Developmental Science: Integrating Knowledge About Dynamic Processes in Human Development

  • Herbert Scheithauer
  • Kay Niebank
  • Angela Ittel


There is an increasing need to develop an interdisciplinary model that describes the dynamic processes in human development. During the last decades several different theories depicting dynamic developmental processes have been formulated. In this chapter we briefly introduce these approaches and argue that developmental systems perspective (DSP) is one of the more promising approaches to depict how developmental patterns arise. Furthermore, we argue, that Developmental Science—an integrative, interdisciplinary framework—is a useful approach to account for the interplay of changes in individuals across the life span and thereby considering psychological, biological, social, societal, historical and cultural levels and their interdependent systems. We end by formulating strategies we foresee to be useful for all researchers who want to implement the principles of developmental science and developmental system perspective into their work.


Antisocial Behavior Item Response Theory Collective Variable Serotonin Transporter Gene Developmental Psychopathology 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Baltes, P. B., Reese, H., & Nesselroade, J. R. (1977). Life-span developmental psychology: Introduction to research methods. Monterey: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  2. Bennett, A. J. (2008). Gene environment interplay: Nonhuman primate models in the study of resilience and vulnerability. Developmental Psychobiology, 50, 48–59.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bergman, L. R., Cairns, R. B., Nilsson, L.-G., & Nystedt, L. (Eds.). (2000). Developmental science and the holistic approach. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  4. Berg-Nielsen, T. S., Vikan, A., & Dahl, A. A. (2002). Parenting related to child and parental psychopathology: A descriptive review of the literature. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 7, 529–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Cairns, R. B. (1996). Developmental science: Three audacious implications. In R. B. Cairns, G. H. Elder, Jr., & J. Costello (Eds.), Developmental science (pp. 49–62). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Camazine, S., Deneubourg, J.-L., Franks, N. R., Sneyd, J., Theraulaz, G., & Bonabeau, E. (2001). Self-organization in biological systems. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Carolina Consortium on Human Development. (1996). Developmental science: A collaborative statement. In R. B. Cairns, G. H. Elder, Jr., & J. Costello (Eds.), Developmental science (pp. 1–6). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Casey, B. J., & de Haan, M. (2002). Introduction: New methods in developmental science. Developmental Science, 5, 265–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Casey, B. J., & Munakata, Y. (2002). Converging methods in developmental science: An introduction. Developmental Psychobiology, 40, 197–199.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Caspi, A., McClay, J., Moffitt, T. E., Mill, J., Martin, J., Craig, I. W. et al. (2002). Role of genotype in the cycles of violence in maltreated children. Science, 297, 851–854.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Caspi A., Sugden K., Moffitt T. E., Taylor, A., Craig, I. W., Harrington, H. L. et al. (2003). Influence of life stress on depression: Moderation by a polymorphism in the 5-HTT gene. Science, 301, 386–389.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cicchetti, D., & Blender, J. A. (2004). A multiple-levels-of-analysis approach to the study of developmental processes in maltreated children. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101, 17325–17326.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cicchetti, D., & Tucker, D. (1994). Development and self-regulatory structures of the mind. Development and Psychopathology, 6, 533–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cowan, N. (2003). Comparisons of developmental modeling frameworks and levels of analysis in cognition: Connectionist and dynamic systems theories deserve attention, but don’t yet explain attention. Developmental Science, 6, 440–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Diez Roux, A. V. (2007). Integrating social and biologic factors in health research: A systems view. Annals in Epidemiology, 17, 569–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ehrlich, P., & Feldman, M. (2003). Genes and cultures. What creates our behavioural phenome? Current Anthropology, 44, 87–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Feldman, M. W., & Lewontin, R. C. (1975). The heritability hang-up. Science, 190, 1163–1168.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ferrer, E., Balluerka, N., & Widaman, K. F. (2008). Factorial invariance and the specification of second-order latent growth models. Methodology, 4, 22–36.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Fischer, K. W., & Rose, S. P. (1999). Rulers, models, and nonlinear dynamics: Measurement and method in developmental research. In G. Savelsbergh, H. van der Maas, & P. van Geert (Eds.), Nonlinear developmental processes (pp. 197–212). Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.Google Scholar
