Self-resemblance has been found to have a context-dependent effect when expressing preferences for faces. Whereas dissimilarity preference during mate choice in animals is often explained as an evolutionary adaptation to increase heterozygosity of offspring, self-resemblance can be also favored in humans, reflecting, e.g., preference for kinship cues. We performed two studies, using transformations of facial photographs to manipulate levels of resemblance with the rater, to examine the influence of self-resemblance in single vs. coupled individuals. Raters assessed facial attractiveness of other-sex and same-sex photographs according to both short-term and long-term relationship contexts. We found a preference for dissimilarity of other-sex and same-sex faces in single individuals, but no effect of self-resemblance in coupled raters. No effect of sex of participant or short-term vs. long-term attractiveness rating was observed. The results support the evolutionary interpretation that dissimilarity of other-sex faces is preferred by uncoupled individuals as an adaptive mechanism to avoid inbreeding. In contrast, lower dissimilarity preference of other-sex faces in coupled individuals may reflect suppressed attention to attractiveness cues in potential alternative partners as a relationship maintenance mechanism, and its substitution by attention to cues of kinship and psychological similarity connected with greater likelihood of prosocial behavior acquisition from such persons.

Department of Anthropology Faculty of Humanities Charles University Prague Czech Republic

Department of Anthropology Faculty of Humanities Charles UniversityPrague Czech Republic; National Institute of Mental Health Charles UniversityPrague Czech Republic

Department of Philosophy and History of Science Faculty of Science Charles University Prague Czech Republic

Department of Zoology Faculty of Science Charles University Prague Czech Republic

School of Natural Sciences University of Stirling Stirling UK

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Bereczkei T. (1998). Kinship network, direct childcare, and fertility among Hungarians and Gypsies. Evol. Hum. Behav. 19 283–298. 10.1016/S1090-5138(98)00027-0 DOI

Bereczkei T., Gyuris P., Koves P., Bernath L. (2002). Homogamy, genetic similarity, and imprinting; parental influence on mate choice preferences. Pers. Indiv. Differ. 33 677–690. 10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00182-9 DOI

Bereczkei T., Gyuris P., Weisfeld G. E. (2004). Sexual imprinting in human mate choice. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 271 1129–1134. 10.1098/rspb.2003.2672 PubMed DOI PMC

Booth A., Dabbs J. M. (1993). Testosterone and mens’ marriages. Soc. Forces 72 463–477. 10.1093/sf/72.2.463 DOI

Bressan P., Zucchi G. (2009). Human kin recognition is self- rather than family-referential. Biol. Lett. 5 336–0338. 10.1098/rsbl.2008.0789 PubMed DOI PMC

Broemer P., Diehl M. (2004). Romantic jealousy as a social comparison outcome: when similarity stings. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 40 393–400. 10.1016/j.jesp.2003.08.002 DOI

Brown J. L. (1997). A theory of mate choice based on heterozygosity. Behav. Ecol. 8 60–65. 10.1016/S0065-3454(07)37005-8 DOI

Burnham T. C., Chapman J. F., Gray P. B., McIntyre M. H., Lipson S. F., Ellison P. T. (2003). Men in committed, romantic relationships have lower testosterone. Horm. Behav. 44 119–122. 10.1016/S0018-506X(03)00125-9 PubMed DOI

Buss D. M., Dedden L. A. (1990). Derogation of competitors. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 7 395–422. 10.1177/0265407590073006 DOI

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. U.S.A. 100 8805–8810. 10.1073/pnas.1533220100 PubMed DOI PMC

Buunk B. P., Dijkstra P., Fetchenhauer D., Kenrick D. T. (2002). Age and gender differences in mate selection criteria for various involvement levels. Pers. Relationship 9 271–278. 10.1111/1475-6811.00018 DOI

Cohen J. M. (1977). Sources of peer group homogeneity. Soc. Educ. 50 227–241. 10.2307/2112497 DOI

