Skip to main content Accessibility help
Hostname: page-component-99c86f546-cxxrm Total loading time: 0.509 Render date: 2021-12-06T03:54:45.445Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

12 - Children on the mind: sex differences in neural correlates of attention to a child's face as a function of facial resemblance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 January 2010

Steven M. Platek
Department of Psychology Drexel University
Jaime W. Thomson
Department of Psychology Drexel University
Steven M. Platek
Drexel University, Philadelphia
Todd K. Shackelford
Florida Atlantic University
Get access



Because of concealed ovulation, internal fertilization, and female infidelity, parental certainty is asymmetrical: unlike females, who are (with exception of rare maternity-room mistakes) always certain of maternity, males can never be certain of paternity. Further, during our evolutionary history, females would have benefited from 100% certainty of maternity. Current estimates of extra-pair paternity (paternity by the non-domestic father, or cuckoldry) are between 1 and 30%, with the best estimate at about 10% (Baker & Bellis, 1995; Cerda-Flores et al., 1999; Neale, Neale, & Sullivan, 2002; Sasse et al., 1994; Sykes & Irven, 2000). In other words, approximately 1 in 10 children are the product of female infidelity. This asymmetry in parental certainty has contributed to an asymmetry in human parental investment (Bjorklund & Shackelford, 1999 Geary, 2000). As a consequence of having to carry a child to term, females invest more in and provision more for children than do males. Additionally, if a female nurses her offspring she could be bound to a minimum of 1.5–2 years of further parental investment that is not shared by males. There are two reasons as to why parents would invest in offspring. The first is to increase their own genetic fitness (e.g. increased number of their genes in future generations) and the other is to influence their relationship with their offspring's other parent (Anderson, Kaplan, & Lancaster, 2001).

Female Infidelity and Paternal Uncertainty
Evolutionary Perspectives on Male Anti-Cuckoldry Tactics
, pp. 224 - 241
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.)


