The sociobiology of bereavement: a reply to Littlefield and Rushton.
This article offers a critique of Littlefield and Rushton's (1986) application of sociobiological principles to bereavement following the death of a child. The following general issues are considered: (a) whether behavior is always adaptive and (b) the distinction between proximate and ultimate explanations. It is argued that grief is a maladaptive by-product of another, adaptive feature and that hypotheses about the severity of grief are best derived from proximate considerations rather than genetic relatedness. The use of a single-item rating scale to measure grief is questioned, and it is noted that interspouse reliabilities reported in the article were low, a problem not solved (as claimed) by aggregation. Criticisms are made of the specific hypotheses, notably in terms of their origins in sociobiological theory. It is argued that functional hypotheses are not alternatives to proximate mechanisms, but enable some proximate mechanisms to be viewed from the perspective of evolutionary biology.
Archer
J
J
Lancashire Polytechnic, Preston, United Kingdom.
D000220:Adaptation, Biological; D000223:Adaptation, Psychological; D000367:Age Factors; D001601:Bereavement; D005075:Biological Evolution; D002648:Child; D005260:Female; D006304:Health Status; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008960:Models, Psychological; D009769:Object Attachment; D010290:Parents / Q000523:psychology; D012737:Sex Factors