Confer J. C., Perilloux C., Buss D. M. (2010). More than just a pretty face: men’s priority shifts toward bodily attractiveness in short-term versus long-term mating contexts. Evol. Hum. Behav. 31 348–353. 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.04.00 DOI

DeBruine L. M. (2002). Facial resemblance enhances trust. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 269 1307–1312. 10.1098/rspb.2002.2034 PubMed DOI PMC

DeBruine L. M. (2004). Facial resemblance increases the attractiveness of same-sex faces more than other-sex faces. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 271 2085–2090. 10.1098/rspb.2004.2824 PubMed DOI PMC

DeBruine L. M. (2005). Trustworthy but not lust-worthy: context-specific effects of facial resemblance. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 272 919–922. 10.1098/rspb.2004.3003 PubMed DOI PMC

DeBruine L. M., Jones B. C., Perrett D. I. (2005). Women’s attractiveness judgments of self-resembling faces change across the menstrual cycle. Horm. Behav. 47 379–383. 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2004.11.006 PubMed DOI

DeBruine L. M., Jones B. C., Watkins C. D., Roberts S. C., Little A. C., Smith F. G., et al. (2011). Opposite-sex siblings decrease attraction, but not prosocial attributions, to self-resembling opposite-sex faces. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 108 11710–11714. 10.1073/pnas.1105919108 PubMed DOI PMC

Fletcher G. J. O., Tither J. M., O’Loughlin C., Friesen M., Overall N. (2004). Warm and homely or cold and beautiful? Sex differences in trading off traits in mate selection. Pers. Soc. Psychol. B. 30 659–672. 10.1177/0146167203262847 PubMed DOI

Gangestad S. W., Simpson J. A. (2000). The evolution of human mating: trade-off and strategic pluralism. Behav. Brain Sci. 23 573–587. 10.1017/S0140525X0000337X PubMed DOI

Gangestad S. W., Thornhill R. (2008). Human oestrus. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 275 991–1000. 10.1098/rspb.2007.1425 PubMed DOI PMC

Garcia J. R., Reiber C. (2008). Hook-up behavior: a biopsychosocial perspective. J. Soc. Evol. Cult. Psychol. 2:192 10.1037/h0099345 DOI

Garcia J. R., Reiber C., Massey S. G., Merriwether A. M. (2012). Sexual hookup culture: a review. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 16:161 10.1037/a0027911 PubMed DOI PMC

Gonzaga G. C., Keltner D., Londahl E. A., Smith M. D. (2001). Love and the commitment problem in romantic relations and friendship. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 81:247 10.1037/0022-3514.81.2.247 PubMed DOI

Gray P. B., Chapman J. F., Burnham T. C., McIntyre M. H., Lipson S. F., Ellison P. T. (2004). Human male pair bonding and testosterone. Hum. Nat. Int. Bios. 15 119–131. 10.1007/s12110-004-1016-6 PubMed DOI

Gray P. B., Kahlenberg S. M., Barrett E. S., Lipson S. F., Ellison P. T. (2002). Marriage and fatherhood are associated with lower testosterone in males. Evol. Hum. Behav. 23 193–201. 10.1016/S1090-5138(01)00101-5 DOI

Griffiths R. W., Kunz P. R. (1973). Assortative mating: a study of physiognomic homogamy. Biodemogr. Soc. Biol. 20 448–453. 10.1080/19485565.1973.9988075 PubMed DOI

Hamilton W. D. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behaviour. II. J. Theor. Biol. 7 1–16. 10.1016/0022-5193(64)90039-6 PubMed DOI

Hancock P. J., DeBruine L. M. (2003). What’s a face worth: noneconomic factors in game playing. Behav. Brain Sci. 26 162–163. 10.1017/S0140525X03320059 DOI

Havlicek J., Roberts S. C. (2009). MHC-correlated mate choice in humans: a review. Psychoneuroendocrinology 34 497–512. 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2008.10.007 PubMed DOI