Alvarez, L. and 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, 177–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, K., Kaplan, H., Lam, D., and Lancaster, J. (1999). Paternal care of genetic fathers and stepfathers II: reports by Xhosa high school students. Evolution and Human Behavior, 20, 433–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, K., Kaplan, H., and Lancaster, J. (2001). Men's financial expenditures on genetic children and stepchildren from current and former relationships. PSC Research (Population Studies Center), Report No. 01–484.
Ashburner, J. and Friston, K. J. (1999). Nonlinear spatial normalization using basis functions. Human Brain Mapping, 7(4): 254–66.3.0.CO;2-G>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baker, R. R. and Bellis, M. A. (1995). Human Sperm Competition: Copulation, Masturbation, and Infidelity. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
Bandettini, P. A. (2002). Functional MRI. In Bolles, F. and Grofman, J., eds., Handbook of Neuropsychology. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelright, S., Hill, J., Raste, Y., and Plumb, I. (2001). The “Reading the Mind in the Eyes” test revised version: a study with normal adults, and adults with Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42, 241–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berthoz, S., Armony, J. L., Blair, R. J., and Dolan, R. J. (2002). An fMRI study of intentional and unintentional (embarrassing) violations of social norms. Brain, 125, 1696–708.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Birkhead, T. R. (1995). Sperm competition: evolutionary causes and consequences. Reproduction, Fertility, and Development, 7, 755–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Birkhead, T. R. (1996). Sperm competition: evolution and mechanisms. Current Topics in Developmental Biology, 33, 103–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bjorklund, D. F. and Shackelford, T. K. (1999). Differences in parental investment contribute to important differences between men and women. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8(3), 86–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brédart, S. and French, R. (1999). Do babies resemble their fathers more than their mothers? A failure to replicate Christenfeld and Hill. Evolution and Human Behavior, 20, 129–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchan, J. C., Alberts, S. C., Silk, J. B., and Altmann, J. (2003). True paternal care in a multi-male primate society. Nature, 425, 179–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burch, R. L. and Gallup, G. G. Jr. (2000). Perceptions of paternal resemblance predict family violence. Evolution and Human Behavior, 21, 429–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buss, D. M. (1988). From vigilance to violence: tactics of mate retention in American undergraduates. Ethology and Sociobiology, 9, 291–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buss, D. M. (1994). The Evolution of Desire. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M. (1999). Evolutionary Psychology. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Buss, D. M. and Shackelford, T. K. (1997). From vigilance to violence: mate retention tactics in married couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 346–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Case, A., Lin, I. F., and McLanahan, S. (2001). Educational attainment of siblings in stepfamilies. Evolution and Human Behavior, 22, 269–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castelli, F., Happe, F., Frith, U., and Frith, C. D. (2000). Movement and mind: a functional imaging study of perception and interpretation of complex intentional movement patterns. NeuroImage, 12, 314–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cerda-Flores, R. M., Barton, S. A., Marty-Gonzales, L. F., Rivas, F., and Chakrborty, R. (1999). Estimation of nonpaternity in the Mexican population of Nuevo Leon: a validation study with blood group markers. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 109, 281–93.3.0.CO;2-3>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christenfeld, N. and Hill, E. (1995). Whose baby are you? Nature, 378, 669.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Collette, F., Linden, M., Delfiore, G., et al. (2001). The functional anatomy of inhibition processes investigated with the Hayling Task. NeuroImage, 14, 258–67.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. (1988a). Evolutionary social psychology and family homicide. Science, 242, 519–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daly, M. and Wilson, M. (1988b). Homicide. Hawthorne NY: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Daly, M. and Wilson, M. (1996). Violence against stepchildren. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 5, 77–81.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
Daly, M., Wilson, M., and Weghorst, S. J. (1982). Male sexual jealousy. Ethology and Sociobiology, 3(1), 11–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, R. J. (1997). Emotion and affective style: physiological substrates. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology. American Encephalographic Society, Abstract 102.CrossRef
DeBruine, L. M. (2002). Facial resemblance enhances trust. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 269, 1307–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeBruine, L. M. (2004). Resemblance to self increases the appeal of child faces to both men and women. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, 142–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duchaine, B. (2002). Computational and developmental specificity in face recognition. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara. Dissertation Abstracts International, 62, 3821B.
