Tend and befriend

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In stressful or threatening times, human beings (and some animal species) demonstrate a pattern called tend-and-befriend, which refers to protection of offspring (tending) and seeking out of the social group for joint protection against a common threat (befriending).

Contents 1 Fight or flight versus tend and befriend 2 Biological bases of tend and befriend 3 Benefits of affiliation under stress 4 Gender differences in tend and befriend 5 See also 6 External links 7 Sources 8 References

[edit] Fight or flight versus tend and befriend

The dominant model of human responses to stress has been the fight or flight response. In response to threat, humans or animals can become aggressive and confront a stressor (fight) or flee either literally or through avoidant coping, such as social withdrawal or substance abuse. From the standpoint of human beings, however, this analysis of stress responses is incomplete. One of the most striking aspects of the human stress response is the tendency to affiliate, that is, to come together in groups in threatening times (Cohen & Wills 1985). The tend and befriend response refers to the fact that people often manage threats by caring for offspring and seeking social support in time of stress (Taylor et al. 2000).

[edit] Biological bases of tend and befriend

Many scientists now believe that there is an affiliative neurocircuitry that prompts affiliation especially in response to stress. Research suggests that this system regulates social approach behavior, much as hunger, thirst, or sexual drives are biologically regulated. A biological basis for this regulation appears to be oxytocin (Carter et al. 1999).

Oxytocin has been tied to a broad array of social relationships and activities, including peer bonding, sexual activity, and affiliative preferences (Carter et al. 1999). Oxytocin is released in humans in response to at least some stressors, especially those that may trigger affiliative needs. Oxytocin prompts affiliative behavior, including maternal tending and social contact with peers (Insel 1997). Thus affiliation under stress serves tending needs, including protective response towards offspring, and may also take the form of befriending, namely seeking social contact for one’s own protection, the protection of offspring, and the protection of the social group. These social responses to threat reduce biological stress responses, including elevated heart rate, blood pressures, and hypothalamic pituitary adrenal axis stress responses, such as cortisol (Light et al. 2000).

[edit] Benefits of affiliation under stress

Why would humans and some animals have a biologically regulated affiliative system? Looking at affiliation from the standpoint of evolutionary theory makes it clear that there would be clear survival benefits of affiliative response to threat. Tending to offspring in times of stress is vital to ensuring the survival of the species. Tending activities also reduce biological stress responses in both parents and offspring, thereby reducing stress-related threats to their health (Taylor 2002).

Likewise “befriending” leads to substantial mental and physical health benefits in times of stress. Social isolation is tied to a significantly enhanced risk of mortality, whereas social support is tied to a broad array of beneficial health outcomes, including reduced risk of illness and death (Cohen & Wills 1985).

[edit] Gender differences in tend and befriend

Tend and befriend has been heavily studied in female animals and women. One reason for this fact is that estrogen enhances the effects of oxytocin which, as noted, is believed to be an important biological underpinning of tend and befriend (McCarthy 1995).

There are evolutionary bases for believing that female responses to stress may be better characterized by tend and befriend than those of males as well. In early human history when the human stress response evolved, work was largely sex segregated, with women responsible for child care. Accordingly, selection pressures for responses to threat that benefit both self and offspring would have been greater for females than for males, favoring social responses to threat in women. Research shows that women are, in fact, more likely to seek the company of others in times of stress, compared to men (Tamres et al. 2002).

Men’s behavior under stress may be better characterized by the fight or flight response. Although both men and women show the biological fight or flight pattern of arousal (e.g., elevated heart rate and blood pressure), men’s behavior under stress is better characterized by fight (aggression) and by flight (social withdrawal, substance abuse) in response to stress (Williams 2003).

Women live longer than men in all societies where there is equal access to medical care. In the United States, for example, this difference is more than 6 years. One reason may be that men’s responses to stress (which include aggression, social withdrawal, and substance abuse) place them at risk for adverse health-related consequences, whereas women’s more social responses to stress are healthier behaviors (Verbrugge 1985). Whether these gender differences in responsivity to stress help to explain the gender gap in mortality is not yet known, but the research suggests this is a strong possibility.

[edit] See also

• affiliation
• fight or flight
• positive psychology

[edit] External links

• "Tend and Befriend", Nancy K. Dess, Psychology Today

[edit] Sources

• Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., & Akert, R. M. (2005). Social Psychology. (5th ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
• Friedman, H. S., & Silver, R. C. (Eds.) (2007). Foundations of Health Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Gurung, R. A. R. (2006). Health Psychology: A Cultural Approach. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

[edit] References

• Carter, C. S., Lederhendler, I. I., & Kirkpatrick, B., eds. (1999). The integrative neurobiology of affiliation. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
• Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310-357.
• Insel, T. R. (1997). A neurobiological basis of social attachment. American Journal of Psychiatry, 154, 726-735.
• Light, K.C., Smith, T.E., Johns, J.M., Brownley, K.A., Hofheimer, J.A., & Amico, J.A. (2000). Oxytocin responsivity in mothers of infants: A preliminary study of relationships with blood pressure during laboratory stress and normal ambulatory activity. Health Psychology, 19, 560-567.
• McCarthy, M. M. (1995). Estrogen modulation of oxytocin and its relation to behavior. In Oxytocin: Cellular and molecular approaches in medicine and research, edited by R. Ivell and J. Russell. New York: Plenum Pres.
• Tamres, L., Janicki, D., & Helgeson, V. S. (2002). Sex differences in coping behavior: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 2-30.
• Taylor, S.E. (2002). The tending instinct: How nurturing is essential to who we are and how we live. New York: Holt.
• Taylor, S.E., Klein, L.C., Lewis, B.P., Gruenewald, T.L., Gurung, R.A.R., & Updegraff, J.A. (2000). Biobehavioral responses to stress in females: Tend-and-befriend, not fight-or-flight. Psychological Review, 107, 411-429.
• Verbrugge, L. M. (1985). Gender and health: An update on hypotheses and evidence. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 26, 156-182.
• Williams, D. R. (2003). The health of men: Structured inequalities and opportunities. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 724-731.