Developmental Dynamics: Toward a Biologically Plausible Evolutionary Psychology.

Abstract

There has been a conceptual revolution in the biological sciences over the past several decades. Evidence from genetics, embryology, and developmental biology has converged to offer a more epigenetic, contingent, and dynamic view of how organisms develop. Despite these advances, arguments for the heuristic value of a gene-centered, predeterministic approach to the study of human behavior and development have become increasingly evident in the psychological sciences during this time. In this article, the authors review recent advances in genetics, embryology, and developmental biology that have transformed contemporary developmental and evolutionary theory and explore how these advances challenge gene-centered explanations of human behavior that ignore the complex, highly coordinated system of regulatory dynamics involved in development and evolution.The prestige of success enjoyed by the gene theory might become a hindrance to the understanding of development by directing our attention solely to the genome. . . . Already we have theories that refer the processes of development to genic action and regard the whole performance as no more than the realization of the potencies of the genes. Such theories are altogether too one-sided. (Harrison, 1937, p. 370) There is growing consensus in popular culture that by understanding genes and the mutual interactions of the proteins derived from them it is possible to understand all of life, including human nature. Psychology is no stranger to this perspective. As most psychologists are aware, a blend of ethology and sociobiology known as evolutionary psychology has gained increasing attention and recognition over the past several decades. Arguments for the heuristic value of a gene-centered, evolutionary approach to the study of human behavior have become increasingly evident in mainstream psychology journals (i.e., Buss & Schmitt, 1993;Buss & Shackelford, 1997;Cosmides & Tooby, 1994a;Ellis, 1998;Tooby & Cosmides, 1990a), and popular texts promoting this perspective have likewise flourished in recent years (i.e., Allman, 1994;Buss, 2000;Dennett, 1995;Gazzaniga, 1992;Pinker, 1994Pinker, , 1997Pinker, , 2002R. Wright, 1994). Fueled in large part by the influence of sociobiology on the behavioral sciences over the past several decades, proponents of evolutionary psychology assert that applying insights from evolutionary theory to explanations of human behavior will stimulate more fruitful research programs and provide a powerful framework for discovering evolved psychological mechanisms thought to be forged by natural selection operating over thousands of generations (Bjorklund & Pellegrini, 2000Buss, 1989Buss, , 1991Charlesworth, 1986;Tooby & Cosmides, 1990b).Ideas gleaned from evolutionary biology have certainly influenced theory building in psychology (see Cairns, 1998;Cairns, Gariepy, & Hood, 1990;Edelman, 1989;Gottlieb, 1991Johnston, 1985;Sameroff, 1983). There is little doubt that the incorporation of evolutionary principles and perspectives into the psychological sc...

Face perception in monkeys reared with no exposure to faces

“…However, there is ample of evidence that genetic factors are always part and parcel of the individual organism's entire developmental system (16). The infant monkeys would learn that they move their eyes when they look at objects and move their mouth when they eat.…”

Evolutionary accounts of human behavioural diversity

“…In recent years, evolutionary and developmental psychologists have also used evolutionary theory to derive hypotheses about behavioural development (e.g. [69,70]). As a complete understanding of human behavioural diversity requires all four of Tinbergen's questions to be addressed, behavioural ecology and evolutionary psychology can potentially be viewed as both compatible and complementary.…”

“…(iv) Niche construction Early attempts at applying evolutionary theory to human behaviour were heavily criticized for failing to take development into account [70,117]. However, it remains a moot point as to whether the human evolutionary behavioural sciences have adequately addressed the arguments of those developmental and evolutionary biologists that emphasize developmental plasticity and the complex, constructive interplay between the developing organism and the environment [118][119][120].…”

Distinct neuropsychological subgroups in typically developing youth inform heterogeneity in children with ADHD

“…In the same way that investigators are often bound by the "cognitive box" (1) of the DSM when examining atypical development, they are also generally obliged to conduct their analysis as if typically developing comparison populations represent a monolithic group. Although consensus remains elusive on defining specific personality or cognitive "types" (18,19), substantial evidence has accrued that individual differences in successful adaptive psychological styles are central to human development, functioning, social cohesion, and health outcomes (20)(21)(22)(23). It may be that identifying a mechanism associated with a mental disorder requires comparing individuals to well-adjusted persons with the same cognitive style or profile.…”