全部 标题 作者
关键词 摘要

PeerJ  2015 

The self prefers itself? Self-referential versus parental standards in face attractiveness

DOI: 10.7717/peerj.595

Keywords: Face attractiveness,Assortative mating,Phenotypic similarity

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib

Abstract:

Preference for phenotypic similarity in assortative mating may be influenced by either a preference for self-similarity or parent-similarity. The aim of the current study was to assess whether people’s preference in face attractiveness is influenced by resemblance to the opposite sex parent’s face (parental phenotype) or their own face (self-based phenotype or “self-imprinting”). We used computerized image manipulations of facial photographs of participants, their mothers and fathers. The original photographs were combined with 78% of the participants’ opposite sex prototype face (i.e., male and female prototypes made from equal contributions of a hundred faces), creating morphs where the contribution from the familiar faces went unnoticed. Female and male participants ranked these images together with the opposite-sex prototype different familiar morphs. Each participant did the same for the morphs generated with other same-sex participants’ faces and of their parents. We found that the female participants preferred the self-based morphs to the prototype faces. Male participants showed a general tendency towards self-referential standard. Parental face morphs were ranked low in attractiveness, which may be accounted for by the age difference of the faces blended into the self-based versus parental face morphs, since we used present-time photographs of both the participants and their parents.

