Identification of visual paternity cues in humans

Facial Kinship Verification: A Comprehensive Review and Outlook

The goal of Facial Kinship Verification (FKV) is to automatically determine whether two individuals have a kin relationship or not from their given facial images or videos. It is an emerging and challenging problem that has attracted increasing attention due to its practical applications. Over the past decade, significant progress has been achieved in this new field. Handcrafted features and deep learning techniques have been widely studied in FKV. The goal of this paper is to conduct a comprehensive review of the problem of FKV. We cover different aspects of the research, including problem definition, challenges, applications, benchmark datasets, a taxonomy of existing methods, and state-of-the-art performance. In retrospect of what has been achieved so far, we identify gaps in current research and discuss potential future research directions.

Transforming faces to mimic natural kin: A comparison of different paradigms

The ability to detect phenotypic similarity or kinship in third-parties' faces is not perfect, but better than chance. Still, some humans are better than others at this task. Yet researchers in kinship detection have difficulties in building up large and diverse datasets of high-quality pictures of related persons. The current experiments tested a novel method for circumventing this difficulty by using morphing techniques in order to generate a wide array of stimuli derived from a limited number of individual pictures. Six experiments tested various stimuli (standard protocol, mirrored face, other-sex face, other-ethnicity face, other-expression face and antiface). Our benchmarks are the similarity or kinship scores achieved by participants when faced with pictures of real siblings. We show that all stimuli, except the antiface, elicit detection scores similar to those elicited by real pictures of actual siblings. In addition, by exploring different experiment parameters (simultaneous or sequential task, kinship or similarity task) and some individual characteristics, these experiments provide a better understanding of kinship detection in third parties. The validation of our new method will allow widening the range of available stimuli to the research community, and even to develop new ecologically relevant experimental protocols that are hardly or not feasible with veridical images.

Why men invest in non-biological offspring: paternal care and paternity confidence among Himba pastoralists

Paternal investment is predicted to be a facultative calculation based on expected fitness returns and modulated by a host of social predictors including paternity uncertainty. However, the direct role of paternity confidence on the patterns of paternal investment is relatively unknown, in part due to a lack of research in populations with high levels of paternity uncertainty. Additionally, much of the work on paternity certainty uses cues of paternity confidence rather than direct assessments from fathers. We examine the effect of paternity assertions on the multiple measures of paternal investment in Himba pastoralists. Despite a high degree of paternity uncertainty, Himba have strong norms associated with social fatherhood, with men expected to invest equally in biological and non-biological offspring. Our behavioural data show patterns that largely conform to these norms. For domains of investment that are highly visible to the community, such as brideprice payments, we find no evidence of investment biased by paternity confidence. However, more private investment decisions do show some evidence of sex-specific titration. We discuss these results in light of broader considerations about paternal care and the mating-parenting trade-off.

Birth Order Does Not Affect Ability to Detect Kin

Previous studies suggest that birth order affects kinship detection ability. Kaminski et al. (2010) argued that firstborns use contextual cues (e.g., maternal perinatal association) to assess kinship in their own family, leading to a disadvantage in assessing kinship from facial cues alone in strangers. In contrast, laterborns do not have the contextual cue of maternal perinatal association and hence rely more on facial cues, leading to an advantage in detecting kin from facial cues alone. However, Alvergne et al. (2010) found no evidence in support of such a birthorder effect. The current study aimed to replicate previous studies with better suited methods to determine the effect of birth order on kin recognition. 109 raters viewed 132 pairs of photographs of children (aged 3–17 years), and indicated whether each pair was related or unrelated. Half of the pairs were sibling pairs and half were unrelated child pairs that were age- and gender- matched to the related pairs. No image was shown more than once, related pairs were not known to be related to any other image in the study, and individuals from unrelated pairs were not known to be related to any other image. We used binomial logistic mixed effects modelling to predict kinship judgments from relatedness and birth order (with image pair and rater as random factors). Relatedness was the main factor driving kinship judgments; related child-pairs were more than twice as likely as unrelated pairs to be judged as kin. Kinship judgment accuracy was unaffected by rater birth order. These findings indicate that laterborns did not have an advantage in detecting child sibling pairs. Pre-registration, data, code, and preprint available at osf.io/h43ep.