Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T07:26:12.782Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Coping with complexity: Developmental systems and multilevel analyses in developmental psychopathology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 December 2013

Peter J. Marshall
Peter J. Marshall*
Affiliation:
Temple University
*
Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Peter J. Marshall, Department of Psychology, Temple University, 1701 North 13th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19122; E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Developmental psychopathology is not characterized by adherence to one specific theory but instead serves as an organizational framework in which research is driven by a number of key assumptions. In the developmental psychopathology approach, two primary assumptions emphasize the importance of systems thinking and the utility of multilevel analyses. As will be illustrated here, these emphases are inextricably linked: a systems approach necessitates a multilevel approach, such that a level of organization must bring coherence to a level of mechanisms. Given this assumption, coming to an integrative understanding of the relation between levels is of central importance. One broad framework for this endeavor is relational developmental systems, which has been proposed by certain theorists as a new paradigm for developmental science. The implications of embracing this framework include the potential to connect developmental psychopathology with other approaches that emphasize systems thinking and that take an integrative perspective on the problem of levels of analysis.

Type
Regular Articles
Information
Development and Psychopathology , Volume 25 , Issue 4pt2: Development and Psychopathology: A Vision Realized , November 2013 , pp. 1311 - 1324
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Addington, A. M., & Rapoport, J. L. (2012). Annual research review: Impact of advances in genetics in understanding developmental psychopathology. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 53, 510–518.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beauchaine, T. P., Neuhaus, E., Brenner, S. L., & Gatzke-Kopp, L. (2008). Ten good reasons to consider biological processes in prevention and intervention research. Development and Psychopathology, 20, 745–774.Google Scholar
Bergman, L. R., von Eye, A., & Magnusson, D. (2006). Person-oriented research strategies in developmental psychopathology. In Cicchetti, D. & Cohen, D. J. (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology: Vol. 1. Theory and method (2nd ed., pp. 850–888). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Blachowicz, J. (2012). Essential difference: Toward a metaphysics of emergence. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Bretherton, I., & Munholland, K. A. (1999). Internal working models in attachment relationships: A construct revisited. In Cassidy, J. & Shaver, P. R. (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 89–111). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Brunetti, C. R., Selegue, J. E., Monteiro, A., French, V., Brakefield, P. M., & Carroll, S. B. (2001). The generation and diversification of butterfly eyespot color patterns. Current Biology, 11, 1578–1585.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burnette, M. L., & Cicchetti, D. (2012). Multilevel approaches toward understanding antisocial behavior: Current research and future directions. Development and Psychopathology, 24, 703–704.Google Scholar
Cairns, R. B., & Cairns, B. D. (2006). The making of developmental psychology. In Lerner, R. M. & Damon, W. (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol 1. Theoretical models of human development (6th ed., pp. 89–165). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Charney, E. (2012). Behavior genetics and postgenomics. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35, 331–358.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cicchetti, D. (1990). A historical perspective on the discipline of developmental psychopathology. In Rolf, J. E., Masten, A. S., Cicchetti, D., Nuechterlein, K. H., & Weintraub, S. (Eds.), Risk and protective factors in the development of psychopathology (pp. 2–28). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cicchetti, D. (2008). A multiple-levels-of-analysis perspective on research in development and psychopathology. In Beauchaine, T. P. & Hinshaw, S. P. (Eds.), Child and adolescent psychopathology (pp. 27–57). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Cicchetti, D. (2010). Developmental psychopathology. In Lamb, M. E., Freund, A. M., & Lerner, R. M. (Eds.), The handbook of life-span development: Vol. 2. Social and emotional development (pp. 511–589). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Cicchetti, D. (2011). Pathways to resilient functioning in maltreated children: From single-level to multilevel investigations. In Cicchetti, D. & Roisman, G. I. (Eds.), Minnesota symposia on child psychology: Vol. 36. The origins and organization of adaptation and maladaptation (pp. 423–459). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Cicchetti, D., & Cannon, T. D. (1999). Neurodevelopmental processes in the ontogenesis and epigenesis of psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 11, 375–393.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cicchetti, D., & Cohen, D. J. (2006). Developmental psychopathology (Vols. 1–3). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Cicchetti, D., & Curtis, W. J. (2006). The developing brain and neural plasticity: Implications for normality, psychopathology, and resilience. In Cicchetti, D. & Cohen, D. J. (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology: Vol. 2. Developmental neuroscience (2nd ed., pp. 1–64). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Cicchetti, D., & Curtis, W. J. (2007). Multilevel perspectives on pathways to resilient functioning. Development and Psychopathology, 19, 627–629.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cicchetti, D., & Rogosch, F. A. (1996). Equifinality and multifinality in developmental psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 597–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cicchetti, D., & Roisman, G. I. (2011). Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology: Vol. 36. The origins and organization of adaptation and maladaptation. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cicchetti, D., & Thomas, K. M. (2008). Editorial: Imaging brain systems in normality and psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 20, 1023–1027.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cicchetti, D., & Toth, S. L. (Eds.). (1991). Rochester Symposium on Developmental Psychopathology: Vol. 3. Models and integrations. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.Google Scholar
Cicchetti, D., & Toth, S. L. (1997). Transactional ecological systems in developmental psychopathology. In Luthar, S. S., Burack, J. A., Cicchetti, D., & Weisz, J. R. (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology: Perspectives on adjustment, risk, and disorder (pp. 317–349). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, A. (1998). Being there: Putting brain, body, and world together again. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clark, A. (2013). Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36, 181–253.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Craik, K. J. W. (1943). The nature of explanation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Craver, C. F. (2007). Explaining the brain. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curran, P. J., & Willoughby, M. T. (2003). Implications of latent trajectory models for the study of developmental psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 15, 581–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dennett, D. C. (1987). The intentional stance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dewsbury, D. A. (1999). The proximate and the ultimate: Past, present, and future. Behavioural Processes, 46, 189–199.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ellis, B. J., & Bjorklund, D. F. (2012). Beyond mental health: An evolutionary analysis of development under risky and supportive environmental conditions. Developmental Psychology, 48, 591–597.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Engel, A. K. (2010). Directive minds: How dynamics shapes cognition. In Stewart, J., Gapenne, O., & Paolo, E. A. D. (Eds.), Enaction: Toward a new paradigm for cognitive science (pp. 219–243). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, D. H., & Lerner, R. M. (1992). Developmental systems theory: An integrative approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Garmezy, N., Masten, A. S., & Tellegen, A. (1984). The study of stress and competence in children: A building block for developmental psychopathology. Child Development, 55, 97–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gehring, W. J. (1998). Master control genes in development and evolution: The homeobox story. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Gilbert, S. F. (2001). Ecological developmental biology: Developmental biology meets the real world. Developmental Biology, 233, 1–12.Google Scholar
Gilbert, S. F. (2010). Developmental biology (10th ed.). Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.Google Scholar
Gilbert, S. F., & Sarkar, S. (2000). Embracing complexity: Organicism for the 21st century. Developmental Dynamics, 219, 1–9.3.0.CO;2-A>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godfrey-Smith, P. (2000). Explanatory symmetries, preformationism, and developmental systems theory. Philosophy of Science, 67, S322–S331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gottfried, G. M., Gelman, S. A., & Schultz, J. (1999). Children's understanding of the brain: From early essentialism to biological theory. Cognitive Development, 14, 147–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gottlieb, G. (1992). Individual development and evolution: The genesis of novel behavior. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gottlieb, G. (1998). Normally occurring environmental and behavioral influences on gene activity: from central dogma to probabilistic epigenesis. Psychological Review, 105, 792–802.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gottlieb, G. (2007). Probabilistic epigenesis. Developmental Science, 10, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gottlieb, G., & Willoughby, M. T. (2006). Probabilistic epigenesis of psychopathology. In Cicchetti, D. & Cohen, D. J. (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology: Vol. 1. Theory and method (2nd ed., pp. 673–700). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. (1977). Ever since Darwin: Reflections on natural history. New York: W. H. Norton.Google Scholar
