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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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