Opposite-sex siblings decrease attraction, but not prosocial attributions, to self-resembling opposite-sex faces

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

Volumn 108, Issue 28, 2011, Pages 11710-11714

  DeBruine, Lisa M ^a   Jones, Benedict C ^a   Watkins, Christopher D ^a   Roberts, S Craig ^b   Little, Anthony C ^b   Smith, Finlay G ^a   Quist, Michelle C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF STIRLING   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Face perception; Incest avoidance; Inclusive fitness; Individual differences; Optimal outbreeding

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGE DISTRIBUTION; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; AVOIDANCE BEHAVIOR; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; FACE; FEMALE; HEREDITY; HUMAN; INBREEDING; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PERCEPTION; PERINATAL CARE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; RECOGNITION; SEX DIFFERENCE; SIBLING; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; BEAUTY; CONSANGUINITY; FACE; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; SIBLING RELATIONS; SIBLINGS; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 79961005296     PISSN: 00278424     EISSN: 10916490     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1105919108     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Hamilton WD (1964) The genetical evolution of social behaviour. I. J Theor Biol 7:1-16.
2. Bittles AH, Neel JV (1994) The costs of human inbreeding and their implications for variations at the DNA level. Nat Genet 8:117-121. (Pubitemid 24308357)
3. Penn DJ, Frommen JG (2010) Kin recognition: An overview of conceptual issues, mechanisms and evolutionary theory. Animal Behaviour: Evolution and Mechanisms, ed Kappeler P (Springer, Berlin), pp 55-85.
4. Soler M, Møller AP (1990) Duration of sympatry and coevolution between the great spotted cuckoo and its magpie host. Nature 343:748-750.
5. Yamazaki K, Beauchamp GK, Curran M, Bard J, Boyse EA (2000) Parent-progeny recognition as a function of MHC odortype identity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:10500-10502.
6. Petrie MA, Krupa A, Burke T (1999) Peacocks lek with relatives even in the absence of social and environmental cues. Nature 401:155-157. (Pubitemid 29436316)
7. Fessler DMT, Navarrete CD (2004) Third-party attitudes toward sibling incest: Evidence for Westermarck's hypotheses. Evol Hum Behav 25:277-294. (Pubitemid 40030664)
8. Westermarck EA (1921) The History of Human Marriage (Macmillan, London), 5th Ed.
9. Lieberman D, Tooby J, Cosmides L (2007) The architecture of human kin detection. Nature 445:727-731. (Pubitemid 46279708)
10. 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. Proc Biol Sci 270:819-826. (Pubitemid 36459715)
11. Porter RH (1998-1999) Olfaction and human kin recognition. Genetica 104:259-263.
12. DeBruine LM, Jones BC, Little AC, Perrett DI (2008) Social perception of facial resemblance in humans. Arch Sex Behav 37:64-77.
13. Porter RH, Balogh RD, Cernoch JM, Franchi C (1986) Recognition of kin through characteristic body odors. Chem Senses 11:389-395. (Pubitemid 16040823)
14. Weisfeld GE, Czilli T, Phillips KA, Gall JA, Lichtman CM (2003) Possible olfaction-based mechanisms in human kin recognition and inbreeding avoidance. J Exp Child Psychol 85:279-295. (Pubitemid 36881049)
15. Roberts SC, Little AC (2008) Good genes, complementary genes and human mate preferences. Genetica 134:31-43.
16. Havlicek J, Roberts SC (2009) MHC-correlated mate choice in humans: A review. Psychoneuroendocrinology 34:497-512.
17. DeBruine LM (2002) Facial resemblance enhances trust. Proc Biol Sci 269:1307-1312.
18. Krupp DB, DeBruine LM, Barclay P (2008) A cue of kinship promotes cooperation for the public good. Evol Hum Behav 29:49-55. (Pubitemid 350215278)
19. DeBruine LM (2005) Trustworthy but not lust-worthy: Context-specific effects of facial resemblance. Proc Biol Sci 272:919-922.
20. Fraley RC, Marks MJ (2010) Westermarck, Freud, and the incest taboo: Does familial resemblance activate sexual attraction? Pers Soc Psychol Bull 36:1202-1212.
21. Bressan P, Zucchi G (2009) Human kin recognition is self- rather than family-referential. Biol Lett 5:336-338.
22. Park JH, Schaller M, Van Vugt M (2008) Psychology of human kin recognition: Heuristic cues, erroneous inferences, and their implications. Rev Gen Psychol 12:215-235.
23. Reeve HK (1998) Acting for the good of others: Kinship and reciprocity with some new twists. Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology: Ideas, Issues, and Applications, eds Crawford C, Krebs DL (Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ), pp 43-85.
24. DeBruine LM (2004) Facial resemblance increases the attractiveness of same-sex faces more than other-sex faces. Proc Biol Sci 271:2085-2090.
25. Lieberman D, Fessler DMT, Smith A (April 27, 2011) The relationship between familial resemblance and sexual attraction: An update on Westermarck, Freud, and the incest taboo. Person Soc Psychol Bull, 10.1177/0146167211405997.
26. Bateson P (1983) Optimal outbreeding. Mate Choice, ed Bateson P (Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, UK), pp 257-277.
27. Kaminski G, Ravary F, Graff C, Gentaz E (2010) Firstborns' disadvantage in kinship detection. Psychol Sci 21:1746-1750.
28. Buckingham G, et al. (2006) Visual adaptation to masculine and feminine faces influences generalized preferences and perceptions of trustworthiness. Evol Hum Behav 27:381-389. (Pubitemid 44249625)
29. Little AC, DeBruine LM, Jones BC (2005) Sex-contingent face after-effects suggest distinct neural populations code male and female faces. Proc Biol Sci 272:2283-2287. (Pubitemid 41513132)
30. Jaquet E, Rhodes G (2008) Face aftereffects indicate dissociable, but not distinct, coding of male and female faces. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 34:101-112.
31. Neff BD, Sherman PW (2002) Decision making and recognition mechanisms. Proc Biol Sci 269:1435-1441. (Pubitemid 34810658)
32. Maloney LT, Dal Martello MF (2006) Kin recognition and the perceived facial similarity of children. J Vis 6:1047-1056. (Pubitemid 44429668)
33. Winston JS, Strange BA, O'Doherty J, Dolan RJ (2002) Automatic and intentional brain responses during evaluation of trustworthiness of faces. Nat Neurosci 5:277-283. (Pubitemid 34171143)
34. Kranz F, Ishai A (2006) Face perception is modulated by sexual preference. Curr Biol 16:63-68. (Pubitemid 43049887)
35. Watkins CD, et al. (2011) Like father, like self: Emotional closeness to father predicts women's preferences for self-resemblance in opposite-sex faces. Evol Hum Behav 32:70-75.
36. DeBruine LM, Jones BC, Perrett DI (2005) Women's attractiveness judgments of selfresembling faces change across the menstrual cycle. Horm Behav 47:379-383. (Pubitemid 40380669)
37. Penton-Voak IS, Perrett DI, Peirce JW (1999) Computer graphic studies of the role of facial similarity in judgments of attractiveness. Curr Psychol 18:104-117.
38. Saxton TK, Little AC, Rowland HM, Gao T, Roberts SC (2009) Trade-offs between markers of absolute and relative quality in human facial preferences. Behav Ecol 20:1133-1137.
39. Oosterhof NN, Todorov A (2008) The functional basis of face evaluation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:11087-11092.
40. van 't Wout M, Sanfey AG (2008) Friend or foe: The effect of implicit trustworthiness judgments in social decision-making. Cognition 108:796-803.