Our age profile is much more complex than this.

A person may be physically more competent than others in their age

group, while being psychologically immature. So, how old are you?

Table 1.2 Age Periods of Development

Age Period Description

Starts at conceptions, continues through implantation in the uterine wall by the embryo, and ends at
Prenatal
birth.

Infancy and Toddlerhood Starts at birth and continues to two years of age.
Early Childhood Starts at two years of age until six years of age.

Middle and Late

Starts at six years of age and continues until the onset of puberty.
Childhood

Adolescence Starts at the onset of puberty until 18

Emerging Adulthood Starts at 18 until 25.

Early Adulthood Starts at 25 until 40-45.

Late Adulthood Starts at 65 onward.

adapted from Lally & Valentine-French, 2019

Table 1.2 shows the developmental periods that will be explored in this book, starting with prenatal development and
continuing thought late adulthood to death. Both childhood and adulthood are divided into multiple developmental
periods. So, while both an 8-month old and an 8-year-old are considered children, they have very different motor
abilities, social relationships, and cognitive skills. Their nutritional needs are different and their primary psychological
concerns are also distinctive. The same is true of an 18-year-old and an 80-year-old, even though both are considered
adults.

Prenatal Development: Conception occurs and development begins. All of the major structures of the body are forming,
and the health of the mother is of primary concern. Understanding nutrition, teratogens, or environmental factors that
can lead to birth defects, and labor and delivery are primary concerns.

Infancy and Toddlerhood: The first two years of life are ones of
dramatic growth and change. A newborn, with a keen sense of
hearing but very poor vision, is transformed into a walking,
talking toddler within a relatively short period of time.
Caregivers are also transformed from someone who manages
feeding and sleep schedules to a constantly moving guide and
safety inspector for a mobile, energetic child.

Early Childhood: This period is also referred to as the preschool

years and consists of the years that follow toddlerhood and
precede formal schooling. As a two to six-year-old, the child is
Figure 1.2 busy learning language, gaining a sense of self and greater
independence, and beginning to understand the workings of
the physical world.

Middle and Late Childhood: The ages of six to the onset of puberty comprise middle and late childhood, and much of
what children experience at this age is connected to their involvement in the early grades of school. Now the world

What is Development? | 11
becomes one of learning and testing new academic skills, and assessing one’s abilities and accomplishments by making
comparisons between self and others.

Adolescence: Adolescence is a period of dramatic physical change marked by an overall growth spurt and sexual
maturation, known as puberty. It is also a time of cognitive change as the adolescent begins to think of new possibilities
and to consider abstract concepts such as love, fear, and freedom. At the same time, adolescents have a sense of
invincibility that puts them at greater risk of accidents or contracting sexually transmitted infections that can have
lifelong consequences.

Emerging Adulthood: The period of emerging adulthood is a transitional time between the end of adolescence and
before individuals acquire all the benchmarks of adulthood. Continued identity exploration and preparation for full
independence from parents are negotiated. Although at one’s physiological peak, emerging adults are most at risk for
involvement in violent crimes and substance abuse.

Early Adulthood: The twenties and thirties are identified as early adulthood. Intimate relationships, establishing families
(of all shapes and sizes), and work are primary concerns at this stage of life. For adults with children, developmental
changes can become organized around the family life cycle.

Middle Adulthood: The forties through the mid-sixties are referred

to as middle adulthood. This is a period in which aging becomes more
noticeable and when many people are at their peak of productivity in
love and work. At this age, some people are negotiating adolescent
children and aging parents at the same time.

Late Adulthood: Late adulthood is sometimes subdivided into two

categories: The young-old who are from 65-84 years and the oldest-
old who are 85 years and older. One of the primary differences
between these groups is that the young-old are still relatively
healthy, productive, active, and the majority continue to live
independently. With both age groups the risks of diseases such as
arteriosclerosis, cancer, and cerebral vascular disease increase
substantially.

Meta-theories of Human Development Figure 1.3

The study of development is guided by the assumptions researchers hold about the nature of humans and their
development. These assumptions are called meta-theories. “Meta” means “above” or “beyond,” like “meta-physics.”
Other terms used to describe meta-theories are “world views,” “cosmologies,” “perspectives,” or “paradigms,” as in
“paradigm shifts.” Explicit discussions of meta-theories are found most often in philosophy.

What are meta-theories of human development?

Meta-theories (or world views or paradigms) of human development are sets of assumptions people hold about the nature
of humans and the meaning of development— what it looks like, how it happens, what causes it. These assumptions are
important because everyone has them, including researchers, but they are often implicit, meaning we are not always
consciously aware of them. In the study of development, such assumptions influence everything about how research is
conducted: the questions we ask, the measures and methods that are used, and the interpretation of data. For example,
if researchers assume that development ends at 18, they do not look for developmental changes after that age. Or, if

12 | What is Development?
researchers assume that aging is a process of decline, then they never look for characteristics that might improve as
people get older.

All researchers have meta-theories, since assumptions are baked into the theories and methodologies they use.
But researchers are often unaware of them, and so these assumptions are rarely acknowledged. It is important to note
that meta-theories are not just cold cognitions. They are often deeply held convictions that researchers will fiercely
defend. Typically researchers think that their assumptions are self-evident truths. They are often convinced that their
assumptions are right and everyone else’s are wrong.

Researchers holding different meta-theories can have difficulty communicating with each other. Since they are asking
different questions and using different truth criteria for research, they often argue past each other or misunderstand
each other. One group of researchers will offer what they consider to be irrefutable proof of their ideas, which other
researchers then dismiss as irrelevant. Discrepancies, inconsistencies, arguments, and furor often characterize an area
of study in which researchers from multiple meta-theories are working.

What kinds of assumptions guide the study of human development?

We consider six key assumptions. You may have heard of many of them, since they are perennial issues in the study of
development. They include:

1. Assumptions about human nature: whether people are born as blank slates (tabula rasa) or whether people are
inherently good or inherently bad.

2. Assumptions about the causes of development: whether development is determined by nature (genes, biology) or
determined by nurture (environment, learning).

3. Assumptions about the role of the individual in his or her own development: whether people are passive
participants, reacting to external forces or whether they are active in choosing and shaping their own
development.

4. Assumptions about stability vs. change: whether traits, characteristics, and experiences early in life have
permanent effects or whether people are malleable and open to change throughout life.

5. Assumptions about continuity vs. discontinuity: whether development involves quantitative incremental change or
qualitative shifts.

6. Assumptions about universality vs. context specificity: whether development follows a universal pathway or
depends more on specific experiences and environmental contexts.

Nature of humans. What is the nature of humans? These assumptions refer to beliefs about the underlying qualities
of our species– whether humans are born as blank slates (tabula rasa) or whether we all bring intrinsic human
characteristics with us into the world. For example, these different assumptions are readily apparent in alternative
conceptualizations of motivation—some theories assume that motives and motivation are all acquired, whereas others
assume that all humans come with intrinsic motivations.

Nature and Nurture: Why are you the way you are? As you consider some of your features (height, weight, personality,
being diabetic, etc.), ask yourself whether these features are a result of heredity or environmental factors, or both.
Chances are, you can see the ways in which both heredity and environmental factors (such as lifestyle, diet, and so
on) have contributed to these features. For decades, scholars have carried on the “nature/nurture” debate. For any
particular feature, those on the side of nature would argue that heredity plays the most important role in bringing about
that feature. Those on the side of nurture would argue that one’s environment is most significant in shaping the way
we are. This debate continues in all aspects of human development, and most scholars agree that there is a constant

What is Development? | 13
interplay between the two forces. It is difficult to isolate the root of any single behavior as a result solely of nature or
nurture.

Active versus Passive: How much do you play a role in your own developmental path? Are you at the whim of your
genetic inheritance or the environment that surrounds you? Some theorists see humans as playing a much more active
role in their own development. Piaget, for instance believed that children actively explore their world and construct
new ways of thinking to explain the things they experience. In contrast, many behaviorists view humans as being more
passive in the developmental process.

Stability versus Change: How similar are you to how you were as a child? Were you always as out-going or reserved
as you are now? Some theorists argue that the personality traits of adults are rooted in the behavioral and emotional
tendencies of the infant and young child. Others disagree, and believe that these initial tendencies are modified by social
and cultural forces over time.

Continuity versus Discontinuity: Is human development best

characterized as a slow, gradual process, or is it best viewed as
one of more abrupt change? The answer to that question often
depends on which developmental theorist you ask and what
topic is being studied. The theories of Freud, Erikson, Piaget,
and Kohlberg are called stage theories. Stage theories or
discontinuous development assume that developmental change
Figure 1.4. The tree represents continuous development while occurs in distinct stages that are qualitatively different from each
the ladybug represents discontinuous development other, and that unfold in a set, universal sequence. At each stage
of development, children and adults have different qualities and
characteristics. Thus, stage theorists assume development is discontinuous. Others, such as the behaviorists, Vygotsky,
and information processing theorists, assume development is a more slow and gradual process known as continuous
development. For instance, they would see the adult as not possessing new skills, but as using more advanced skills that
were already present in some form in the child. Brain development and environmental experiences contribute to the
acquisition of more developed skills.

