1, 115-121.
21. Langlois, J. H., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson, A., Hallam, M. & Smoot, M. 2000 Maxims or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychol. Bull. 126, 390-423.
22. Little, A. C., Burt, D. M., Penton-Voak, I. S. & Perrett, D. I. 2001 Self-perceived attractiveness influences human female preferences for sexual dimorphism and symmetry in male faces. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 268, 39-44. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2000.1327)
23. Little, A. C., Jones, B. C., Penton-Voak, I. S., Burt, D. M. & Perrett, D. I. 2002 Partnership status and the temporal context of relationships influence human female preferences for sexual dimorphism in male face shape. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 269, 1095-1103. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2002.1984)
24. Penn, D. & Potts, W. 1998 MHC-disassortative mating preferences reversed by cross-fostering. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 265, 1299-1306. (doi:10.1098/rspb.1998.0433)
25. Penton-Voak, I. S., Perrett, D. I. & Peirce, J. W. 1999a Computer graphic studies of the role of facial similarity in judgements of attractiveness. Curr. Psychol. 18, 104-117.
26. Penton-Voak, I. S., Perrett, D. I., Castles, D. L., Kobayashi, T., Burt, D. M., Murray, L. K. & Minamisawa, R. 1999b Menstrual cycle alters face preference. Nature 399, 741-742.
27. Petrie, M., Krupa, A. & Burke, T. 1999 Peacocks lek with relatives even in the absence of social and environmental cues. Nature 401, 155-157.
28. Rhodes, G., Sumich, A. & Byatt, G. 1999 Are average facial configurations attractive only because of their symmetry? Psychol. Sci. 10, 52-58.
29. Rhodes, G., Halberstadt, J. & Brajkovich, G. 2001 Generalization of mere exposure effects to averaged composite faces. Social Cogn. 19, 57-70.
30. Rhodes, G., Jeffery, L., Watson, T. & Nakayama, C. 2003 Fitting the mind to the world: face adaptation and attractiveness aftereffects. Psychol. Sci. 14, 558-566.
31. Ross, R. T. 1934 Optimum orders for the presentation of pairs in the method of paired comparisons. J. Educ. Psychol. 25, 375-382.
32. Rowland, D. & Perrett, D. I. 1995 Manipulating facial appearance through shape and colour. IEEE Comput. Graphics Appl. 15, 70-76.
33. Solnick, S. & Schweitzer, M. 1999 The influence of physical attractiveness and gender on ultimatum game decisions. Org. Behav. Hum. Decision Process. 793, 199-215.
34. Thornhill, R. & Gangestad, S. W. 1999 Facial attractiveness. Trends Cogn. Sci. 3, 452-460.
35. Tiddeman, B. P., Perrett, D. I. & Burt, D. M. 2001 Prototyping and transforming facial textures for perception research. IEEE Comput. Graphics Appl. Res. 21, 42-50.
36. Wolf, A. P. 1995 Sexual attraction and childhood association: a Chinese brief for Edward Westermarck. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
37. Zajonc, R. B., Adelmann, P. K., Murphy, S. T. & Niendenthal, P. M. 1987 Convergence in the physical appearance of spouses. Motiv. Emotion 11, 335-346.
38. Zajonc, R. B. 1968 Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. J. Person. Social Psychol. 9, 1S-27S.
39. Zebrowitz, L. A. & Rhodes, G. 2002 Nature let a hundred flowers bloom: the multiple ways and wherefores of attractiveness. In Facial attractiveness: evolutionary, cognitive, and social perspectives (ed. G. Rhodes & L. Zebrowitz), pp. 262-293. Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.