  21. Ford, D. H., & Lerner, R. M. (1992). Developmental systems theory. An integrative approach. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Gottlieb, G. (1970). Conceptions of prenatal behavior. In L. R. Aronson, E. Tobach, D. S. Lehrman, & J. S. Rosenblatt (Eds.), Development and evolution of behavior (pp. 111–137). San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
  23. Gottlieb, G. (1972). Ying-Yang Kuo: Radical scientific philosopher and innovative experimentalist (1898–1970). Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 80, 1–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gottlieb, G. (1991). Epigenetic systems view of human development. Developmental Psychology, 27, 33–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gottlieb, G. (2002). Individual development and evolution. Mahwah: Erlbaum. (Original work published 1992, Individual development and evolution: The genesis of novel behavior. New York: Oxford University Press.)Google Scholar
  26. Gottlieb, G. (2003). On making behavioral genetics truly developmental. Human Development, 46, 337–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gottlieb, G., & Halpern, C. T. (2002). A relational view of causality in normal and abnormal development. Development and Psychopathology, 14, 421–435.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gottlieb, G., Wahlsten, D., & Lickliter, R. (1998). The significance of biology for human development: A developmental psychobiological systems view. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & D. Kuhn & R. S. Siegler (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1.Theoretical models of human development (5th ed., pp. 233–273). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  29. Gottlieb, M. S. (2007). The developmental point of view: Anything can change everything; permission to doubt dogma, the Gilbert Gottlieb legacy. European Journal of Developmental Science, 1, 200–207.Google Scholar
  30. Gottesman, I., & Gould, T. (2003). The endophenotype concept in psychiatry: Etymology and strategic intentions. American Journal of Psychiatry, 160, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gottesman, I. I., & Hanson, D. R. (2005). Human development: Biological and genetic processes. Annual Review in Psychology, 56, 263–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gottman, J., Swanson, C., & Swanson, K. (2002). A general systems theory of marriage: Nonlinear difference equation modeling of marital interaction. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 326–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Granic, I. (2005). Timing is everything: Developmental psychopathology from a dynamic systems perspective. Developmental Review, 25, 386–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Granic, I., & Hollenstein, T. (2003). Dynamic systems methods for models of developmental psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 15, 641–669.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Greenberg, G. (2007). Why psychology is not a biological science: Gilbert Gottlieb and probabilistic epigenesis. European Journal of Developmental Science, 1, 111–121.Google Scholar
  36. Halpern, C. T., Hood, K. E., & Lerner, R. M. (Eds.). (2007). Integration nature and nurture through developmental science: The contributions of Gilbert Gottlieb. European Journal of Developmental Science, 1(2, Special Issue).Google Scholar
  37. Jelic, H., Theokas, C., Phelps, E., & Lerner, R. M. (2007). Conceptualizing and measuring the context within person ¬® context models of human development: Implications for theory, research and application. In T. D. Little, J. A. Bovaird, & N. A. Card (Eds.), Modeling contextual effects in longitudinal studies (pp. 437–456). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  38. Johnston, T. D., & Edwards, L. (2002). Genes, interactions, and the development of behavior. Psychological Review, 109, 26–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Josephs, I. E., & Valsiner, J. (2007). Developmental science meets culture: Cultural developmental psychology in the making. European Journal of Developmental Science, 1, 47–64.Google Scholar
  40. Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1997). Beyond modularity. Massachusetts: MIT.Google Scholar
  41. Kaufman, J., Yang, B.-Z., Douglas-Palumberi, H., Houshyar, S., Lipschitz, D., Krystal, J. H. et al. (2004). Social supports and serotonin transporter gene moderate depression in maltreated children. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101, 17316–17321.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Krist, H., Natour, N., Jäger, S., & Knopf, M. (1998). Kognitive Entwicklung im Säuglingsalter: Vom Neo-Nativismus zu einer entwicklungsorientierten Konzeption. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie, 30, 153–173.Google Scholar