References

[1]  Alvarez L, Jaffe K. 2004. Narcissism guides mate selection: humans mate assortatively, as revealed by facial resemblance, following an algorithm of “self seeking like”. Evolutionary Psychology 2:177-194
[2]  Arrindell WA, Richter J, Eisemann M, Grling T, Rydén O, Hansson SB, Kasielke E, Frindte W, Gillholm R, Gustafsson M. 2001. The short-EMBU in East Germany and Sweden: a cross-national factorial validity extension. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 42:157-160
[3]  Arrindell WA, Sanavio E, Aguilar G, Siva C, Hatzichristou C, Eisemann M, Recinos LA, Gaszner P, Peter M, Battagliese G, Kállai J, Van der Ende J. 1999. The development of the short form of the EMBU: its appraisal with students in Greece, Guatemala, Hungary and Italy. Personality and Individual Differences 27:613-628
[4]  Auden WH. 1962. “Hic et Ille”, pt. 3, sct. A, The Dyer’s Hand. Random House. 1990 Edition
[5]  Bateson P. 1978. Sexual imprinting and optimal outbreeding. Nature 273:659-660
[6]  Baydas B, Erdem A, Yavuz I, Ceylan I. 2007. Heritability of facial proportions and soft-tissue profile characteristics in Turkish Anatolian siblings. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 131:504-509
[7]  Belsky J, Steinberg L, Draper P. 1991. Childhood experience, interpersonal development, and reproductive strategy: an evolutionary theory of socialization. Child Development 62:647-670
[8]  Bereczkei T, Gyuris P, Koves P, Bernath L. 2002. Homogamy, genetic similarity, and imprinting; parental influence on mate choice preferences. Personality and Individual Differences 33:677-690
[9]  Bovet J, Barthes J, Durand V, Raymond M, Alvergne A. 2012. Men’s preference for women’s facial features: testing homogamy and the paternity uncertainty hypothesis. PLoS ONE 7:e49791
[10]  Bowlby J. 1969. Attachment and loss, vol. 1: attachment. New York: Basic Books.
[11]  Buston PM, Emlen ST. 2003. Cognitive processes underlying human mate choice: the relationship between self-perception and mate preference in Western society. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 100:8805-8810
[12]  Currie TE, Little AC. 2009. The relative importance of the face and body in judgments of human physical attractiveness. Evolution of Human Behavior 30:409-416
[13]  Epstein E, Guttman R. 1984. Mate selection in man: evidence, theory, and outcome. Social Biology 31:243-278
[14]  Godoy R, Eisenberg DTA, Reyes-García V, Huanca T, Leonard WR, McDade TW, Tanner S. 2008. Assortative mating and offspring well-being: theory and empirical findings from a native Amazonian society in Bolivia. Evolution and Human Behavior 29:201-210
[15]  Gyuris P, Járai R, Bereczkei T. 2010. The effect of childhood experiences on mate choice in personality traits: homogamy and sexual imprinting. Personality and Individual Differences 49:467-472
[16]  Halberstadt J, Rhodes G. 2000. The attractiveness of nonface averages: implications for an evolutionary explanation of the attractiveness of average faces. Psychological Science 11:285-289
[17]  Helgason A, Pálsson S, Guebjartsson DF, Kristjánsson T, Stefánsson K. 2008. An association between the kinship and fertility of human couples. Science 319:813-816
[18]  Hill WF. 1978. Effects of mere exposure on preferences in nonhuman mammals. Psychological Bulletin 85:1177-1198
[19]  Holmes WG. 2004. The early history of Hamiltonian-based research on kin recognition. Annales Zoologici Fennici 41:691-711
[20]  Kazem ANJ, Widdig A. 2013. Visual phenotype matching: cues to paternity are present in rhesus macaque faces. PLoS ONE 8(2):e55846
[21]  Laeng B, Mathisen R, Johnsen JA. 2007. Why do blue-eyed men prefer women with the same eye color? Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 61:371-384
[22]  Laeng B, Vermeer O, Sulutvedt U. 2013. Is beauty in the face of the beholder? PLoS ONE 8:e68395
[23]  Lie HC, Rhodes G, Simmons LW. 2008. Genetic diversity revealed in human faces. Evolution 62:2473-2486
[24]  Lieberman D, Tooby J, Cosmides L. 2007. The architecture of human kin detection. Nature 445:727-731
[25]  Little AC, Penton-Voak IS, Burt DM, Perrett DI. 2003. Investigating an imprinting-like phenomenon in humans, partners and opposite-sex parents have similar hair and eye colour. Evolution of Human Behavior 24:43-51
[26]  Lorenz K. 1965. Evolution and modification of behaviour. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
[27]  Marcinkowska UM, Rantala MJ. 2012. Sexual imprinting on facial traits of opposite-sex parents in humans. Evolutionary Psychology 10:621-630
[28]  Merikle PM, Smilek D, Eastwood JD. 2001. Perception without awareness: perspectives from cognitive psychology. Cognition 79:115-134
[29]  Miller GF, Todd PM. 1998. Mate choice turns cognitive. Trends in Cognitive Science 2:190-198
[30]  Moreland RL, Zajonc RB. 1982. Exposure effects in person perception: familiarity, similarity, and attraction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 18:395-415
[31]  Nojo S, Tamura S, Ihara Y. 2012. Human homogamy in facial characteristics: does a sexual-imprinting-like mechanism play a role? Human Nature 23:323-340
[32]  Perrett D, Penton-Voak IS, Little AC, Tiddeman BP, Burt DM, Schmidt N, Oxley R, Kinloch N, Barrett L. 2002. Facial attractiveness judgments reflect learning of parental age characteristics. Proceedings of the Royal Society London B 269:873-880
[33]  Peters M, Rhodes G, Simmons LW. 2007. Contributions of the face and body to overall attractiveness. Animal Behavior 73:937-942
[34]  Platek SM, Thomson JW. 2007. Facial resemblance exaggerates sex-specific jealousy-based decisions. Evolutionary Psychology 5:223-231
[35]  Rantala MJ, Marcinkowska UM. 2011. The role of sexual imprinting and the Westermark effect in mate choice in humans. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 65:859-873
[36]  Rhodes G. 2006. The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. Annual Review of Psychology 57:199-226
[37]  Shepher J. 1971. Mate selection among second generation kibbutz adolescents and adults: incest avoidance and negative imprinting. Archives of Sexual Behavior 1:293-307
[38]  Symons D. 1995. Beauty is in the adaptations of the beholder: The evolutionary psychology of human female sexual attractiveness. In: Abramson PR, Pinkerton SD, eds. Sexual nature/sexual culture. The University of Chicago Press. 80-120
[39]  Thiessen D, Gregg B. 1980. Human assortative mating and genetic equilibrium: an evolutionary perspective. Ethology and Sociobiology 1:111-140
[40]  Tregenza T, Wedell N. 2000. Genetic compatibility, mate choice and patterns of parentage: invited review. Molecular Ecology 9:1013-1027
[41]  Watkins CD, DeBruine LM, Smith FG, Jones BC, Vukovic J, Fraccaro P. 2011. Like father, like self: emotional closeness to father predicts women’s preferences for self-resemblance in opposite-sex faces. Evolution and Human Behavior 32:70-75
[42]  Weinberg SM, Parsons TE, Marazita ML, Ma-her BS. 2013. Heritability of face shape in twins: a preliminary study using 3D sterophotogrammerty and geometric morphometrics. Dentistry 3000(1):a004
[43]  Wilson GD, Barrett PT. 1987. Parental characteristics and partner choice: some evidence for Oedipal imprinting. Journal of Biosocial Science 19:157-161
[44]  Wiszewska A, Pawlowski B, Boothroyd LG. 2007. Father–daughter relationship as a moderator of sexual imprinting: a facialmetric study. Evolution and Human Behavior 28:248-252
[45]  Zajonc R, Adelmann P, Murphy S, Niedenthal P. 1987. Convergence in the physical appearance of spouses. Motivation and Emotion 11:335-346

Full-Text

comments powered by Disqus