The field of developmental psychopathology has grown broadly. Here, I draw upon lessons learned from Dante Cicchetti to highlight areas that show promise for continued disciplinary advancement. These include attention to equifinality and multifinality in the conceptualization of initial study designs, and more emphasis on specificity in accounting for developmental change. A shift from reliance on external events and towards greater diversity of research approaches will allow researchers to devote attention to the variety of ways that individuals come to understand and then respond to their own life experiences. The field of developmental psychopathology holds tremendous promise for advancing basic science about human development that can be applied to create interventions that improve the well-being of individuals and address significant societal issues.

In this paper, dedicated to Dante Cicchetti’s contributions and enduring influence, we explore the prospective directions of developmental psychopathology. Our focus centers on key domains where Cicchetti’s significant achievements have continually shaped our evolving thinking about psychological development. These domains include (a) the concepts of equifinality and multifinality, along with the challenges in predicting developmental trajectories, (b) the imperative to integrate wider sociocultural viewpoints into developmental psychopathology frameworks, (c) the interplay of genetic and environmental influences in developmental courses, (d) the significance of mental state language, and (e) the progress, or its absence, in the development of prevention and intervention tactics for children, adolescents, and their caregivers. While many of our forecasts regarding the future of developmental psychopathology may not materialize, we maintain optimistic that the essential ideas presented will influence the research agenda in this field and contribute to its growth over the next fifty years.

The integrative nature of developmental psychopathology is its defining and most remarkable feature. Since its inception, often identified with the special issue of Child Development (Cichetti, 1984), this new discipline has shattered barriers and divisions that until then had artificially compartmentalized the study of human development, and perhaps even psychology in general, and it has proposed new ways of integrative thinking about development. One, developmental psychopathology has programmatically integrated research on typical or adaptive and atypical or maladaptive developmental processes and demonstrated how those inform each other. Two, developmental psychopathology has promoted bridges between developmental research and other disciplines. Three, less explicitly but equally importantly, developmental psychopathology has abolished conceptual and empirical barriers that had existed among various theories and perspectives within developmental psychology by creating a welcoming niche for research inspired by theories often historically seen as contradictory or incompatible. Ideas originating in psychoanalytic, learning, cognitive, ethological, and sociocultural theories all find a welcoming home and seamlessly coexist in heuristically productive harmony within developmental psychopathology, inform each other, and generate exciting questions and insights. This eclectic and conceptually inclusive nature is one reason for developmental psychopathology’s lasting appeal and inspirational power.

Since its launch in a 1984 Special Issue of Child Development, significant contributions and insights have followed that have expanded our understanding of psychopathology and normal human growth and development. Despite these efforts, there are persistent and under-analyzed skewed patterns of vulnerability across and within groups. The persistence of a motivated forgetfulness to acknowledge citizens’ uneven access to resources and supports, or as stated elsewhere, “inequality presence denial,” is, at minimum, a policy, social and health practice problem. This article will examine some of these issues from the standpoint of a universal human vulnerability perspective. It also investigates sources of resistance to acknowledging and responding to the scholarship production problem of uneven representations of basic human development research versus psychopathology preoccupations by race. Collectively, findings suggest interesting “patchwork” patterns of particular cultural repertoires as ordinary social and scholarly traditions.

A long-standing practice in clinical and developmental psychology research on childhood maltreatment has been to consider prospective, official court records to be the gold standard measure of childhood maltreatment and to give less weight to adults’ retrospective self-reports of childhood maltreatment, sometimes even treating this data source as invalid. We argue that both formats of assessment – prospective and retrospective – provide important information on childhood maltreatment. Prospective data drawn from court records should not necessarily be considered the superior format, especially considering evidence of structural racism in child welfare. Part I overviews current maltreatment definitions in the context of the developmental psychopathology (DP) framework that has guided maltreatment research for over 40 years. Part II describes the ongoing debate about the disproportionalities of minoritized children at multiple decision-making stages of the child welfare system and the role that racism plays in many minoritized families’ experience of this system. Part III offers alternative interpretations for the lack of concordance between prospective, official records of childhood maltreatment and retrospective self-reports, and for the differential associations between each format of data with health outcomes. Moving forward, we recommend that future DP research on childhood maltreatment apply more inclusive, diversity and equity-informed approaches when assessing and interpreting the effects of childhood maltreatment on lifespan and intergenerational outcomes. We encourage future generations of DP scholars to use assessment methods that affirm the lived experiences of individuals and families who have directly experienced maltreatment and the child welfare system.

