Applications of the Theory of Natural Selection to the Study of Family Communication

Abstract

If one's goal is to account for patterns of variation in the communicative behaviors of family relationships, then we contend that no single theory explains as many aspects of family interaction, or explains them with as much depth, as does Darwin's (1859) theory of natural selection. In this article, we delineate the major precepts of the theory (and of associated theories that have been derived from it) and apply them to a number of relational phenomena in the marital and parent-child subsystems. We then speculate as to why the theory has not been widely used in family communication research, despite the breadth and depth of its explanatory power, and we offer suggestions to scholars wishing to incorporate principles of natural selection and evolutionary psychology into their research on families.The family is an extraordinarily rich context for gathering information on human social behavior. The ability to accumulate, contextualize, understand, and draw appropriate inferences from such information relies largely on the availability of theories that can not only model or predict such behavior but also explain it. Family communication researchers are fortunate to have a number of theories on which to draw. In this article, we describe how Darwin's (1859) theory of evolution by means of natural selection (TNS) can be used to explain multiple aspects of rela-

Good Working Mothers as Jugglers: A Critical Look at Two Work–Family Balance Films

“…She "deserves" such treatment because she is the one who cannot be relied on, the one whose promises should not be trusted, and the one whose absence is felt the most. While it is natural for children to want parental resources and attention (Floyd & Haynes, 2005) and social norms in the United States focus on the needs of the child (i.e., the 20 th Century has been termed the "Century of the Child"; Stearns, 2003, p. 1), the dialogue accentuates it is the mother who is at fault for their children's dismay, especially because OFD and IDK lack any dialogue from the children reciprocating the love or affection of their mothers. Melanie gushes "I love you a million, billion, zillion" to Sam, but rather than reciprocating he asks if she also loves his dad (her ex-husband) (Obst & Hoffman, 1996).…”

Evolutionary Perspectives on Interpersonal Relationships

“…According to evolutionary psychology, family relationships are distinct from all other human relationships because they involve reproductive processes and shared genetic material. As Floyd and Haynes (2005) detailed, the evolutionary approach provides a basis for understanding a host of variables relevant to family communication, including romantic love, jealousy, sexual infidelity, divorce, nepotism, parental care, and parent-child conflict. Instead of constructing different explanations for each of these relational characteristics, evolutionary psychology explains all of them as a function of the drive for reproductive success.…”

“…For those researchers who wish to incorporate evolutionary principles into their own research, let us conclude this chapter by echoing three practical suggestions offered by Floyd and Haynes (2005). The first is to conceptualize variables of interest in terms of the survival and/or procreative benefits they would likely have conferred in the EEA.…”

When two become one: Marital couples' public performances and couple identity

“…Marriage has been considered one of the closest relationships (Floyd & Haynes, 2005;Kelley et al, 1983). Marital partners are typically interdependent on each other physically, emotionally, sexually, reproductively, and financially (Floyd & Haynes, 2005).…”

“…Marriage has been considered one of the closest relationships (Floyd & Haynes, 2005;Kelley et al, 1983). Marital partners are typically interdependent on each other physically, emotionally, sexually, reproductively, and financially (Floyd & Haynes, 2005). As such, married persons are also likely to have strongly integrated personal and relational identities Aron, Aron, & Smollen, 1992;Aron, Paris, & Aron, 1996;McCall & Simmons, 1978).…”