Men’s Preference for Women’s Facial Features: Testing Homogamy and the Paternity Uncertainty Hypothesis

Male mate choice might be based on both absolute and relative strategies. Cues of female attractiveness are thus likely to reflect both fitness and reproductive potential, as well as compatibility with particular male phenotypes. In humans, absolute clues of fertility and indices of favorable developmental stability are generally associated with increased women’s attractiveness. However, why men exhibit variable preferences remains less studied. Male mate choice might be influenced by uncertainty of paternity, a selective factor in species where the survival of the offspring depends on postnatal paternal care. For instance, in humans, a man might prefer a woman with recessive traits, thereby increasing the probability that his paternal traits will be visible in the child and ensuring paternity. Alternatively, attractiveness is hypothesized to be driven by self-resembling features (homogamy), which would reduce outbreeding depression. These hypotheses have been simultaneously evaluated for various facial traits using both real and artificial facial stimuli. The predicted preferences were then compared to realized mate choices using facial pictures from couples with at least 1 child. No evidence was found to support the paternity uncertainty hypothesis, as recessive features were not preferred by male raters. Conversely, preferences for self-resembling mates were found for several facial traits (hair and eye color, chin dimple, and thickness of lips and eyebrows). Moreover, realized homogamy for facial traits was also found in a sample of long-term mates. The advantages of homogamy in evolutionary terms are discussed.

[1]  G. Weisfeld,et al.  Sexual imprinting in human mate choice , 2004, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[2]  Robert M. French,et al.  Do Babies Resemble Their Fathers More Than Their Mothers? A Failure to Replicate Christenfeld and Hill (1995) , 1999 .

[3]  Coren L. Apicella,et al.  Perceived mate fidelity and paternal resemblance predict men's investment in children , 2004 .

[4]  G. Gallup,et al.  Reactions to children's faces: Resemblance affects males more than females , 2002 .

[5]  P. Bateson,et al.  Sexual imprinting and optimal outbreeding , 1978, Nature.

[6]  J. P. Rushton,et al.  Genetic similarity, human altruism, and group selection , 1989, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[7]  F. Keil,et al.  On the development of biologically specific beliefs: the case of inheritance. , 1989, Child development.

[8]  Lisa M. DeBruine,et al.  Resemblance to self increases the appeal of child faces to both men and women , 2004 .

[9]  A. Alvergne,et al.  Are parents' perceptions of offspring facial resemblance consistent with actual resemblance? Effects on parental investment , 2010 .

[10]  Verlin B. Hinsz,et al.  Facial Resemblance in Engaged and Married Couples , 1989 .

[11]  L. Cosmides,et al.  The architecture of human kin detection , 2007, Nature.

[12]  Michel Raymond,et al.  Father–offspring resemblance predicts paternal investment in humans , 2009, Animal Behaviour.

[13]  Randolph M. Nesse,et al.  Sex differences in ability to recognize family resemblance , 1990 .

[14]  S. Edmands Between a rock and a hard place: evaluating the relative risks of inbreeding and outbreeding for conservation and management , 2006, Molecular ecology.

[15]  A H Bittles,et al.  Reproductive behavior and health in consanguineous marriages , 1991, Science.

[16]  R. Westendorp,et al.  The melanocortin-1-receptor gene is the major freckle gene. , 2001, Human molecular genetics.

[17]  Hans Eiberg,et al.  Blue eye color in humans may be caused by a perfectly associated founder mutation in a regulatory element located within the HERC2 gene inhibiting OCA2 expression , 2008, Human Genetics.

[18]  P. V. D. Berghe,et al.  Royal incest and inclusive fitness , 1980 .

[19]  L. DeBruine,et al.  Trustworthy but not lust-worthy: context-specific effects of facial resemblance , 2005, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[20]  AH Bittles,et al.  Consanguinity and its relevance to clinical genetics , 2001, Clinical genetics.

[21]  G. Hegyi,et al.  Using information theory as a substitute for stepwise regression in ecology and behavior , 2010, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[22]  A. Matheny,et al.  Changes in eye colour during early childhood: sex and genetic differences. , 1975, Annals of human biology.

[23]  Mats Larsson,et al.  Genetics of human iris colour and patterns , 2009, Pigment cell & melanoma research.

[24]  M. Moulton,et al.  Ascription of resemblance of newborns by parents and nonrelatives , 2000 .

[25]  P. Todd,et al.  Mate choice turns cognitive , 1998, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[26]  Kenneth P. Burnham,et al.  Evaluation of some random effects methodology applicable to bird ringing data , 2002 .

[27]  Robert M. French,et al.  Do babies resemble their fathers more than their mothers ? A failure to replicate Christenfeld & Hill , 2022 .

[28]  T. Bereczkei,et al.  Preference for Facial Self-Resemblance and Attractiveness in Human Mate Choice , 2011, Archives of sexual behavior.

[29]  J. Bratter,et al.  Homogamy by education and migration status in Monterrey, Mexico: changes and continuities over time , 2007 .

[30]  G. Rhodes The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. , 2006, Annual review of psychology.

[31]  L. Jorde Consanguinity and Prereproductive Mortality in the Utah Mormon Population , 2001, Human Heredity.

[32]  C. Susanne Genetic and environmental influences on morphological characteristics. , 1975, Annals of human biology.

[33]  B. Godelle,et al.  From Preferred to Actual Mate Characteristics: The Case of Human Body Shape , 2010, PloS one.

[34]  Gallup,et al.  Perceptions of paternal resemblance predict family violence. , 2000, Evolution and human behavior : official journal of the Human Behavior and Evolution Society.

[35]  M. Richards,et al.  Lay understanding of genetics: a test of a hypothesis. , 1996, Journal of medical genetics.

[36]  Wei Chen,et al.  A three-single-nucleotide polymorphism haplotype in intron 1 of OCA2 explains most human eye-color variation. , 2007, American journal of human genetics.

[37]  M. Pagel Desperately concealing father: a theory of parent–infant resemblance , 1997, Animal Behaviour.

[38]  The Westermarck Effect and early childhood co‐socialization: Sex differences in inbreeding‐avoidance , 2003 .

[39]  F. Salter,et al.  Carrier females and sender males: An evolutionary hypothesis linking female attractiveness, family resemblance, and paternity confidence , 1996 .

[40]  D. Perrett,et al.  Facial appearance is a cue to oestrogen levels in women , 2006, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[41]  P. A. Wells,et al.  Evidence for genetic similarity detection in human marriage , 1985 .

[42]  F. Keil,et al.  On the development of biologically specific beliefs: the case of inheritance. , 1989, Child development.

[43]  K. Stefánsson,et al.  An Association Between the Kinship and Fertility of Human Couples , 2008, Science.

[44]  A. Wolf Childhood Association and Sexual Attraction: A Further Test of the Westermarck Hypothesis , 1970 .

[45]  T. Bereczkei,et al.  Homogamy, genetic similarity, and imprinting; parental influence on mate choice preferences , 2002 .

[46]  D. Perrett,et al.  Symmetry, sexual dimorphism in facial proportions and male facial attractiveness , 2001, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[47]  David I. Perrett,et al.  Symmetry Is Related to Sexual Dimorphism in Faces: Data Across Culture and Species , 2008, PloS one.

[48]  M. Symonds,et al.  A brief guide to model selection, multimodel inference and model averaging in behavioural ecology using Akaike’s information criterion , 2010, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[49]  A. Grafen Do animals really recognize kin? , 1990, Animal Behaviour.

[50]  E. Postma,et al.  Inbred women in a small and isolated Swiss village have fewer children , 2010, Journal of evolutionary biology.

[51]  C. Lundh,et al.  Status Homogamy in the Preindustrial Marriage Market: Partner Selection According to Age, Social Origin, and Place of Birth in Nineteenth-century Rural Sweden , 2009, Journal of family history.

[52]  R. K. Young,et al.  Mate assortment in dating and married couples , 1996 .

[53]  D. Perrett,et al.  Investigating an imprinting-like phenomenon in humans: Partners and opposite-sex parents have similar hair and eye colour , 2003 .

[54]  A. Alvergne,et al.  Differential facial resemblance of young children to their parents: who do children look like more? , 2007 .

[55]  Karen Phalet,et al.  Partnership Preferences of the Belgian Second Generation : who lives with whom? , 2011 .

[56]  L. Keller,et al.  Inbreeding effects in wild populations. , 2002 .

[57]  Massimo Grassi,et al.  Parental resemblance in 1-year-olds and the Gaussian curve , 2004 .

[58]  B. Laeng,et al.  Why do blue-eyed men prefer women with the same eye color? , 2006, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[59]  L. Welling,et al.  Mate retention behavior modulates men's preferences for self-resemblance in infant faces , 2011 .

[60]  D. Perrett,et al.  Computer graphic studies of the role of facial similarity in judgements of attractiveness , 1999 .

[61]  C. Davenport,et al.  Heredity of eye-color in man , 1907, Zeitschrift für induktive Abstammungs- und Vererbungslehre.

[62]  Christopher D. Watkins,et al.  Like father, like self: emotional closeness to father predicts women's preferences for self-resemblance in opposite-sex faces , 2011 .

[63]  D. Perrett,et al.  Assortative mating for perceived facial personality traits , 2006 .

[64]  D. Geary,et al.  Evolution of human mate choice , 2004, Journal of sex research.

[65]  P. Prokop,et al.  Paternity cues and mating opportunities: what makes fathers good? , 2010, acta ethologica.