Hinsz V. B. (1989). Facial resemblance in engaged and married couples. J. Soc. Pers. Relat. 6 223–229. 10.1177/026540758900600205 DOI

Kandel D. B. (1978). Homophily, selection, and socialization in adolescent friendships. Am. J. Soc. 84 427–436. 10.1086/226792 DOI

Karremans J. C., Dotsch R., Corneille O. (2011). Romantic relationship status biases memory of faces of attractive opposite-sex others: evidence from a reverse-correlation paradigm. Cognition 121 422–426. 10.1016/j.cognition.2011.07.008 PubMed DOI

Keller M. C., Thiessen D., Young R. K. (1996). Mate assortment in dating and married couples. Pers. Indiv. Differ. 21 217–221. 10.1016/0191-8869(96)00066-9 DOI

Klohnen E. C., Mendelsohn G. A. (1998). Partner selection for personality characteristics: a couple-centered approach. Pers. Soc. Psychol. B. 24 268–278. 10.1177/0146167298243004 DOI

Kocsor F., Rexneki R., Juhasz S., Bereczkei T. (2011). Preference for facial self-resemblance and attractiveness in human mate choice. Arch. Sex. Behav. 40 1263–1270. 10.1007/s10508-010-9723-z PubMed DOI

Koranyi N., Rothermund K. (2012). When the grass on the other side of the fence doesn’t matter: reciprocal romantic interest neutralizes attentional bias towards attractive alternatives. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 48 186–191. 10.1016/j.jesp.2011.06.012 DOI

Leonetti D. L., Nath D. C., Hemam N. S., Neill D. B. (2004). Do women really need marital partners for support of their reproductive success? The case of the matrilineal Khasi of NE India. Res. Econ. Anthropol 23 151–174. 10.1016/S0190-1281(04)23006-2 DOI

Li N. P., Kenrick D. T. (2006). Sex similarities and differences in preference for short-term mates: what, whether and why. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 90 468–489. 10.1037/0022-3514.90.3.468 PubMed DOI

Lindová J., Kubìna A. A., Šturcová H., Křivohlavá R., Novotná M., Rubešová A., et al. (2010). Pattern of money allocation in experimental games supports the stress hypothesis of gender differences in Toxoplasma gondii-induced behavioural changes. Folia Parasit 57 136–142. 10.14411/fp.2010.017 PubMed DOI

Little A. C., Burriss R. P., Jones B. C., DeBruine L. M., Caldwell C. A. (2008). Social influence in human face preference: men and women are influenced more for long-term than short-term attractiveness decisions. Evol. Hum. Behav. 29 140–146. 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2007.11.007 DOI

Little A. C., Burt D. M., Perrett D. I. (2006). Assortative mating for perceived facial personality traits. Pers. Indiv. Differ. 40 973–984. 10.1016/j.paid.2005.09.016 DOI

Little A. C., Cohen D. L., Jones B. C., Belsky J. (2007). Human preferences for facial masculinity change with relationship type and environmental harshness. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 61 967–973. 10.1007/s00265-006-0325-7 DOI

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 1095–1100. 10.1098/rspb.2002.1984 PubMed DOI PMC

Lundström J. N., Jones-Gotman M. (2009). Romantic love modulates women’s identification of men’s body odors. Horm. Behav. 55 280–284. 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2008.11.009 PubMed DOI

Luo S., Klohnen E. C. (2005). Assortative mating and marital quality in newlyweds: a couple-centered approach. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 88:304 10.1037/0022-3514.88.2.304 PubMed DOI

Maner J. K., Gailliot M. T., Miller S. L. (2009). The implicit cognition of relationship maintenance: inattention to attractive alternatives. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 45 174–179. 10.1016/j.jesp.2008.08.002 DOI

Maner J. K., Rouby D. A., Gonzaga G. C. (2008). Automatic inattention to attractive alternatives: the evolved psychology of relationship maintenance. Evol. Hum. Behav. 29 343–349. 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2008.04.003 DOI