Granic, I., & Hollenstein, T. (2006). A survey of dynamic systems methods for developmental psychopathology. In Cicchetti, D. & Cohen, D. J. (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology: Vol. 1. Theory and method (2nd ed., pp. 889–930). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Granic, I., & Patterson, G. R. (2006). Toward a comprehensive model of antisocial development: A dynamic systems approach. Psychological Review, 113, 101–131.Google Scholar
Greenberg, G., & Partridge, T. (2010). Biology, evolution, and psychological development. In Overton, W. F. & Lerner, R. M. (Eds.), The handbook of life-span development: Vol. 1. Cognition, biology, and methods (pp. 115–148). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Griffiths, P., & Gray, R. (1994). Developmental systems and evolutionary explanation. Journal of Philosophy, 91, 277–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, P., & Knight, R. D. (1998). What is the developmentalist challenge? Philosophy of Science, 65, 253–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grigorenko, E. L., & Cicchetti, D. (2012). Genomic sciences for developmentalists: The current state of affairs. Development and Psychopathology, 24, 1157–1164.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hall, B. K. (1992). Evolutionary developmental biology. London: Chapman & Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ho, M. W. (2010). Development and evolution revisited. In Hood, K., Halpern, C. T., Greenberg, G., & Lerner, R. M. (Eds.), Handbook of developmental science, behavior, and genetics (pp. 61–109). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollenstein, T. (2011). Twenty years of dynamic systems approaches to development: Significant contributions, challenges, and future directions. Child Development Perspectives, 5, 256–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ialongo, N. (2010). Steps substantive researchers can take to build a scientifically strong case for the existence of trajectory groups. Development and Psychopathology, 22, 273–275.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jablonka, E., & Lamb, M. W. (2005). Evolution in four dimensions: Genetic, epigenetic, behavioral, and symbolic variation in the history of life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jablonka, E., & Raz, G. (2009). Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance: Prevalence, mechanisms, and implications for the study of heredity and evolution. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 84, 131–176.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. (2008). What makes a body? Journal of Speculative Philosophy, 22, 159–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.Google Scholar
Keller, E. F. (2005). DDS: Dynamics of developmental systems. Biology and Philosophy, 20, 409–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keller, E. F. (2010). The mirage of a space between nature and nurture. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Keller, E. F. (2011). Genes, genomes, and genomics. Biological Theory, 6, 132–140.Google Scholar
Kendler, K. S. (2012). The dappled nature of causes of psychiatric illness: Replacing the organic–functional/hardware–software dichotomy with empirically based pluralism. Molecular Psychiatry, 17, 377–388.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kiverstein, J. (2012). The meaning of embodiment. Topics in Cognitive Science, 4, 740–758.Google Scholar
Kosslyn, S. M., & Koenig, O. (1992). Wet mind: The new cognitive neuroscience. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Kuo, Z. Y. (1939). Studies in the physiology of the embryonic nervous system: IV. Development of acetylcholine in the chick embryo. Journal of Neurophysiology, 2, 488–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehrman, D. S. (1970). Semantic and conceptual issues in the nature–nurture problem. In Aronson, L. R., Tobach, E., Lehrman, D. S., & Rosenblatt, J. S. (Eds.), Development and evolution of behavior: Essays in memory of T. C. Schneirla (pp. 17–52). San Francisco, CA: Freeman.Google Scholar
