TY - JOUR
T1 - Biocultural Strategies for Measuring Psychosocial Stress Outcomes in Field-based Research
AU - Piperata, Barbara A.
AU - Dengah, H. J.François
AU - Dressler, William W.
AU - Liebert, Melissa A.
AU - Mattison, Siobhán M.
AU - Negrón, Rosalyn
AU - Nelson, Robin
AU - Oths, Kathryn S.
AU - Snodgrass, Jeffrey G.
AU - Tanner, Susan
AU - Thayer, Zaneta
AU - Wander, Katherine
AU - Gravlee, Clarence C.
AU - Brewis, Alexandra
N1 - Funding Information: We acknowledge the US National Science Foundation Cultural Anthropology Program grant (Award SBE-2017491) to the NSF Cultural Anthropology Methods Program and Drs. Amber Wutich, Alissa Ruth, and Melissa Beresford for their role in organizing the workshop that generated this collaboration. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. Funding Information: The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the National Science Foundation grant number Award SBE-2017491. Publisher Copyright: © The Author(s) 2021.
PY - 2021/11
Y1 - 2021/11
N2 - The goal of assessing psychosocial stress as a process and outcome in naturalistic (i.e., field) settings is applicable across the social, biological, and health sciences. Meaningful measurement of biology-in-context is, however, far from simple or straightforward. In this brief methods review, we introduce theoretical framings, methodological conventions, and ethical concerns around field-collection of markers of psychosocial stress that have emerged from 50 years of research at the intersection of anthropology and human biology. Highlighting measures of psychosocial stress outcomes most often used in biocultural studies, we identify the circumstances under which varied measures are most appropriately applied and provide examples of the types of cutting-edge research questions these measures can address. We explain that field-based psychosocial stress measures embedded in different body systems are neither equivalent nor interchangeable, but this recognition strengthens the study of stress as always simultaneously cultural and biological, situated in local ecologies, social–political structures, and time.
AB - The goal of assessing psychosocial stress as a process and outcome in naturalistic (i.e., field) settings is applicable across the social, biological, and health sciences. Meaningful measurement of biology-in-context is, however, far from simple or straightforward. In this brief methods review, we introduce theoretical framings, methodological conventions, and ethical concerns around field-collection of markers of psychosocial stress that have emerged from 50 years of research at the intersection of anthropology and human biology. Highlighting measures of psychosocial stress outcomes most often used in biocultural studies, we identify the circumstances under which varied measures are most appropriately applied and provide examples of the types of cutting-edge research questions these measures can address. We explain that field-based psychosocial stress measures embedded in different body systems are neither equivalent nor interchangeable, but this recognition strengthens the study of stress as always simultaneously cultural and biological, situated in local ecologies, social–political structures, and time.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85118574778&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85118574778&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1177/1525822X211043027
DO - 10.1177/1525822X211043027
M3 - Review article
SN - 1525-822X
VL - 33
SP - 315
EP - 334
JO - Field Methods
JF - Field Methods
IS - 4
ER -