Miller R. S. (1997). Inattentive and contented: relationship commitment and attention to alternatives. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 73 758–766. 10.1037/0022-3514.73.4.758 DOI

Penn D. J. (2002). The scent of genetic compatibility: sexual selection and the major histocompatibility complex. Ethology 108 1–21. 10.1046/j.1439-0310.2002.00768.x DOI

Penton-Voak I. S., Perrett D. I., Peirce J. W. (1999). Computer graphic studies of the role of facial similarity in judgements of attractiveness. Curr. Psychol. 18 104–117. 10.1007/s12144-999-1020-4 DOI

Rantala M. J., Marcinkowska U. M. (2011). The role of sexual imprinting and the Westermarck effect in mate choice in humans. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 65 859–873. 10.1007/s00265-011-1145-y DOI

Read A. F., Harvey P. H. (1988). “Genetic relatedness and the evolution of animal mating patterns,” in Human Mating Patterns, eds Taylor C. G. N. M., Boyce A. J. (Cambridge: University of Cambridge; ), 115–131.

Regan P. C. (1998). What if you can’t get what you want? Willingness to compromise ideal mate selection standards as a function of sex, mate value, and relationship context. Pers. Soc. Psychol. B. 24 1294–1303. 10.1177/01461672982412004 DOI

Regan P. C., Berscheid E. (1997). Gender differences in characteristics desired in a potential sexual and marriage partner. J. Psychol. Hum. Sex. 9 25–37. 10.1300/J056v09n01_02 DOI

Roberts S. C., Little A. C. (2008). Good genes, complementary genes and human mate choice. Genetica 134 31–43. 10.1007/s10709-008-9254-x PubMed DOI

Roberts S. C., Little A. C., Gosling L. M., Jones B. C., Perrett D., Carter V., et al. (2005). MHC-assortative facial preferences in humans. Biol. Lett. 1 400–403. 10.1098/rsbl.2005.0343 PubMed DOI PMC

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. Behav. Ecol. 20 1133–1137. 10.1093/beheco/arp107 DOI

Simpson J. A., Campbell B., Berscheid E. (1986). The association between romantic love and marriage Kephart (1967) twice revisited. Pers. Soc. Psychol. B. 12 363–372. 10.1177/0146167286123011 DOI

Štěrbová Z., Valentova J. (2012). Influence of homogamy, complementarity, and sexual imprinting on mate choice. Anthropologie 50 47–59.

Tiddeman B., Burt M., Perrett D. (2001). Prototyping and transforming facial textures for perception research. IEEE Comput. Graph. 21 42–50. 10.1109/38.946630 DOI

Trivers R. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Q. Rev. Biol. 49 35–57. 10.1086/406755 DOI

van Anders S. M., Goldey K. L. (2010). Testosterone and partnering are linked via relationship status for women and ‘relationship orientation’for men. Horm. Behav. 58 820–826. 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2010.08.005 PubMed DOI

van Anders S. M., Watson N. V. (2006). Social neuroendocrinology: effects of social contexts and behaviors on sex steroids in humans. Hum. Nat. 17 212–237. 10.1007/s12110-006-1018-7 PubMed DOI

Watkins C. D., DeBruine L. M., Smith F. G., Jones B. C., Vukovic J., Fraccaro P. (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. 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.09.001 DOI

Watson D., Klohnen E. C., Casillas A., Nus Simms E., Haig J., Berry D. S. (2004). Match makers and deal breakers: analyses of assortative mating in newlywed couples. J. Pers. 72 1029–1068. 10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00289.x PubMed DOI

Wolf A. P. (1995). Sexual Attraction and Childhood Association: A Chinese Brief for Edward Westermarck. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Zajonc R. B., Adelmann P. K., Murphy S. T., Niedenthal P. M. (1987). Convergence in the physical appearance of spouses. Motiv. Emot. 11 335–346. 10.1007/BF00992848 DOI