Universal vs. context specific. A final assumption focuses on whether pathways of development are presumed to be
(1) normative and universal, meaning that all people pass through them in the same sequence, or (2) differential and
specific, meaning that a variety of different patterns and pathways of developmental change are possible depending on
the individual and the context. Some theorists, like Piaget or Erickson, assume that everyone progresses through the
same stages of cognitive development in the same order, or that everyone negotiates the same set of developmental
tasks at about the same ages. Other theorists, who endorse lifespan or ecological systems approaches, believe that
development can take on a wide variety of patterns and pathways, depending on the specific cultural, historical, and
societal under which it unfolds.

What are the guiding meta-theories in human development?

These six basic assumptions are clustered into “packages” that go together. Clusters are organized around metaphors,
which are at the root of meta-theories of humans and their development. We consider four meta-theories, each with
its own metaphor: (1) humans as seeds, as depicted by Maturational meta-theories; (2) humans as machines, as depicted
in Mechanistic meta-theories (3) humans as butterflies, as depicted in Organismic meta-theories; and (4) humans as
participants in a tennis game, conversation, or dance, as depicted by Contextualist meta-theories. For an overview of
these guiding meta-theories, see this chart [pdf].

1. Maturational meta-theory: Maturational meta-theories can be understood using the plant as a metaphor. It is as if
humans develop the same way as plants. The important thing to study is people’s “seeds,” that is, their genetic

14 | What is Development?
 make-up. People are assumed to be passive, the product of their genes. The environment can provide support and
nutrition (rain, sun, and soil), but can’t change a person’s nature (poppy seeds will always produce poppies). The
role of the person is to be reactive—to their genes. The course of development will be continuous or discontinuous
depending on the genetic program, although acorns always grow into oak trees.

2. Mechanistic meta-theory: Mechanistic meta-theories can be understood using the machine as a metaphor. It is as
if humans change the same way as machines. People are assumed to be made up of pieces that can be studied
apart from the rest of them. They are passive, with the energy coming from outside (like gasoline for a car).
Development is continuous and people do not develop into something else (a car stays a car). The person can only
react to the environment that is controlling them (like a car responding to the gas pedal or the brake). All causes
for development come from the outside, from environmental forces.

3. Organismic meta-theory: Organismic meta-theories can be understood using the butterfly as a metaphor. It is as
if humans develop the same way as butterflies. People are assumed to be made up of structured wholes. Their
nature is to be curious, interested, and open to growth. They are active and develop through discontinuous
qualitatively different stages (like the caterpillar, chrysalis, and butterfly). People construct their own next steps in
development based on the affordances and opportunities provided by the environment. Development is caused by
imbalances that lead to structural reorganizations. Development is progressive (gets better) and only goes in one
direction (from caterpillar toward butterfly) and not the reverse.

4. Contextual meta-theory: Contextual meta-theories can be understood using the tennis game (or dance) as a
metaphor. It is as if humans’ development is like a game of tennis or a dance. The important thing to study is the
back and forth between the person and his or her context, both of which are assumed to be proactive and acting
on their own agendas. Development can be continuous or discontinuous depending on how the game is played.
Both person and environment are active partners in the system, which can lead to transformations in both.

What are examples of theories that fall within each meta-theory?

Nested within each higher-order meta-theory are sets of lower-level approaches or theories called “families” of
perspectives or theories to denote that they share common properties, based on their similarity to the root metaphors
and characteristics of the guiding meta-theories. This table contains several examples of “big” theories of development
and provides an analysis of their defining features according to the meta-theoretical assumptions we have been
discussing [pdf]. Based on this analysis, we indicate the higher-order family to which we think each big theory or
approach belongs.

Although maturational meta-theories were prevalent in the beginning of the 20th century, their popularity has waxed
and waned since then, and they have taken on many different forms. These include some formulations of behavioral
genetics, sociobiology, evolutionary, ethological, neuroscience, temperament, and personality theories. Maturational
assumptions are signaled by concepts such as “trait,” the search for “the aggression gene,” the discovery of the brain
system, hormone, or neurotransmitter responsible for a specific condition, or any other terms that suggest development
is solely the product of innate or immutable characteristics of individuals. Although they are not typically referred to
as “maturational,” there are many kinds of theories that place all the active ingredients of behavior or development
inside the head (or more specifically the social cognitions) of the person. Even if they are not direct descendants, these
theories can be considered cousins of Maturational meta-theories because they are exclusively focused on the role of
the individual.

The prototypic Mechanistic theories are behaviorist, operant, and classical conditioning learning theories, like social
learning theory. This family of theories dominated psychology from the early to the mid-20th century, but Mechanistic
theories are still alive and well in many areas, such as learning and motivation, and especially in many theories
that have been adapted for use in educational systems. New kinds of machines serve as prototypes for mechanistic
theories of memory, learning, and automatic functioning—focusing on the computer, the robot, and the automaton.

What is Development? | 15
Such assumptions have even pervaded our understanding of biological systems, as seen in metaphors like “the brain is
a computer.” And although the “cognitive revolution” was supposed to have overthrown behaviorist assumptions, some
cognitivistic theories treat humans as if they were information processing machines.

Perhaps surprisingly, there are also mechanistic assumptions embedded in certain progressive analyses of the effects
of societal and social conditions, such as poverty, oppression, racism, and discrimination, which sometimes seem to
imply that these external forces are the sole determinants of the development of stereotypes or implicit attitudes. In
this case, because all people are presumed to passively internalize these societal prejudices, psychological phenomena
are modeled after the metaphor of the “Xerox machine.” Just as in Maturational meta-theories, where humans could be
seen as “hosts” to their genes, who were really running the show, in Mechanistic meta-theories, humans can be seen as
“hosts” to their own behaviors, which are automatically reflexively produced based on previous social programming.

The prototypical Organismic theory is Piaget’s constructivist theory of cognitive and affective development, and the
several neo-constructivist theories that were inspired by Piaget, for example, Kohlberg’s theory of the development
of moral reasoning. Other theories living under the Organismic umbrella include Werner’s comparative psychology,
focusing on the orthogenetic principle of differentiation and integration, and Erikson, who posited universal age-
graded developmental tasks. Other theories that claim kinship with Organismic meta-theories (e.g., theories of intrinsic
motivation) do not typically include notions of universal stages or tasks, but focus instead on Organismic assumptions
about the nature of humans, specifically, that humans are innately active, curious, and interested, and inherently desire
to explore, understand, and fit in with their social and physical environments. With the rise of radical contextualism and
cultural relativism in psychology, theories of “universal” anything (e.g., psychological needs, stages, developmental tasks)
have come increasingly under attack.

Some of the better-known members of the Contextualist family include Bronfenbrenner’s bio-ecological model and
the lifespan approach, both of which arose in reaction to dominant meta-theories of their day (experimental child
psychology and Piagetian psychology, respectively), with their almost exclusive focus on the child as a developing
individual. The “contextualist” moniker reflects these perspectives’ insistence that development unfolds within and is
shaped by higher-order multi-level ecological or contextual forces outside the individual, such as microsystem settings,
and societal, cultural, and historical contexts.

Does the field of psychology have meta-theories?

During different historical periods, specific meta-theories dominated the field of psychology. For example, during the
1940s and 1950s, behaviorism held sway. In the 1960s, Piaget’s theories were introduced to the United States and
captured the field’s attention. Some fierce theoretical and empirical battles were fought between behaviorists and
Piagetians.

When a specific meta-theory governs the field, it becomes very difficult for researchers from opposing meta-theories
to work—they have trouble getting funding, they have trouble getting their research findings published, and they are
marginalized by other researchers. For example, when the area of motivation was dominated by behaviorists (who
believed that all behavior was motivated by rewards and punishments), it was very difficult for researchers to study and
publish research on intrinsic motivation.

What is the dominant meta-theory in the field today?

“Cognitivism” is a guiding meta-theory in the field of psychology today. “Cognitivism” is the assumption that all the
causal factors that shape human behavior and development are inside the mind or belief system of the person. You
can hear the assumptions in the theories of the field: self-efficacy, self-esteem, attributions, perceived social support,
values, sense of purpose, goal orientations, internal working model, identity, and so on.

The paradigm that is currently taking over the field of psychology is neuroscience. That is, the brain is in charge of

16 | What is Development?
behavior, and neurobiology is destiny. Some branches of neuroscience are predominantly Maturational, as seen in
discussions of the brain systems responsible for certain actions, predilections, and characteristics. Other branches are
more Contextual, for example, research on neuroplasticity, which examines the way that social contexts and interactions
shape the developing brain.

News flash: In the field of psychology outside developmental, most researchers assume that people don’t develop.
In personality, social, cognitive, and industrial-organizational psychology, researchers largely examine individual
differences as indicators of people’s permanent characteristics.

Who else has meta-theories?

Everyone has meta-theories about human nature and development: parents, teachers, nurses, social workers, doctors,
business people, artists, politicians, and so on.

For example,

• doctors assume that weight loss is all about diet and exercise (nurture), so no one can do research on physiological
differences in metabolism (nature).

• teachers have assumptions about whether students come with motivation (nature) or have to be motivated from
the outside (nurture), and organize their classrooms accordingly.

• parents often argue about the nature of children’s development, whether it’s just the child’s personality
(maturational), or the child is going through a normal stage (organismic), or if they are rewarding the wrong
behavior (mechanistic).

What is the meta-theory that guides our class and this book?

Our class endorses a life-span perspective on human development, a contextualist perspective that fought its way
through the dominant perspectives in child psychology (e.g., development ends at age 18), starting in the 1980s
to become one of the dominant meta-theories governing the field of developmental science today. Note that your
instructors chose your book, so their meta-theory is influencing the meta-theoretical filter through which you are
learning about development.

What is the correct meta-theory?

There is no single correct definition of development or meta-theory. Really. Even the lifespan approach has its
drawbacks.

However, as research accumulates, many theories derived from certain meta-theories have been found to be
incomplete—so far researchers have not found any significant aspect of development that is caused only by nature or
only by nurture. Therefore, most researchers currently say they favor interactionist metatheories, like contextualist or
systems meta-theories. However, it is important to look carefully at researchers’ actual work, because sometimes they
say that they have one meta-theory, but their work seems to be guided by assumptions from a different meta-theory.

Do I have a meta-theory about development?

Yes, you do. And you can figure out what it is. Although it’s not easy, you can discern your own assumptions about
development—by thinking about which assumptions make the most sense to you. You can also see which kinds of
theories you prefer and what kinds of recommendations you would make about how to structure development, like how
people should parent, teach, or make policies. The hardest part about discovering your own meta-theory is realizing that
it is made up of assumptions you have (based on your experiences and messages from society)—that aren’t necessarily
true. Our meta-theories sure seem true to each of us!

What is Development? | 17
How do I get rid of my meta-theory?

It’s not really possible to get rid of all of our assumptions. It is our goal to be aware of our own assumptions or meta-
theories, to realize that they are not the truth but are our current working models of how the world operates and people
develop. The most important thing is to be explicit about our assumptions and to be cognizant of how they are guiding
our actions. It is a goal of this class to help students figure out their own assumptions and to help them become (or
remain) open to alternative viewpoints.

Adapted from: Ellen Skinner, Glen Richardson, Jennifer Pitzer, and Cynthia Taylor. Portland State University. July 2011.

Historical Theories of Development

Preformationist View: Well into the 18th century, children were merely
thought of as little adults. Preformationism, or the belief that a tiny, fully
formed human is implanted in the sperm or egg at conception and then
grows in size until birth, was the predominant early theory. Children
were believed to possess all their sensory capabilities, emotions, and
mental aptitude at birth, and as they developed these abilities unfolded
on a predetermined schedule (Thomas, 1979). The environment was
thought to play no role in determining development.

John Locke (1632-1704): Locke, a British philosopher, refuted the idea of

innate knowledge and instead proposed that children are largely shaped
by their social environments, especially their education as adults teach
them important knowledge. He believed that through education a child
learns socialization, or what is needed to be an appropriate member of
society. Locke advocated thinking of a child’s mind as a tabula rasa or
blank slate, and whatever comes into the child’s mind comes from the
environment. Locke emphasized that the environment is especially
powerful in the child’s early life because he considered the mind the Figure 1.5. A 17th century illustration of tiny people
inside a sperm
most pliable then. Locke indicated that the environment exerts its
effects through associations between thoughts and feelings, behavioral repetition, imitation, and rewards and
punishments (Crain, 2005). Locke’s ideas laid the groundwork for the behavioral perspective and subsequent learning
theories of Pavlov, Skinner and Bandura.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778): Like Locke, Rousseau also believed that children were not just little adults. However,
he did not believe they were blank slates, but instead developed according to a natural plan which unfolded in different
stages (Crain, 2005). He did not believe in teaching them the correct way to think, but believed children should be
allowed to think by themselves according to their own ways and an inner, biological timetable. This focus on biological
maturation resulted in Rousseau being considered the father of developmental psychology. Followers of Rousseau’s
developmental perspective include Gesell, Montessori, and Piaget.

Arnold Gesell (1880-1961): Gesell spent 50 years at the Yale Clinic of Child Development, and with his colleagues he
studied the neuromotor development of children. Gesell believed that the child’s development was activated by genes
and he called this process maturation (Crain, 2005). Further, he believed that development unfolded in fixed sequences,
and he opposed efforts to teach children ahead of schedule as he believed they will engage in behaviors when their
nervous systems had sufficiently matured.

18 | What is Development?