Fletcher, F. C., Happe, F., Frith, U., et al. (1995). Other minds in the brain: a functional imaging study of “theory of mind” in story comprehension. Cognition, 57, 109–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frackowiak, R. S. J., Friston, K. J., Frith, C., et al. (2003). Human Brain Function, 2nd edn. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Friston, K. J., Holmes, A. P., Worsley, K. J., et al. (1995). Statistical parametric maps in functional imaging: a general linear approach. Human Brain Mapping, 2, 189–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallagher, H. L., Happe, F., Brunswick, N., et al. (2000). Reading the mind in cartoons and stories: an fMRI study of ‘theory of mind’ in verbal and nonverbal tasks. Neuropsychologia, 38, 11–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gallup, G. G. Jr. and Burch, R. (2004) Semen displacement as a sperm competition strategy in humans. Evolutionary Psychology, 2, 12–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallup, G. G., Jr. and Burch, R. L. (2005). The semen displacement hypothesis. In Shackelford, T. and Pound, N. eds., Sperm Competition in Humans: Classic and Contemporary Readings. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Geary, D. C. (2000). Evolution and proximate expression of human paternal investment. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 55–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goetz, A. T., Shackelford, T. K., Weekes-Shackelford, V. A., et al. (2005). Mate retention, semen displacement, and human sperm competition: a preliminary investigation of tactics to prevent and correct female infidelity. Personality and Individual Difference, 38, 749–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harmon-Jones, E. and Sigelman, J. (2001). State anger and prefrontal brain activity: evidence that insult-related relative left-prefrontal activation is associated with experienced anger and aggression. Interpersonal Relations and Group Processes, 5, 797–803.Google Scholar
Hauber, M. E. and Sherman, P. W. (2001). Self-referent phenotype matching: theoretical considerations and empirical evidence. Trends on Cognitive Sciences, 10, 609–16.Google Scholar
Hrdy, S. (1974). Male-male competition and infanticide among the langurs (Presbytis entellus) of Abu, Rajasthan. Folia Primatologica (Basel) 22(1), 19–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ishii, R., Stuss, D. T., Gorjmerac, C., et al. (2002). Neural correlates of “theory of mind” in emotional vignettes comprehension studied with spatially filtered magnetoencephalography. In Nowak, H., Haueisen, J., Giessler, F., and Hounker, R., eds., Biomag 2002 Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on BiomagnetismBerlin: VDE Verlag GMBH, 291–3.Google Scholar
Klin, A., Jones, W., Schultz, R., and Volkmar, F. (2003). The enactive mind, or from actions to cognition: lessons from autism. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 358, 345–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
Neale, M. C., Neale, B. M., and Sullivan, P. F. (2002). Nonpaternity in linkage studies of extremely discordant sib pairs. American Journal of Human Genetics, 70, 526–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neff, B. D. and Sherman, P. W. (2002). Decision making and recognition mechanisms. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 269, 1435–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nesse, R., Silverman, A., and Bortz, A. (1990). Sex differences in ability to recognize family resemblance. Ethology and Sociobiology, 11, 11–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogawa, S., Tank, D. W., Menon, R., et al. (1992). Intrinsic signal changes accompanying sensory stimulation: functional brain mapping with magnetic resonance imaging. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA, 89, 5951–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Platek, S. M. (2002). Unconscious reactions to children's faces: the effect of resemblance. Evolution and Cognition, 8, 207–14.Google Scholar
Platek, S. M., Burch, R. L., Panyavin, I. S., Wasserman, B. H., and Gallup, G. G. Jr. (2002). Reactions towards children's faces: resemblance matters more for males than females. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23, 159–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Platek, S. M., Critton, S. R., Burch, R. L., et al. (2003). How much paternal resemblance is enough? Sex differences in the reaction to resemblance but not in ability to detect resemblance. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24, 81–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Platek, S. M., Raines, D. M., Gallup, G. G. Jr., et al. (2004a). Reactions to children's faces: males are still more affected by resemblance than females are, and so are their brains. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, 394–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Platek, S. M., Keenan, J. P., Gallup, G. G. Jr., and Mohamed, F. B. (2004b). Where am I? Neural correlates of self and other. Cognitive Brain Research, 19, 114–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Platek, S. M., Keenan, J. P., and Mohamed, F. B., (2005). Neural correlates of facial resemblance. NeuroImage, 25, 1336–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Povinelli, D. J., Rulf, A. B., and Bierschwale, D. T. (1994). Absence of knowledge attribution and self-recognition in young chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 108, 74–80.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
Sasse, G., Muller, H., Chakraborty, R., and Ott, J. (1994). Estimating the frequency of nonpaternity in Switzerland. Human Heredity, 44, 337–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shackelford, T. (2003). Preventing, correcting and anticipating female infidelity: three adaptive problems of sperm competition. Evolution and Cognition, 9, 90–6.Google Scholar
Shackelford, T. K., LeBlanc, G. J., Weekes-Schakelford, V. A., et al. (2002). Psychological adaptations to human sperm competition. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23, 123–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuss, D. T., Gallup, G. G. Jr., and Alexander, M. P. (2001). The frontal lobes are necessary for theory of mind. Brain, 124, 279–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sykes, B. and Irven, C. (2000). Surnames and the Y chromosome. American Journal of Human Genetics, 66, 1417–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vogely, K., Bussfeld, P., Newen, A., et al. (2001). Mind reading: neural mechanisms of theory of mind and self-perspective. NeuroImage, 14, 170–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Send book to Kindle

To send this book to your Kindle, first ensure 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 sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ 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

Send book to Dropbox

To send 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 sending content to Dropbox.

Available formats

Send book to Google Drive

To send 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 sending content to Google Drive.

Available formats