Facial resemblance enhances trust

DeBruine, Lisa M.

doi:10.1098/rspb.2002.2034

Cited by 396 publications

(325 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

300

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There is ample evidence that humans and other primates have the capacity to recognize their kin (Porter and Moore 1981;Parr and de Waal 1999) and treat their kin preferentially in a variety of contexts (Burnstein, Crandall, and Kitayama 1994;Shavit, Fischer, and Koresh 1994). Furthermore, humans discriminate in favor of similar-looking others in trust games (DeBruine 2002(DeBruine , 2005 and in adoption decisions (DeBruine 2004). Interestingly, this tendency to provide altruism to similar others does not mean that we find them more attractive, presumably due to avoiding mating with close kin (DeBruine 2005).…”

Section: Similarity and Familiarity As Related Facial Cuesmentioning

confidence: 79%

Facial Similarity between Voters and Candidates Causes Influence

Bailenson¹,

Iyengar²,

Yee³

et al. 2008

Public Opinion Quarterly

154

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social science research demonstrates that people are drawn to others perceived as similar. We extend this finding to political candidates by comparing the relative effects of candidate familiarity as well as partisan, issue, gender, and facial similarity on voters' evaluations of candidates. In Experiment 1, during the week of the 2006 Florida gubernatorial race, a national representative sample of voters viewed images of two unfamiliar candidates (Crist and Davis) morphed with either themselves or other voters. Results demonstrated a strong preference for facially similar candidates, despite no conscious awareness of the similarity manipulation. In Experiment 2, one week before the 2004 presidential election, a national representative sample of voters evaluated familiar candidates (Bush and Kerry). Strong partisans were unmoved by the facial similarity manipulation, but weak partisans and independents preferred the candidate with whom their own face had been morphed over the candidate morphed with another voter. In Experiment 3, we compared the effects of policy similarity and facial similarity using a set of prospective 2008 presidential candidates. Even though the effects of party and policy similarity dominated, facial similarity proved a significant cue for unfamiliar candidates. Thus, the evidence across the three studies suggests that even in high-profile elections, voters prefer candidates high in facial similarity, but most strongly with unfamiliar candidates.

show abstract

Section: Similarity and Familiarity As Related Facial Cuesmentioning

confidence: 79%

Facial Similarity between Voters and Candidates Causes Influence

Bailenson¹,

Iyengar²,

Yee³

et al. 2008

Public Opinion Quarterly

154

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…designed to estimate the degree of relatedness between self and target (e.g., DeBruine, 2002;Lieberman, Tooby, & Cosmides, 2003.…”

Section: From Evolutionary Theory To Middle-level Theoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolutionary psychology: A how-to guide.

Lewis

Al-Shawaf

Conroy‐Beam

et al. 2017

American Psychologist

164

133

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Researchers in the social and behavioral sciences are increasingly using evolutionary insights to test novel hypotheses about human psychology. Because evolutionary perspectives are relatively new to psychology and most researchers do not receive formal training in this endeavor, there remains ambiguity about "best practices" for implementing evolutionary principles. This article provides researchers with a practical guide for using evolutionary perspectives in their research programs and for avoiding common pitfalls in doing so. We outline essential elements of an evolutionarily informed research program at 3 central phases: (a) generating testable hypotheses, (b) testing empirical predictions, and (c) interpreting results. We elaborate key conceptual tools, including task analysis, psychological mechanisms, design features, universality, and cost-benefit analysis. Researchers can use these tools to generate hypotheses about universal psychological mechanisms, social and cultural inputs that amplify or attenuate the activation of these mechanisms, and cross-culturally variable behavior that these mechanisms can produce. We hope that this guide inspires theoretically and methodologically rigorous research that more cogently integrates knowledge from the psychological and life sciences.

show abstract

“…Such obvious maladaptions strongly support the hypothesis that our evolutionary legacy shapes our economic behaviour. Similarly, cooperation can be increased by cues of reciprocity or kinship [59]: a face with a family resemblance elicits more help. It is also well known that seemingly unimportant factors (for instance, a preference for Klee rather than Kandinsky) can establish a group identity among complete strangers and boost solidarity [60].…”

Section: Proximate Causes Of Costly Punishmentmentioning

confidence: 99%