Emerging Biosocial Perspectives Troost, K. M., & Filsinger, E. (1993). Emerging biosocial perspectives in the family. In P. G. Boss, W. J. Doherty, R

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.

Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson

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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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).


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.


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?


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?


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?


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?


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?


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.


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).


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.


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 incognitive style,brain lateralization,spatial ability.

Aggression in men is associated with testosterone.


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.

Documents

Emerging Biosocial Perspectives Troost, K. M., & Filsinger, E. (1993). Emerging biosocial perspectives in the family. In P. G. Boss, W. J. Doherty, R