The current Special Issue marks a major milestone in the history of developmental psychopathology; as the final issue edited by Cicchetti, we have an opportunity to reflect on the remarkable progress of the discipline across the last four decades, as well as challenges and future directions for the field. With contemporary issues in mind, including rising rates of psychopathology, health disparities, and international conflict, as well as rapid growth and accessibility of digital and mobile technologies, the discipline of developmental psychopathology is poised to advance multidisciplinary, developmentally- and contextually- informed research, and to make substantial progress in supporting the healthy development of individuals around the world. We highlight key future directions and challenges for the next generation of developmental psychopathology research including further investigation of culture at multiple levels of analysis, incorporation of macro-level influences into developmental psychopathology research, methods advances to address heterogeneity in translational research, precision mental health, and the extension of developmental psychopathology research across the lifespan.

In a thoughtful commentary in this journal a decade ago, Michael Rutter reviewed 25 years of progress in the field before concluding that developmental psychopathology (DP) initiated a paradigm shift in clinical science. This deduction requires that DP itself be a paradigm. According to Thomas Kuhn, canonical paradigms in the physical sciences serve unifying functions by consolidating scientists’ thinking and scholarship around single, closed sets of discipline-defining epistemological assumptions and methods. Paradigm shifts replace these assumptions and methods with a new field-defining framework. In contrast, the social sciences are multiparadigmatic, with thinking and scholarship unified locally around open sets of epistemological assumptions and methods with varying degrees of inter-, intra-, and subdisciplinary reach. DP challenges few if any of these local paradigms. Instead, DP serves an essential pluralizing function, and is therefore better construed as a metaparadigm. Seen in this way, DP holds tremendous untapped potential to move the field from zero-sum thinking and scholarship to positive-sum science and epistemological pluralism. This integrative vision, which furthers Dante Cicchetti’s legacy of interdisciplinarity, requires broad commitment among scientists to reject zero-sum scholarship in which portending theories, useful principles, and effective interventions are jettisoned based on confirmation bias, errors in logic, and ideology.

The field of developmental psychopathology has made significant contributions to our understanding of both typical and atypical development. However, while there are established theories for developmental psychopathology with detailed criteria for pathological outcomes, there is less agreement regarding development under optimal conditions and the definition of positive outcomes. In this conceptual paper, I make the case that a better understanding of positive child development is crucial because it will not only advance our general knowledge on human development but also complement current work on developmental psychopathology. After defining positive development as the development of positive functioning in children, such as skills, strengths, competencies, and wellbeing, rather than the absence of problems, current concepts with relevance for positive development are reviewed, before highlighting gaps in our knowledge on positive development and suggestions for future research. Although several of the reviewed frameworks provide important contributions to the conceptualization of positive development, most of them focus on positive functioning in adults with limited consideration of development in the early years. More research is needed that specifically targets the development of positive outcomes from early childhood onward in order to develop a more comprehensive and holistic theory of positive child development.

Developmental psychopathology has successfully advanced an understanding of risk and protective factors in multivariate models. However, many areas have relied on top-down approaches that define psychological constructs based largely or solely on their physical form. In this paper, we first describe how top-down approaches have significantly hindered progress by generating generic risk and protective models that yield little more than the conclusion that axiomatically positive and negative factors respectively beget an interchangeable array of positive and negative child sequelae. To advance precision and novelty as central priorities, we describe behavioral systems frameworks rooted in evolutionary theory that infuse both form (i.e., what it looks like) and function (what it is designed to do) into psychological constructs. We further address how this paradigm has generated new growing points for developmental models of interparental relationships and parenting. In the final section, we provide recommendations for expanding this approach to other areas of developmental psychopathology. Throughout the paper, we document how the focus on functional patterns of behavior in well-defined developmental contexts advance precision and novelty in understanding children’s response processes to threats, opportunities, and challenges in associations between their developmental histories and their psychological sequelae.

Developmental psychopathology started as an intersection of fields and is now a field itself. As we contemplate the future of this field, we consider the ways in which a newer, interdisciplinary field – human developmental neuroscience – can inform, and be informed by, developmental psychopathology. To do so, we outline principles of developmental psychopathology and how they are and/or can be implemented in developmental neuroscience. In turn, we highlight how the collaboration between these fields can lead to richer models and more impactful translation. In doing so, we describe the ways in which models from developmental psychopathology can enrich developmental neuroscience and future directions for developmental psychopathology.

This commentary discusses opportunities for advancing the field of developmental psychopathology through the integration of data science and neuroscience approaches. We first review elements of our research program investigating how early life adversity shapes neurodevelopment and may convey risk for psychopathology. We then illustrate three ways that data science techniques (e.g., machine learning) can support developmental psychopathology research, such as by distinguishing between common and diverse developmental outcomes after stress exposure. Finally, we discuss logistical and conceptual refinements that may aid the field moving forward. Throughout the piece, we underscore the profound impact of Dr Dante Cicchetti, reflecting on how his work influenced our own, and gave rise to the field of developmental psychopathology.

Dante Cicchetti propelled forward the field of developmental psychopathology by advancing this framework and championing new methods, including emphasizing the central role that multilevel analysis holds for explicating pathways of risk and resilience. His work continues to change the face of existing science. It has also paved the way for the formation of new projects, like the Research Domain Criteria initiative. This paper uses our laboratory’s work on multilevel approaches to studying adolescent depression, non-suicidal self-injury, and suicidal thoughts and behaviors to shine a spotlight on Dr Cicchetti’s contributions. In addition, we review recent developments, ongoing challenges, and promising future directions within developmental psychopathology as we endeavor to carry on the tradition of growth in the field.

In this article, we celebrate Dante Cicchetti’s extensive contributions to the discipline of developmental psychopathology. In his seminal article, he articulated why developmental psychopathology was imperative to create research portfolios that could inform the causes, consequences, and trajectories for adults often initiated by early lived experiences (Cicchetti, 1984). In this three-part article, we share our transdisciplinary efforts to use developmental psychopathology as a foundational theory from which to develop, implement, and evaluate interventions for populations who experienced early adversity or who were at risk for child abuse and neglect. After describing interventions conducted at Mt. Hope Family Center that spanned over three decades, we highlight the criticality of disseminating results and address policy implications of this work. We conclude by discussing future directions to facilitate work in developmental psychopathology. Currently, one of three national National Institute of Child Health and Human Development-funded child abuse and neglect centers, we look forward to continuing to build upon Dante’s efforts to disseminate this important work to improve society for our children, our nation’s often most vulnerable and forgotten citizens.

Two perspectives on the nature of nurture are reviewed, one Mendelian and the other Darwinian, in an effort to draw links between the two and, thereby, integrate them in a developmental modern synthesis, mirroring the one that took place in biology early in the last century. Thus, the heritability of environmental measures and gene-X-environment interaction are discussed with respect to Mendelian nature before turning attention to Darwinian nature and thus the development of reproductive strategies and differential susceptibility to environmental influences. Conclusions are drawn with respect to both frameworks indicating that it is time to abandon the biology-is-destiny resistance to both approaches to studying and thinking about development, especially when it comes to the nature of nurture. Implications for the future development of the field of developmental psychopathology are highlighted.

The field of developmental psychopathology tends to focus on the negative aspects of functioning. However, prosocial behavior and empathy-related responding – positive aspects of functioning– might relate to some aspects of psychopathology in meaningful ways. In this article, we review research on the relations of three types of developmental psychopathology– externalizing problems (EPs), internalizing problems (IPs), and Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) – to empathy-related responding (e.g., affective and cognitive empathy, sympathy, personal distress) and prosocial behavior. Empathy-related responding and prosocial behavior generally have been inversely related to EPs, although findings are sometimes reversed for young children and, for empathy, weak for reactive aggression. Some research indicates that children’s empathy (often measured as emotional contagion) and personal distress are positively related to IPs, suggesting that strong sensitivity to others’ emotions is harmful to some children. In contrast, prosocial behaviors are more consistently negatively related to IPs, although findings likely vary depending on the motivation for prosocial behavior and the recipient. Children with ASD are capable of prosocially and empathy-related responding, although parents report somewhat lower levels of these characteristics for ASD children compared to neurotypical peers. Issues in regard to measurement, motivation for prosociality, causal relations, and moderating and mediating factors are discussed.

The interdisciplinary field of developmental psychopathology has made great strides by including context into theoretical and empirical approaches to studying risk and resilience. Perhaps no context is more important to the developing child than their relationships with their caregivers (typically a child’s parents), as caregivers are a key source of stimulation and nurturance to young children. Coupled with the high degree of brain plasticity in the earliest years of life, these caregiving relationships have an immense influence on shaping behavioral outcomes relevant to developmental psychopathology. In this article, we discuss three areas within caregiving relationships: (1) caregiver–child interactions in everyday, naturalistic settings; (2) caregivers’ social cognitions about their child; and (3) caregivers’ broader social and cultural context. For each area, we provide an overview of its significance to the field, identify existing knowledge gaps, and offer potential approaches for bridging these gaps to foster growth in the field. Lastly, given that one value of a scientific discipline is its ability to produce research useful in guiding real-world decisions related to policy and practice, we encourage developmental psychopathology to consider that a focus on caregiving, a modifiable target, supports this mission.

Friendships are a potential factor that influence maltreated children’s risk for psychopathology. This systematic review examined (1) how friendships influence the association between child maltreatment and psychopathology and (2) developmental differences in how friendships influence this association. Four databases were searched. Inclusion criteria were primary study, quantitative, measures of maltreatment and friendship up to the age of 18 years, measures of psychopathology up to the age of 24 years, and a non-maltreated sample. Exclusion criteria were qualitative, reviews or meta-analyses, no distinction between maltreatment and other trauma, and no differentiation between friendships and other support. Risk of bias was assessed. Data were narratively synthesized. Two hundred thirty-five articles were retrieved for full review. Fourteen met inclusion criteria (N = 98,676 participants). Eleven of the fourteen studies found that some aspect of friendships influenced the association between maltreatment and psychopathology, with positive qualities generally decreasing risk and negative qualities increasing risk for psychopathology. However, peer support exacerbated maltreated children’s risk for psychopathology in two studies. Only three studies assessed friendship prior to adolescence, which precluded conclusions regarding developmental differences. Future research should consider developmental differences and use findings and validated measures from the peer relations literature to better understand how friendships influence maltreated youth’s vulnerability to psychopathology.

The ways that psychopathology manifests in adolescence have shifted dramatically over the past twenty-five years, with rates of many externalizing behaviors declining substantially while rates of anxiety and depressive disorders have skyrocketed. This paper argues that understanding these changes requires rethinking the field’s historically somewhat negative views of intense peer connections, peer influences, and adolescent risk-taking behavior. It is argued that intense peer connections are critical to development, and that peer influence and risk taking have important, often overlooked, adaptive components. The shift in observed manifestations of adolescent psychopathology over this period can be viewed at least partly in terms of a shift away from strong peer connections and toward greater risk aversion. Implications for research and intervention based on a focus on the adaptive aspects of peer influences and risk taking are discussed.

Under the leadership of its founding editor, Dante Cicchetti, Development and Psychopathology has been recognized for decades as the foremost journal integrating developmental theory and clinical research programs. Contributors have often highlighted the implications of attachment theory and research for understanding developmental processes and pathways, and as a testing ground for intervention strategies. In this paper we reflect on the strengths and limitations of the traditional developmental perspective. We suggest that behavioral, cognitive, and emotional development are better understood as a process of bricolage (construction within constraints). This perspective is illustrated in an analysis of change mechanisms, and behavioral and representational changes, in attachment development from pre-locomotor infancy to later adulthood. Special emphasis is placed on ordinary learning and cognitive processes, rather than those specific to attachment, and on the roles that socialization pressures and changing circumstances play in shaping the course of attachment development.

From its inception, development and psychopathology theorists have sought to uncover the earliest forms of risk for mental health challenges in children, to prevent the development of more severe, intractable manifestations of psychopathology. Large familial risk registries have advanced our understanding of early, potentially modifiable factors that could prevent or mitigate the expression of challenging symptoms of neurodevelopmental conditions, and similar registries have been proposed to advance understanding of ADHD and related phenotypes. Data from single-site studies, largely focused on perinatal exposure to maternal mood disorders, reveal that a robust predictor of child psychopathology is parental psychopathology. However, early developmental trajectories of psychopathology risk may be better captured using transdiagnostic approaches in pregnancy, capturing the full range of mental health symptoms. We describe here the need for a parental mental health registry that begins prenatally that includes deep behavioral phenotyping across a range of transdiagnostic indicators of mental health risk to prevent psychopathology in children. This registry has the potential to uncover pathways to psychopathology risk in childhood and support the discovery of novel mechanisms to be targeted for prevention and intervention.