Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vpsfw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T17:33:21.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

11 - The effect of perceived resemblance and the social mirror on kin selection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 January 2010

By
Rebecca L. Burch ,
Daniel Hipp  and
Steven M. Platek
Edited by
Steven M. Platek  and
Todd K. Shackelford
Rebecca L. Burch
Affiliation:
State University of New York at Oswego
Daniel Hipp
Affiliation:
State University of New York at Oswego
Steven M. Platek
Affiliation:
Drexel University
Steven M. Platek
Affiliation:
Drexel University, Philadelphia
Todd K. Shackelford
Affiliation:
Florida Atlantic University
Get access

Summary

Paternal resemblance

Due to the asymmetric risk of cuckoldry, assurance of paternity is much less significant than maternal assurance. Females, possessing 100% assurance of their link to their offspring, necessarily have evolved strategies to secure the less sure males as supportive and protective fathers. Hofferth and Anderson (2003) compared all types of family and the paternal investment inherent in each. The least-investing type of father was the stepfather. Daly and Wilson (1982) recorded spontaneous remarks in maternity wards regarding the appearance of newborn children. Mothers and their friends and relatives were more likely to comment on how children resembled their fathers than they were to say the child resembled the mother or any other family member. When fathers displayed any doubt, the mothers were quick to reassure them of the child's resemblance. Regalski and Gaulin (1993) have replicated these findings using Mexican families. These researchers concluded that women and their families attempt to reassure the male of this paternity, thus increasing the likelihood that he will invest in the child.

It is obvious that convincing a male of paternity and securing his investment would almost always be in the best evolutionary interests of females. However, this is hardly in the best interests of males. If ascriptions of resemblance were completely persuasive throughout evolutionary history, males would have been deceived numerous times into investing in a child that was not genetically related to them. Indeed, the incidence of cuckoldry ranges from 5 to 30% (see Baker & Bellis [1995] for review).

Type
Chapter
Information
Female Infidelity and Paternal Uncertainty
Evolutionary Perspectives on Male Anti-Cuckoldry Tactics
 , pp. 207 - 223
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Apicella, C. L. and Marlowe, F. W. (2004). Perceived mate fidelity and paternal resemblance predict men's investment in children. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25(6), 371–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, R. and Bellis, M. (1995). Human Sperm Competition. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
Bressan, P. and Grassi, M. (2004). Parental resemblance in 1-year-olds and the Gaussian curve. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25(3), 133–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burch, R. L. and Gallup, G. G. Jr. (2000). Perceptions of paternal resemblance predict family violence. Evolution and Human Behavior, 21(6), 429–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buss, D. M. and Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: an evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cashdan, E. (2001) Ethnocentrism and xenophobia: a cross cultural study. Current Anthropology, 42(5), 760–4.Google Scholar
Cosmides, L., Tooby, J., and Kurzban, R. (2003). Perceptions of race. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7, 173–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daly, M. and Wilson, M. (1982). Whom are newborn babies said to resemble?Ethology and Sociobiology, 3, 69–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daly, M. and Wilson, M. (1998). The Truth about Cinderella: a Darwinian View of Parental Love. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Debruine, L. M. (2002). Facial resemblance enhances trust. Proceedings in Biological Sciences, 269, 1307–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamilton, W. D. (1964). The evolution of social behavior. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7, 1–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofferth, S. L. and Anderson, K. G. (2003). Are all dads equal? Biology versus marriage as a basis for paternal investment. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65(1), 213–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jankowiak, W. and Diderich, M. (2000). Sibling solidarity in a polygamous community in the USA: unpacking inclusive fitness. Evolution and Human Behavior, 21(2), 125–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lacy, R. C. and Sherman, P. W. (1983). Kin recognition by phenotype matching. American Naturalist, 121, 489–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLain, D. K., Setters, D., Moulton, M. P., and Pratt, A. E. (2000). Ascription of resemblance of newborns by parents and nonrelatives. Evolution and Human Behavior, 21, 11–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parr, L. A. and Waal, F. B. M. (1998). Visual kin recognition in chimpanzees. Nature, 399, 647–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Platek, S. M. (2002). An evolutionary model of the effects of human paternal resemblance on paternal investment. Evolution and Cognition, 9, 1–10.Google Scholar
Platek, S. M., Burch, R. L., and Gallup, G. G. Jr. (2001). Sex differences in olfactory self-recognition. Physiology & Behavior, 73, 635–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Platek, S. M., Burch, R. L., Panyavin, I., Wasserman, B., and Gallup, G. G. Jr. (2002). Children's faces: resemblance affects males but not females. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23, 159–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Platek, S. M., Critton, S. R., Burch, R. L., et al. (2003) How much resemblance is enough? Determination of a just noticeable difference at which male reactions towards children's faces change from indifferent to positive. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23, 81–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Platek, S. M., Raines, D. M., Gallup, G. G. Jr., et al. (2004). Reactions to children's faces: males are more affected by resemblance than females are, and so are their brains. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25(6), 394–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Regalski, J. and Gaulin, S. (1993). Whom are Mexican infants said to resemble? Monitoring and fostering paternal confidence in the Yucatan. Ethology and Sociobiology, 14, 97–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reynolds, V., Falger, V. S. E., and Vine, I. (eds.) (1987). The Sociobiology of Ethnocentrism: Evolutionary Dimensions of Xenophobia, Discrimination, Racism and Nationalism. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Ridley, M. (1997). The Origins of Virtue: Human Instincts and the Evolution of Cooperation. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
Rydgren, J. (2004). The logic of xenophobia. Rationality and Society, 16(2), 123–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segal, N. L. and Hershberger, S. L. (1999). Cooperation and competition between twins: findings from a prisoner's dilemma game. Evolution and Human Behavior, 20(1), 29–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shackelford, T. K., Goetz, A. T., Buss, D. M., Euler, H. A., and Hoier, S. (2005). When we hurt the ones we love: predicting violence against women from men's mate retention tactics. Personal Relationships, 12, 447–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trivers, R. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology, 46, 35–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van de Berghe, P. L. (1999). Racism, ethnocentrism, and xenophobia: in our genes or in our memes? In Thienpont, K. and Cliquet, R., eds., In-group/Out-group Behaviour in Modern Societies: An Evolutionary Perspective. Brussels: NIDI GBGS Publications, pp. 21–33.Google Scholar
Van der Dennen, J. M. G. (1999). Of badges, bonds and boundaries: in-group/out-group differentiation and ethnic conflict revisited. In Thienpont, K. and Cliquet, R., eds., In-group/Out-group Behaviour in Modern Societies: an Evolutionary Perspective. Brussels: NIDI GBGS, pp. 37–74.Google Scholar
Vokey, J. R., Rendall, D., Tangen, J. M., Parr, L. A., and Waal, F. B. M. (2004). Visual kin recognition and family resemblance in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 118(2), 194–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, G. C. (1966). Adaptation and Natural Selection: a Critique of Some Current Evolutionary Thought. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×