Lerner, R. M. (2002). Concepts and theories of human development. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lerner, R. M. (2006). Developmental science, developmental systems, and contemporary theories of human development. In Lerner, R. M. & Damon, W. (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 1–17). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Lerner, R. M. (2012). Developmental science: Past, present, and future. International Journal of Developmental Science, 6, 29–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lerner, R. M., & Overton, W. F. (2008). Exemplifying the integrations of the relational developmental system: Synthesizing theory, research, and application to promote positive development and social justice. Journal of Adolescent Research, 23, 245–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lerner, R. M., & Overton, W. F. (2012). Relational developmental systems: A paradigm for developmental science in the postgenomic era. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35, 375–376.Google Scholar
Lerner, R. M., Theokas, C., & Bobek, D. L. (2005). Concepts and theories of human development: Historical and contemporary dimensions. In Bornstein, M. H. & Lamb, M. E. (Eds.), Developmental science: An advanced textbook (5th ed., pp. 3–43). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lickliter, R., & Honeycutt, H. (2003). Developmental dynamics: Toward a biologically plausible evolutionary psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 819–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Main, M. (1991). Metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive monitoring, and singular (coherent) vs. multiple (incoherent) model of attachment: Findings and directions for future research. In Parkes, C. M., Stevenson-Hinde, J., & Marris, P. (Eds.), Attachment across the life cycle (pp. 127–159). New York: Tavistock/Routledge.Google Scholar
Mangold, H., & Spemann, H. (1924). Über induktion von embryonalanlagen durch implantation artfremder organisatoren [Induction of embryonic primordia by implantation of organizers from a different species]. Roux's Archiv für Entwicklungsmechanik, 100, 599–638.Google Scholar
Mangold, H., & Spemann, H. (2001). Induction of embryonic primordia by implantation of organizers from a different species. International Journal of Developmental Biology, 45, 13–38.Google Scholar
Manning, A., & Dawkins, M. S. (2012). An introduction to animal behavior (6th ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marr, D. (1982). Vision. San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Marshall, P. J. (2009). Relating psychology and neuroscience: Taking up the challenges. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 113–125.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marshall, P. J. (in press). Embodiment, development, and neuroscience. In Overton, W. F. & Molenaar, P. C. (Eds.) & Lerner, R. M. (Series Ed.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science (7th ed., Vol. 1). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Marshall, P. J., & Comalli, C. E. (2012). Young children's changing conceptualizations of brain function: Implications for teaching neuroscience in early elementary settings. Early Education and Development, 23, 4–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living (Vol. 42). Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meaney, M. J. (2010). Epigenetics and the biological definition of gene × environment interactions. Child Development, 81, 41–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mikhailov, A. T. (2005). Putting evo-devo into focus: An interview with Scott F. Gilbert. International Journal of Developmental Biology, 49, 9–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, G. A. (2003). The cognitive revolution: A historical perspective. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 141–144.Google Scholar
Miller, G. A. (2010). Mistreating psychology in the decades of the brain. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 716–743.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Minelli, A. (2009). Forms of becoming. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molenaar, P. C. M. (2010). Testing all six person-oriented principles in dynamic factor analysis. Development and Psychopathology, 22, 255–259.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Molenaar, P. C. M., Huizenga, H. M., & Nesselroade, J. R. (2003). The relationship between the structure of interindividual and intraindividual variability: A theoretical and empirical vindication of developmental systems theory. In Staudinger, U. M. & Lindenberger, U. (Eds.), Understanding human development: Dialogues with life span psychology (pp. 339–360). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mun, E. Y., Bates, M. E., & Vaschillo, E. (2010). Closing the gap between person-oriented theory and methods. Development and Psychopathology, 22, 261–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nesselroade, J. R., & Molenaar, P. C. M. (2010). Emphasizing intraindividual variability in the study of development over the life span: Concepts and issues. In Overton, W. F. & Lerner, R. M. (Eds.), The handbook of life-span development: Vol. 1. Cognition, biology, and methods (pp. 30–54). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Nesselroade, J. R., & Ram, N. (2004). Studying intraindividual variability: What we have learned that will help us understand lives in context. Research in Human Development, 1, 9–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Overton, W. F. (1991). Competence, procedures, and hardware: Conceptual and empirical considerations. In Chandler, M. & Chapman, M. (Eds.), Criteria for competence: Controversies in the conceptualization and assessment of children's abilities (pp. 19–42). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Overton, W. F. (2006). Developmental Psychology: Philosophy, concepts, methodology. In Lerner, R. M. & Damon, W. (Eds.), Theoretical models of human development (6th ed., pp. 18–88). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Overton, W. F. (2007). A coherent metatheory for dynamic systems: Relational organicism–contextualism. Human Development, 50, 154–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Overton, W. F. (2008). Embodiment from a relational perspective. In Overton, W. F., Mueller, U., & Newman, J. L. (Eds.), Developmental perspectives on embodiment and consciousness (pp. 1–18). New York: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Overton, W. F. (2010). Life-span development: Concepts and issues. In Overton, W. F. & Lerner, R. M. (Eds.), The handbook of life-span development: Vol. 1. Cognition, biology, and methods (pp. 1–29). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Overton, W. F. (2013). Relationism and relational-developmental-systems: A paradigm for developmental science in the post-Cartesian era. In Benson, J. (Series Ed.) & Lerner, R. M. (Vol. Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior: Vol. 44. Embodiment and epigenesis: Theoretical and methodological issues in understanding the role of biology within the relational developmental system (pp. 21–64). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Overton, W. F., & Dick, A. S. (2007). A competence–procedural and developmental approach to logical reasoning. In Roberts, M. J. (Ed.), Integrating the mind: Domain general vs. domain specific processes in higher cognition (pp. 233–256). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Overton, W. F., & Horowitz, H. A. (1991). Developmental psychopathology: Integrations and differentiations. In Cicchetti, D. & Toth, S. L. (Eds.), Rochester symposia on developmental psychopathology: Vol. 3. Models and integrations (pp. 1–42). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.Google Scholar
Overton, W. F., & Lerner, R. M. (2012). Relational developmental systems: A paradigm for developmental science in the postgenomic era. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35, 375–376.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oyama, S. (1985). The ontogeny of information: Developmental systems and evolution. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Oyama, S., Griffiths, P. E., & Gray, R. D. (2001). Cycles of contingency: Developmental systems and evolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ozonoff, S., Pennington, B. F., & Solomon, M. (2006). Neuropsychological perspectives on developmental psychopathology. In Cicchetti, D. & Cohen, D. J. (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology: Vol. 2. Developmental neuroscience (2nd ed., pp. 332–380). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Partridge, T. (2011). Methodological advances toward a dynamic developmental behavioral genetics: Bridging the gap. Research in Human Development, 8, 242–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pepper, S. C. (1942). World hypotheses. Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1977). The development of thought: Equilibration of cognitive structures. Oxford: Viking.Google Scholar
Pradeu, T. (2010). The organism in developmental systems theory. Biological Theory, 5, 216–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ricco, R. B., & Overton, W. F. (2011). Dual systems competence ←-→ procedural processing: A relational developmental systems approach to reasoning. Developmental Review, 31, 119–150.Google Scholar
Robert, J. S. (2004). Embryology, epigenesis, and evolution: Taking development seriously. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robert, J. S., Hall, B. K., & Olson, W. M. (2001). Bridging the gap between developmental systems theory and evolutionary developmental biology. Bioessays, 23, 954–962.Google Scholar
Rudel, D., & Sommer, R. J. (2003). The evolution of developmental mechanisms. Developmental Biology, 264, 15–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rutter, M. (2012). Gene–environment interdependence. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9, 391–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sameroff, A. J. (1983). Developmental systems: Contexts and evolution. In Kessen, W. (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (1st ed., pp. 237–294). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Sameroff, A. J. (2000). Developmental systems and psychopathology. Developmental and Psychopathology, 12, 297–312.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Santostefano, S. (2010). Developmental psychopathology—Self, embodiment, meaning: A holistic-systems perspective. In Overton, W. F. & Lerner, R. M. (Eds.), The handbook of life-span development: Vol. 1. Cognition, biology, and methods (pp. 792–836). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1980). Minds, brains, and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 417–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shea, N. (2011). Developmental systems theory formulated as a claim about inherited representations. Philosophy of Science, 78, 60–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spemann, H. (1938). Embryonic development and induction. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, J. P., & Buss, A. T. (2011). Finding a way out: Why developmental science does not need another “ism.” Child Development Perspectives, 3, 166–168.Google Scholar
Sroufe, L. A., & Rutter, M. (1984). The domain of developmental psychopathology. Child Development, 55, 17–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stanovich, K. E. (2009). Distinguishing the reflective, algorithmic, and autonomous minds: Is it time for a tri-process theory? In Evans, J. S. B. T. & Frankish, K. (Eds.), In two minds: Dual processes and beyond (pp. 55–88). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sterba, S. K., & Bauer, D. J. (2010). Matching method with theory in person-oriented developmental psychopathology research. Development and Psychopathology, 22, 239–254.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stewart, J., Gapenne, O., & Di Paolo, E. A. (Eds.). (2010). Enaction: Toward a new paradigm for cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stiles, J. (2008). The fundamentals of brain development: Integrating nature and nurture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stotz, K. (2008). The ingredients for a postgenomic synthesis of nature and nurture. Philosophical Psychology, 21, 359–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thelen, E., & Smith, L. (1994). A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, E. (2007). Mind in life: Biology, phenomenology, and the sciences of mind. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press/Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tinbergen, N. (1963). On aims and methods of ethology. Zeitschrift fur Tierpsychologie, 55, 410–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.Google Scholar
van Geert, P. (2011). The contribution of complex dynamic systems to development. Child Development Perspectives, 5, 273–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Geert, P. (2012). Dynamic systems. In Laursen, B., Little, T. D., & Card, N. A. (Eds.), Handbook of developmental research methods (pp. 725–741). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
von Baer, K. E. (1956). Commentar zu der schrift: De ovi mammalium et hominis genesi. Zeitschrift für Organische Physik, 2. In Meyer, A. W. (Trans.), Human generation: Conclusions of Burdach, Döllinger and von Baer (pp. 90–123). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. (Original work published 1828)Google Scholar
von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General system theory: Foundations, development, applications. New York: George Braziller, Inc.Google Scholar
von Eye, A. (2010). Developing the person-oriented approach: Theory and methods of analysis. Development and Psychopathology, 22, 277–285.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
von Eye, A., Bergman, L. R., & Hseih, C.-A. (in press). Person-oriented approaches. In Overton, W. F. & Molenaar, P. C. (Eds.) & Lerner, R. M. (Series Ed.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science: Theory and methods (7th ed., Vol. 1). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Waddington, C. W. (1957). The strategy of the genes. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Wahlsten, D. (2012). The hunt for gene effects pertinent to behavioral traits and psychiatric disorders: From mouse to human. Developmental Psychobiology, 54, 475–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiss, P. A. (1939). Principles of development: A text in experimental embryology. New York: Henry Holt.Google Scholar
Werner, H. (1948). Comparative psychology of mental development. New York: International University Press.Google Scholar
Wiers, R., Ames, S. L., Hofmann, W., Krank, M., & Stacy, A. (2010). Impulsivity, impulsive and reflective processes and the development of alcohol use and misuse in adolescents and young adults. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, article 144. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00144CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wimsatt, W. C. (2007). Reengineering philosophy for limited beings. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witherington, D. C. (2011). Taking emergence seriously: The centrality of circular causality for dynamic systems approaches to development. Human Development, 54, 66–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witherington, D. C., & Margett, T. E. (2011). How conceptually unified is the dynamic systems approach to the study of psychological development? Child Development Perspectives, 5, 286–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolpert, L. (1994). Do we understand development? Science, 266, 571–572.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed