Biocultural Strategies for Measuring Psychosocial Stress Outcomes in Field-based Research

Abstract

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.

Applying minimally invasive biomarkers of chronic stress across complex ecological contexts

“…By far the most common matrix in human biology field research has been saliva. Rather than review salivary cortisol methods in detail here, we point the reader toward an extensive literature (e.g., Brewis et al, 2021 ; Decker, 2000 ; Ellison, 1988 ; Flinn, 2006 ; Flinn & England, 1997 ; Gettler et al, 2011 ; Nepomnaschy et al, 2012 ; Pike & Wllliams, 2006 ; Pollard, 1995 ). Dried blood spots (DBS; McDade et al, 2007 ; Worthman & Stallings, 1997 ) are another well‐established, field‐friendly alternative for measuring acute cortisol responses, easier to store and ship than saliva and far less invasive than serum or plasma.…”

“…Dressler, 2005 ; McDade, Stallings, & Worthman, 2000 ; Worthman & Costello, 2009 ). Brewis et al ( 2021 ) discuss additional considerations in the measurement of stress within biocultural research designs that extend beyond the scope of this paper.…”

“…Exploring all possible methods and their contingencies is far beyond the scope of any single article, although excellent resources are available (e.g., Brewis et al, 2021 ; Ice & James, 2007 ). Some promising new methods are included here only by brief reference, such as the conserved transcriptional response to adversity (Cole, 2019 ; Snodgrass et al, 2018 ), telomere length (Rej et al, 2021 ; Rej et al, 2020 ), and epigenetic aging (Gettler et al, 2020 ; Palma‐Gudiel et al, 2020 ).…”

Challenges and opportunities in rapid disaster research: lessons from the field in New Mexico and Vanuatu

“…The characteristics of these methods were important for our ability to collect biomarkers on a limited budget in a remote location. For a further discussion of field-friendly methods to assess psychosocial stress, broadly conceived, see Brewis et al ( 2021 ).…”

Energizing partnerships in research‐to‐policy projects

“…Having pioneered the use of biomarkers in remote settings, anthropologists mainly study stress to situate biological burden within social systems (see, among others, Brewis et al. 2021; Kohrt et al. 2014; McDade 2010; Panter‐Brick et al.…”