Emerging Biosocial Perspectives

1. Emerging Biosocial Perspectives Troost, K. M., & Filsinger, E. (1993). Emerging biosocial perspectives in the family. In P. G. Boss, W. J. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm, & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods: A contextual approach (pp. 677-710) New York: Plenum Press.

2. Introduction • Biosocial Domain: the connection between the biological and the social as • independent causal agents, and • as intertwined elements of human evolution and proximate life. • Role of the Family: • Evolutionary or Historical Relevance (a/k/a ultimate cause): sexual and cooperative bond results in continuation of society. • Proximate Cause: • families mediate the interplay of biological and social factors; • biological and social factors contribute to family phenomena. Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson

3. Core Assumptions • Humans have an evolutionary origin. • The family has played an important role in human evolution. Van de Berghe (1988) suggests that sociality can be reduced to three principles: • Nepotism: organisms invest in their own kin. • Reciprocity: exchange of favors. • Coercion: the act of being forced to act against one’s interests. • The evolutionary origin of humans has an influence upon families today. • Proximate biology has an influence on the family, and the family has an influence on primate biology and the health of its members. • Genetic factors (e.g., predisposition to disease) influence family life. • Families influence the health of members because they are health care providers. Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson

4. Core Assumptions(cont.) • Biosocial influences are both biological and social in character. • The biosocial domain is concerned with three factors: the biological, biosocial, and social. • Human biological and biosocial variables do not determine human conduct but pose limitations and constraints as well as possibilities and opportunities for families. • A biosocial approach takes an intermediate position between those who emphasize the similarity between humans and other animals and those who emphasize the differences. • Humans are animals with an evolutionary origin. • Humans have a species history which distinguishes it from other animals: the coevolution of biology and culture makes humans more complex than other animals. Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson

5. Core Assumptions(cont.) • Adaptation is assumed to have taken place over a vast period of time. Adaptations in physiology or conduct vary by environment. • Extant features of human biology can be used to reveal aspects of our adaptation in the past (see Troost, 1988a, Turke, 1988). • Proximate, distal, and ultimate levels of interpretation can be approached separately; ideally they will be integrated. Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson

6. Myths About Humans and the Biosocial • Humans are unique. • Although humans posses some unique traits, so do other species. • Other species, for example, • use tools, • culturally transmit learned adaptations, • communicate, • demonstrate consciousness and thought. • Biology mandates uniformity. • Biological analyses are inherently only about individuals, not relationships. Evolutionary selection, for example, influences • reproduction, • food gathering, • social facilitation, • competetion management, • division of labor, • cultural transmission, • socialization, • and interpersonal communication. Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson

7. Model of the Human in the Family Context • Introduction • There is a complex interplay between proximate (immediate) and ultimate (evolutionary) influences. • Ontogeny, an individual’s life course development, “is influenced by the interplay of biological makeup and social environment” (p. 685). • Biological blueprints limit environmental input. • Environmental constraints limit biological predispositions. • Organisms, influenced by biological predispositions, actively select environments. This is known as niche building (Scarr & Mcartney, 1983). Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson

8. Model of the Human in the Family Context (cont.) • Extending the Model: • Life span development influences adaptability. • Departure from “normal” developmental patterns can cause system breakdown (e.g., excessively early or late marriage and childbearing have long-term implications). • Causation: • Proximate causation: immediate influences. • Distal causation: intermediate causes (e.g., affect of parent-infant bonding/attachment on later development). • Ultimate causation: evolutionary influences. Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson

9. Causation • Ultimate Causation: • Fundamental question: How has the family contributed to the success of humans? • What was the character of our evolutionary past? . . . How has our evolutionary history affected the attributes of the family? • What principles of sociobiology apply to humans? • Cultural diversity issues: Where and under what ecological circumstances does the biosocial . . . encourage variety in kinship formation? • Why is the family a universal phenomenon? • Proximate Causation: • Fundamental question: How do biology and society interact to form the biosocial family of today? • What are specific biosocial covariates; what are self-selection or niche-building effects? • What influences flexibility? What influences rigidity? Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson

10. Main Problems Addressed by the Theory • Reproduction and Fertility • What are the mechanisms directly affecting reproduction? • What are some of the reproductive questions facing humans? • Parental Investment • What are the mechanisms that support parental investment and how are they likely to be interpreted? • Who will do the investment and will it be through care, food, defense, or some other means? • Why is there such a heavy burden on parents; would it not make them and their offspring vulnerable? • How does the family today foster selection and reproduction of its members? Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson

11. Main Problems Addressed by the Theory (cont.) • Adult and Co-parental Bond • What are the mechanisms that promote adult, co-parental bonds and marriage? • How do these bonds differ and is this difference supported biosocially? • Do married individuals of childbearing age who have infertile partners suffer lower marital quality and higher marital dissolution rates? • Does marital stability vary after menopause independently of children? • What accounts for initial and enduring attraction and what is the role of the biosocial in comparison to psychological or social-only effects? Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson

12. Main Problems Addressed by the Theory (cont.): • Sexuality • What are the mechanisms regulating sexuality? • How is sexuality linked to reproduction, adult bonding, and parental investment? • How are fidelity, parental certainty, and the kinship system related to parental investment? • How do male and female sexuality mesh? • Are human beings more sex driven than reproductively driven; is this age dependent? • What role is played by the human capacity for trust and deception? Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson

13. Main Problems (cont.): • Family Life Course Timing: Windows and Breakdowns • What are the biosocial pathways over the individual life course and at what points are they particularly subject to breakdown; what mechanisms support these pathways and timing periods? • What are the time periods in individual development when a person is vulnerable to particular negative events? • Are there windows of opportunity during which a person is unusually sensitive to a positive influence [e.g., imprinting]? • If a person wants to be a grandparent, when should they begin “attraction, bonding, sexual activity, and childbearing? • Is miscarriage influenced by family life course, relational context, and availability of resources? • How does individual development fit together with family development? • How are individual and family development influenced by parent-child bonding, parental investment, reproduction, and sexuality? Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson

14. Examples of Research • Family Medicine • Biopsychosocial model: illnesses are influenced by several interacting systems. • Family members tend to share risk factors, influenced by both environmental and genetic factors. • Stress has a negative impact on health; family dynamics influence stress. • Four perspectives on families and illness (based on Steinglass & Horn, 1988): • The family can be a resource that provides social support and acts as a buffer. • The family can be a deficit, inducing illness. • The family can affect the course of the illness and influence recurrences. • The illness can have a major impact on the family. Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson

15. Examples of Research (cont.) • Family Violence: • Spousal abuse: • Men are more likely to try to control their partner because paternity is more difficult to ascertain. • This controlling behavior is associated with violence. • Abuse is also associated with investment: women who were trying to end relationships were at greater risk for abuse. • Child abuse: • Conflict is highest when parental investment is low. • Risk factors: infancy, paternal uncertainty, stepparenting, scarce resources (Daly & Wilson, 1987, 1988a,b). Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson

16. Research and Theories on Interaction between Biology and Society • Odor Communication • Kin recognition and attachment • Infants respond differently to their mother’s odors than to odors from other mothers. This has evolutionary utility. • Reaction to odors affects caregiving. • Mate selection and sexual attraction: odors influence attraction. • Physiological Indications of Family Phenomena • Marital satisfaction: physiological indicators can predict current and future marital satisfaction (Gottman, 1983; Levenson & Gottman, 1985). • Adolescent sexuality: androgen levels are associated with masturbation and sexual motivation in adolescent boys. Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson

17. Research and Theories on Interaction between Biology and Society (cont.) • Physiological Indications of Family Phenomena (cont.) • Sexual differentiation: • Gender differentiation of the brain and nervous system appears to reflect some physical brain structure differences. • Gender differentiation is linked to gender differences in • cognitive style, • brain lateralization, • spatial ability. • Aggression in men is associated with testosterone. Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson

18. Limitations of the Theory • Overstatement of biological forces. • “Scientific” studies of “natural” differences have been used to exploit or oppress (e.g., The Bell Curve). • Biological explanations are reductionistic. Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson