Psych
This week, you explore classical (i.e., seminal, important and older) and contemporary (i.e., more recent) developmental theories. Theories are vital to the psychology profession, as they inform practice, research, and trends. You must critically evaluate theories to determine which theories are applicable to certain developmental processes. For each theory, examine the construct (e.g., cognition, motivation, intelligence, etc.) that has been emphasized. Think about how this construct relates to developmental processes. For example, a toddler’s intelligence differs in quality from an adult’s intelligence. By examining developmental theories of intelligence, such as Sternberg’s Triarchic Theory of Intelligence, you can gain an understanding of the basis for developmental differences in toddler and adult intelligence.
When examining theories, it is important to delineate the strengths and limitations of each theory. Think about how each theory accounts for atypical development or a developmental delay. If a specific construct is identified, ask yourself: Can the theory be extended to apply to other constructs, as well? Does the theory adequately predict future behavior? How would one apply a particular theory to help improve people’s lives? Keep these questions in mind as you examine classical and contemporary theories.
Contrast developmental theories
Analyze strengths and limitations of developmental theories in terms of developmental processes
Classical TheoriesContemporary Theories
Psychoanalytic/Psychosexual
Psychosocial
Behaviorism/Learning
Social Learning
Cognitive-Developmental
Information Processing
Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience
Ethology/Evolutionary Developmental
Sociocultural
Systems Theory
Post a brief description of the two theories you selected (one classical and one contemporary). Contrast the theories you selected. Specifically, identify important similarities and differences, including an explanation of the strengths and limitations of each theory in explaining developmental processes (i.e., cognitive, physical, and social-emotional). Note: Your descriptions should be in paragraph form, not bullet points. Use your Learning Resources and/or other scholarly sources to support your post. Use proper APA format and citations.
Research in Human Development, 11: 247254, 2014
Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1542-7609 print / 1542-7617 online
DOI: 10.1080/15427609.2014.967045
INTRODUCTION
Rethinking Developmental Science
Carolyn M. Aldwin
Oregon State University
The articles in this issue are all based on the invited addresses given by the authors at the 2013 biennial
meeting of the Society for the Study of Human Development. All of the authors address the unfolding
paradigm shift in developmental sciences, from reductionism to relational developmental system the-
ories. This theoretical stance involves the recognition of Individual context transactions, with
multiple coacting partners existing in dynamic relationships across the life span and life course. The
articles address not only theoretical issues, but also methodological advances and their applications.
Although acknowledging the importance of new data collection and analytical techniques that permit
the testing of more complex theoretical models, the articles demonstrate that well-designed questions
from this theoretical perspective can also yield novel findings which are highly relevant to current
real-world problems and social policy issues.
This issue of Research in Human Development (RHD) is special for two reasons. First, it com-
prises invited addresses from the 2013 biannual meeting of the Society for the Study of Human
Development (SSHD), in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. As such, I cannot really take credit for the
compilation of this issuethat honor rightfully belongs to Willis (Bill) Overton, who organized
the conference as president-elect of the SSHD and invited this group of luminaries in the field
of developmental science, and who is providing the commentary to this issue. Nonetheless, it
has been a privilege to work with these authors, who have been highly instrumental in spear-
heading cutting-edge issues in developmental science and who have contributed really terrific
articles.
Second, this is my last issue as editor of RHD. I started in the summer of 2009, taking over
from Erin Phelps, who ably shepherded this journal for several years. It has really been a tremen-
dous amount of fun (and work). RHD is an unusual journal in several ways. It is one of the few
Address correspondence to Carolyn M. Aldwin, Human Development and Family Sciences, College of Public
Health & Human Sciences, Oregon State University, 424 Waldo Hall, Corvallis, OR 97330. E-mail: [emailprotected]
oregonstate.edu
mailto:[emailprotected]
mailto:[emailprotected]
248 ALDWIN
journals that is life span, multidisciplinary, and embraces multimethod approaches. Further, we
publish only special issues. Thus, we welcome proposals that have articles representing all stages
of life, and from several disciplines, including psychological, sociology, philosophy, and biology.
The topics of our issues in the past 5 years have ranged from epigenetics and evolutionary biol-
ogy (Greenberg, 2014; Wanke & Spittle, 2011) and systems science (Urban, Osgood, & Mabry,
2011) to the life course effects of military service (Spiro & Settersten, 2012) and immigrant
families (Marks & Abo-Zena, 2013) to wisdom (Trowbridge & Ferrari, 2011) and mindfulness
(Frank, Jennings, & Greenberg, 2013). We also have a strong focus on tremendously excit-
ing methodswhich are often our most-cited articlesincluding not only quantitative articles
addressing longitudinal methods that treat time in some quite astonishing ways (e.g., Gersdorf,
Haupmann, & Ram, 2014; Ram & Gersdorf, 2009) to qualitative issues studying unusual sam-
ples in depth, providing remarkable insights (Catania & Dolcini, 2012). Given that this is my last
issue, I would like to join my colleagues in reflecting upon the tremendous advances that have
been made in the developmental sciences and the challenges still to come.
Living Through a Paradigm Shift
As Antonucci and Webster (this issue) aptly observed, we have the good fortune to be living
in the interesting times of a paradigm shift in developmental science. This shift from radical
behaviorism that was the dominant paradigm in psychology when I was an undergraduate in the
1970s to todays relational developmental systems paradigm is remarkable. A little reflection on
how we got here might prove useful.
In the old radical behaviorism, all behavior could be reduced to environmental contingencies,
and thought but the conditioned reflexes of throat muscles. Luckily, I went to Clark University,
whose psychology department was the bastion of German organismic developmental theory, with
its emphasis on development throughout the life span reflecting qualitative shifts in the relation-
ship among components of a system. The legacy of Heinz Werner lived on through Seymour
Wapner and Bernie Kaplan, who challenged the reductionistic behaviorist paradigm that so dom-
inated much of the 20th-century psychology. This school also influenced the Human Development
and Family Sciences program at the Pennsylvania State University through K. Warner Schaie and
Paul Baltes, who were also instrumental in organizing a year series of seminars and books at
West Virginia University that promoted various aspects of developmental theory in the 1970s and
1980s. Urie Bronfenbrenners ecological systems theory at Cornell University challenged dis-
ciplinary boundaries, as did Feyerabends (1975) denunciation of methodological monismthe
idea that one method was the only means of discovery.
There was also a growing emphasis on interdisciplinary education. My graduate program at
the University of California at San Francisco in adult development and aging provided immersion
into the psychology, sociology, and anthropology of aging and was one of the first in the country
to have a graduate group, whose members spanned multiple disciplines and campuses. I also had
the good fortune to work with Richard Lazarus, who was one of the originators of the cognitive
revolution in psychology, reinstating the central roles of thoughtand subjectivitythrough
emphasis on the importance of the stress appraisal processes. He emphasized the importance
of transactionsthat neither reductionism nor interactionism adequately reflected appraisal
INTRODUCTION TO A SPECIAL ISSUE 249
processes, which resulted from a transaction between the person and the environment, which
mutually influenced each other. Coping was also influenced by personal preferences and environ-
mental contingencies, and was a fluid, proactive process that changed as a function of changing
environmental contexts and appraisals. In health psychology, though, the function of coping with
stress was to return an organism to homeostasis. My contribution was to add a developmental
perspective to this transactional model, examining coping with stress as either a deviation ampli-
fying or deviation countering process, setting off positive developmental trends, negative spirals,
or a return to homeostasis (Aldwin & Stokols, 1988). Thus, it was delightful to see Lerners work
on developmental systems theory (Ford & Lerner, 1992) and Reese and Overtons (1970) classic
work on developmental theory, now evolved into relational developmental systems theory (see
Lerner, Agans, DeSouza, & Hershberg, this issue; Overton, this issue). Thus, it is not surprising
that the contributors to this issue were all involved in some aspects of this paradigm shift.
As Lerner et al. (this issue) so cogently argued, developmental science has been undergoing a
remarkable shift from reductionism to a relational developmental perspective, with its emphasis
on mutually influencing components in dynamic change patterns over time. This is seen quite
dramatically in the shift from the old behavioral genetics, with its failed attempt to reduce psy-
chological processes to an out-of-date Mendelian genetics, to the new emphasis on epigenetics
and the recognition that the genes are a dynamic system that change quite rapidly over rather short
time scales. An argument can be made that it is not only developmental science that is undergoing
this paradigm shift, but that much, if not all, of science is turning from reductionistic models to
ones involving systems approaches. Certainly subatomic particles are especially stubborn in their
refusal to follow reductionistic strictures. And though molecular genetics is still the dominant
paradigm in biology, epigenetics, ecological models, and systems biology are all following this
paradigm shift. In public health, systems approaches are also gathering momentum, supported
by the emphasis on systems science methods within the National Institutes of Health Office of
Behavioral and Social Sciences Research (http://obssr.od.nih.gov/scientific_areas/methodology/
systems_science/).
As Lerner et al. (this issue) point out, the emergence of this paradigm is supported by a plethora
of new statistical methods. After all, if the only method available is analysis of variance, it is dif-
ficult to think outside the box of discrete variables having main effects, and, if one were lucky,
interaction effects. For a long time, our theories outstripped the methods, but now there is a variety
of statistical models that permit more sophisticated questions to be asked and analyzed. Structural
equation modelling allows for the examination of mediating and moderating effects in models
with multiple variables, pathways, and outcomes, and longitudinal cross-lagged terms allow for
examination of mutual influences over time. Multilevel models permit within-person analyses,
examining individual and contextual differences in how variables covary. Group-based multilevel
modelling can examine patterns of individual differences in how individuals change over time.
In personality theory, for example, Lachman (1988) stated that the question of Does personal-
ity change over time was far too simplistic, and needed to be replaced by more sophisticated
questions such as Which personality variables change, for whom, and in what circumstances.
However, as Libens (this issue) and Connidis (this issue) contributions so aptly show,
hypertrophied methods are not necessary to asking sound research questions from a relational
developmental perspective. Libens work emphasizes that development is not an individual
processrather, it occurs within an individual context nexus, resulting from coaction
250 ALDWIN
between constructive and contextual processes. She describes developmental intergroup theory,
which posits the operation of relational processes in which child and context inextricably give
and take meaning to and from one another (p. 274). One of the most troublesome social
phenomena is the social prejudice that arises as a function of group membership. This funda-
mental identity is often the source of outgroup prejudice and is one of the sources of much of the
nastier sources of conflict in the world, including prejudice against the Jews, African Americans,
and other racial/ethnic minorities, apartheid in South Africa, the Serbian-Bosnian conflict, the
Troubles in Northern Ireland, the Israelis and the Palestinians, and centuries-old conflict between
Shia and Sunni Muslims. Developmental processes are involved in the development and in the
maintenance and modification of stereotypes and prejudices. Understanding this process is crucial
to the development of effective intervention programs, as Liben so ably documented with regard
to gender stereotyping. How these types of programs might be enacted in adulthood, though, is
an open question. The model is purposively a general one, applicable to a wide range of topics,
and theoretically at least, should be applicable to adults as well.
Connidis (this issue) did take a life course perspective. As she noted, most of the work in
the relational developmental area focuses on individuals and their immediate contexts, but, as
such, this perspective is also applicable to bridging the micro- and macrodivide. In particular,
understanding individuals as actors within a larger relational system allows one to transcend the
zero-sum perspective that pervades much of social policy. For example, it is widely assumed
that the greedy old geezer lobby protects its own social programs at the expense of childrens
programs. However, from a life course relational perspective, it can be that older generations
devote a considerable amount of their resources to younger generations, and young adult financial
stability and opportunities can result in supporting older generations. Thus, understanding how
family, intergenerational, and public policy systems coact can inform more productive social
policy and programs.
Antonucci and Webster (this issue), also celebrate this paradigm shift to a relational develop-
mental systems perspective. They not only cite the growing spread of systems theory perspectives,
but also celebrate the plethora of new types of data collection, from functional magnetic resonance
imaging (fMRI) that allows us to examine how different parts of the brain work together to better
ways of tracking eye movements to study attention as the interplay between the person and the
environment. New computerized data collection techniques allow for data collection in real time
(e.g., ecological momentary assessment) to the use of the Internet to examine big data. We now
have the capabilities of multiple perspectives, data collection, and analytical techniques to really
examine issues from cells to society. The impact of stress on development is a great example.
Stress and stress-reducing processes exist at the cellular levels, affect mental and physical health,
transact with the immediate environment, and are strongly influenced by social policy. At the
genetic level, stress hormones can result in the methylation and down regulation of genes that
regulate the stress process, perhaps leading to greater vulnerability in adulthood (Miller, Chen, &
Parker, 2011).
Antonucci and Webster (this issue) also caution that the flowering of conceptual and method-
ological opportunity also creates inherent dangersit is simply not possible for any one person to
span all of cells to society research, nor to be equally facile with all of the new data collection and
analytical techniques. Thus, pace Liben, it is likely that we will see the continuation of ingroups
and outgroups within academia, as witnessed by the battles between molecular geneticists and
ecologists within biology, or the disciplinary differences in preferred statistical methods.
INTRODUCTION TO A SPECIAL ISSUE 251
One new developmental perspective that is not well represented in this issue involves purposive
development. In the old radical behaviorism, agency was simply absent, with operant and/or
classical conditioning being the dominant process. This gradually gave way to behavior as a
function of geneenvironment interactions, which still neglected agency. One of the most positive
aspects of relational developmental system theories is their emphasis on agency and coaction
that individuals actively construct the meaning of their environment, as well as their transactions
with the environment, and thus construct themselves as well. With this coconstruction comes the
opportunity for change and development. However, how agency develops is not addressed well
by this system.
We have argued elsewhere (Aldwin, 2007) that adult development is purposivethat is, that
individuals can make conscious decisions to change aspects of themselves. In Brandstdter,
Wentura, and Rothermunds (1999) theory, this is accomplished by setting goals and striving
towards those goals. Stress also forms a context for adult developmentthat major stressors
can challenge individuals assumption systems, including their assumptions about themselves,
and can afford the opportunity for better insight into ourselves and our relationships with others
(Aldwin, 2007). Having a minor heart attack, for example, can prompt changes in health behav-
ior habits. Going through ones third divorce may require serious consideration about how one
relates to others. We have also argued that development in adulthood changes as much through
loss of negative aspects of the self as through acquisition of more positive aspects (Levenson,
Aldwin, & Cupertino, 2001).
Thus, agencyor what Baumeister (2008) termed free willmust reflect developmental
processes, in which individuation from contextual influences occurs, allowing for the deploy-
ment of free will. Levenson and Crumpler (1996) argued that Habermas (1971) emancipatory
knowledge-constitutive interest is the goal of adult developmentthat is, increasing freedom
from biological and social conditioning. Thus, it is not that classical and operant conditioning
processes are invalidthey do indeed demonstrably existbut that individuals cannot make con-
scious choices if they are not aware of what influences themwhat McKee and Barber (1999)
called seeing through illusion.
Not surprisingly, this seeing through illusion is also a major element of the development of
wisdom. While there is currently no one accepted definition of wisdom, one such published in
RHD held that:
Wisdom is a practice that reflects the developmental process by which individuals increase in self-
knowledge, self-integration, nonattachment, self-transcendence, and compassion, as well as a deeper
understanding of life. This practice involves better self-regulation and ethical choices, resulting in
greater good for oneself and others. (Aldwin, 2009, p. 3)
Lerner et al. (this issue) argue that the ultimate goal of relational developmental systems the-
ories is to optimize human development and to promote social justice, defined as providing
opportunities for all individuals to optimize their chances of positive, healthy development
(p. 258), enhancing the lives of all individuals and groups. As such, developmental science
provides an
intellectual tool box, the means to work to promote a better life for all people, to give diverse
individuals the requisite chances needed to maximize their aspirations and actions aimed at being
active producers of their positive development, and to promote a more socially just world. (p. 266)
252 ALDWIN
As admirable as this goal is, and as much as I agree with it, von Neumann-Morgensterns theo-
rem cautions that it is not possible to maximize all variables in an equation at oncethat choices
must be made as to which variable (or person or group) to maximize at any given time. By hiring
one individual to hopefully improve the functioning of an organization, one is by definition not
providing the other candidates with that same opportunity. Global warming is good in the short
term for some species of beetles which no longer experience population die offs over the winter,
but terrible for the forests that sustain them. Thus, social justice requires the exercise of wisdom,
which involves the self-transcendence of ones own immediate needs in service of the greater
good, and the perspicacity to see the multiple possible outcomes of any given action, as well as
compassion for the suffering of others.
Examples of this on a grand scale include Nelson Mandela, Dr. Martin Luther King, Gandhi,
Desmond Tutu, Mother Teresa, and the Dalai Lama. For example, Mandela could have promoted
the dominance of his own ethnic group over others in South Africa, as unfortunately the leaders
in the fledgling democracies in Africa and the Middle East appear to be doing today. However,
he saw the wisdom of forgiveness and had compassion for the fears of the all of the groups in his
country, and worked toward unification.
Wisdom is also a coconstruction between the individual and the environment. Few develop
wisdom in the absence of role models, and the importance of wisdom does not lie so much in the
individuals well-being, but in the well-being of the community. As Antonucci and Webster (this
issue) noted, abusive parenting can be transmitted across generations, but positive parenting
even adoptive parentingcan also be transmitted. Thus, research is needed to examine whether
wisdom is also transmitted intergenerationally, and if the presence of wise individuals results in
greater community well-being.
One offshoot of this paradigm shift toward relational developmental systems is the idea of con-
scious evolutionthat we as a species have the capacity to consciously influence the course of
evolution (e.g., Laszlo, 2007). That is, the choices that we make influence not only our own devel-
opment and that of our community, but the well-being of other species as well. We can engage
in policies that will result in massive environmental change, and rapid dying off of many species,
or we can expand our understanding of morality to include aspects of our ecology. Templeton
and Eccles (2008) work on expanding circle morality also reflects these concerns. Thus, with
this understanding of human plasticity and developmental capacity, and the fundamental inter-
relationship of all things, comes the moral imperative to act in an ethical manner towards all
beings. In Tibetan Buddhism, humans are the eyes of the worldthat part of the world which
is conscious and thus can lead to self-knowledge and intrinsic freedom for all (Longchenpa,
2000)a lofty and probably unrealizable goal, but one with great implications for moral and
human development.
In a small way, editing RHD has allowed me the opportunity to contribute to this paradigm shift
in developmental theory, for which I am grateful. The incoming editors are Richard Settersten and
Megan McClelland, who are also eminent scholars with broad interdisciplinary backgrounds.
I look forward very much to seeing the further evolution of RHD.
FUNDING
Preparation of this article was supported by National Institutes of Health Grant AG032037.
INTRODUCTION TO A SPECIAL ISSUE 253
REFERENCES
Aldwin, C. M. (2007). Stress, coping, and development: An integrative approach (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.
Aldwin, C. M. (2009). Gender and wisdom: A brief overview. Research in Human Development, 6, 18.
Aldwin, C., & Stokols, D. (1988). The effects of environmental change on individuals and groups: Some neglected issues
in stress research. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 8, 5775.
Antonucci, T. C., & Webster, N. J. (2014). Rethinking cells to society. Research in Human Development, 11(4), 309322.
Baumeister, R. (2008). Free will in scientific psychology. Perspectives in Psychological Science, 3, 1419.
Brandtstdter, J., Wentura, D., & Rothermund, K. (1999) Intentional self-development through adulthood and later
life: Tenacious pursuit and flexible adjustment of goals. In J. Brandtstdter & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Action and
self-development: Theory and research through the life span (pp. 373400). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Catania, J. A., & Dolcini, M. M. (2012). Social-ecological perspective on vulnerable youth: toward an understanding of
sexual development among urban African American adolescents. Research in Human Development, 9(1), 18.
Connidis, I. A. (2014). Age relations and family ties over the life course: Spanning the macro-micro divide. Research in
Human Development, 11(4), 291308.
Feyerabend, P. (1975). Against method. London, England: Verso.
Ford, D. H., & Lerner, R. M. (1992). Developmental systems theory: An integrative approach. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Frank, J. L., Jennings, P. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2013). Mindfulness-based interventions in school settings: an
introduction to the special issue. Research in Human Development, 10(3), 205210.
Gerstorf, D., Hoppmann, C. A., & Ram, N. (2014). The promise and challenges of integrating multiple time-scales in
adult developmental inquiry. Research in Human Development, 11(2), 7590.
Greenberg, G. (2014). Emergence, self-organization, and developmental science: Introduction. Research in Human
Development, 11, 14.
Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and human interests. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Lachman, M. E. (1988). Personality and aging at the crossroads: Beyond stability vs. change. In K. W. Schaie & C.
Schooler (Eds.), Social structure and aging; Psychological processes (pp. 167189). New York, NY: Psychology
Press.
Lszl, E. (2007). Science and the Akashic field: An integral theory of everything. Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions.
Lerner, R. M., Agans, J. P., DeSouza, L. M., & Hershberg, R. M. (2014). Developmental science in 2025: A predictive
review! Research in Human Development, 11(4), 255272.
Levenson, M. R., Aldwin, C. M., & Cupertino, A. P. (2001). Transcending the self: Towards a liberative model of adult
development. In A. L. Neri (Ed), Maturidade & Velhice: Um enfoque multidisciplinar [Maturity and Aging: Toward
a multidisciplinary perspective] (pp. 99116). Sao Paulo, Brazil: Papirus.
Levenson, M. R., & Crumpler, C. (1996). Three models of adult development. Human Development, 39, 135149.
Liben, L. S. (2014). The individual context nexus in developmental intergroup theory: Within and beyond the ivory
tower. Research in Human Development, 11(4), 273290.
Longchenpa. (2000). You are the eyes of the world (trans. by K. Lipman & M. Peterson). Ithaca, NY: Snow Lion
Publications.
Marks, A. K., & Abo-Zena, M. M. (2013). What we might have missed: Lessons from diverse methodologies in the study
of immigrant families. Research in Human Development, 10, 285288.
McKee, P., & Barber, C. (1999). On defining wisdom. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 249,
149164.
Miller, G., Chen, E., & Parker, K. (2011). Psychological stress in childhood and susceptibility to the chronic diseases of
aging: Moving toward a model of behavioral and biological mechanisms. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 959997.
Overton, W. F. (2014). The process-relational paradigm and relational-developmental-systems metamodel as context.
Research in Human Development, 11(4), 323331.
Ram, N., & Gerstorf, D. (2009). Methods for the study of development Developing methods Research in Human
Development, 6, 6173.
Reese, H. W., & Overton, W. F. (1970). Models of development and theories of development. In L. R. Goulet & P. B.
Baltes (Eds.), Life-span developmental psychology: Research and theory (pp. 115145). New York, NY: Academic
Press
Spiro, A., III, & Settersten, R. A., Jr. (2012). Long-term implications of military service for later-life health and well-
being. Research in Human Development, 9(3), 183190.
254 ALDWIN
Templeton, J. L., & Eccles, J. A. (2008). Spirituality, expanding circle morality, and positive youth development. In R. M.
Lerner & R. W. Roesner (Eds.), Positive youth development and spirituality: From theory to research (pp. 197209).
West Consohocken, PA: Templeton Press.
Trowbridge, R. H., & Ferrari, M. (2011). Sophia and phronesis in psychology, philosophy, and traditional wisdom.
Research in Human Development, 8, 8994.
Urban, J. B., Osgood, N. D., & Mabry, P. L. (2011). Developmental systems science: Exploring the application of systems
science methods to developmental science questions. Research in Human Development, 8, 125.
Wanke, K. L., & Spittel, M. L. (2011). Advancing research in geneenvironment interplay: Can developmental science
lead the way? Research in Human Development, 8(3/4), 165172.
Copyright of Research in Human Development is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.
ABSTRACT
Living Through a Paradigm Shift
FUNDING
REFERENCES Linking Social Change and Developmental Change:
Shifting Pathways of Human Development
Patricia M. Greenfield
University of California, Los Angeles
P. M. Greenfields new theory of social change and human development aims to show how changing
sociodemographic ecologies alter cultural values and learning environments and thereby shift
developmental pathways. Worldwide sociodemographic trends include movement from rural resi-
dence, informal education at home, subsistence economy, and low-technology environments to
urban residence, formal schooling, commerce, and high-technology environments. The former
ecology is summarized by the German term Gemeinschaft (community) and the latter by the
German term Gesellschaft (society; Tonnies, 1887/1957). A review of empirical research dem-
onstrates that, through adaptive processes, movement of any ecological variable in a Gesellschaft
direction shifts cultural values in an individualistic direction and developmental pathways toward
more independent social behavior and more abstract cognitionto give a few examples of the
myriad behaviors that respond to these sociodemographic changes. In contrast, the (much less
frequent) movement of any ecological variable in a Gemeinschaft direction is predicted to move
cultural values and developmental pathways in the opposite direction. In conclusion, sociocultural
environments are not static either in the developed or the developing world and therefore must be
treated dynamically in developmental research.
Keywords: social change, culture, cognitive development, social development, learning
The goal in this article is to develop a theory that links social
change with developmental change. It therefore deals simulta-
neously with two scales of development: change within a lifetime
and change across succeeding generations. In the field of devel-
opmental psychology, one normally thinks of developmental tra-
jectories as a constant across historical time. Indeed, a theoretical
problem is that theory and research in cultural psychology, includ-
ing cultural developmental psychology, assume that cultures are
static rather than dynamic. This article, in contrast, presents a
theory that, paradoxically, sees change in developmental trajec-
tories as the constant. A major goal of the theory of social
change and human development is to explain how, as sociode-
mographic conditions change, cultural values and developmen-
tal patterns are transformed across generations. Because socio-
demographic conditions are changing throughout the worldin
the direction of greater urbanization, higher levels of formal
schooling, increasing commercialization, and ever higher levels
of technologythe influence of social change on developmen-
tal patterns is an important domain in which theory