  43. Kuo, Z.-Y. (1967). The dynamics of behavior development: An epigenetic view. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  44. Lavalli, M., Pantoja, A. P. F., Hsu, H.-C., Messinger, D., & Fogel, A. (2005). Using microgenetic designs to study change process. In D. M. Teti (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in developmental science (pp. 41–65). Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  45. Lerner, R. M., Dowling, E., & Chaudhuri, J. (2005). Methods of contextual assessment and assessing contextual methods: A developmental systems perspective. In D. M. Teti (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in developmental science (pp. 183–209). Malden: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., DeStefanis, I., & Apfel, A. (2001). Understanding developmental systems in adolescence: Implications for methodological strategies, data analytic approaches, and training. Journal of Adolescent Research, 16, 9–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lewis, M. D., Lamey, A. V., & Douglas, L. (1999). A new dynamic systems method for the analysis of early socioemotional development. Developmental Science, 2, 457–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lickliter, R. (2007). Kuo’s epigenetic vision for psychological sciences: Dynamic developmental systems theory. In J. Valsiner (Ed.), Thinking in psychological science. Ideas and their makers (pp. 315–329). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  49. Little, T. D., Bovaird, J. A., & Card, N. A. (Eds.). (2007). Modeling contextual effects in longitudinal studies. Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  50. Lorenz, K. Z. (1981). The foundations of ethology. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  51. Magnusson, D., & Cairns, R. B. (1996). Developmental science: Principles and illustrations. In R. B. Cairns, G. H. Elder, Jr., & J. Costello (Eds.), Developmental science (pp. 7–32). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Mareschal, D., & Thomas, M. S. C. (2001). Self-organisation in normal and abnormal cognitive development. In A. F. Kalverboer & A. Gramsbergen (Eds.), Brain and behavior in human development. A source book (pp. 743–766). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.Google Scholar
  53. Martins, C., & Gaffan, E. A. (2000). Effects of early maternal depression on patterns of infant-mother attachment: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41, 737–746.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. McArdle, J. J. (2001). A latent difference score approach to longitudinal dynamic structural analysis. In R. Cudeck, S. du Toit, & D. Sörbom (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: Present and future. A Festschrift in honor of Karl Jöreskog (pp. 341–380). Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
  55. McArdle, J. J., & Hamagami, F. (2001). Linear dynamic analyses of incomplete longitudinal data. In L. Collins & A. Sayer (Eds.), New methods for the analysis of change (pp. 139–175). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Metzger, M. A. (1997). Applications of nonlinear dynamical systems theory in developmental psychology: Motor and cognitive development. Nonlinear Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Sciences, 1, 55–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Molenaar, P. C. M. (1985). A dynamic factor model for the analysis of multivariate time series. Psychometrika, 50, 181–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Molenaar, P. C. M. (2007). Developmental systems theory contra developmental behavior genetics. Gilbert Gottlieb, in memoriam. European Journal of Developmental Science, 1, 138–144.Google Scholar
  59. Molenaar, P. C. M. (2008). On the implications of the classical ergodic theorems: Analysis of developmental processes has to focus on intra-individual variation. Developmental Psychobiology, 50, 60–69.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Munakata, Y., & McClelland, J. L. (2003). Connectionist models of development. Developmental Science, 6, 413–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Murray, L., & Cooper, P. J. (1997). Effects of depression on infant development. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 77, 99–101.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Nesselroade, J. R., & Schmidt McCollam, K. M. (2000). Putting the process in developmental processes. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 24, 295–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Nijhout, H. (2003). The importance of context in genetics. American Scientist, 91, 416–423.Google Scholar
  64. Overton, W. F. (2007). A coherent metatheory for dynamic systems: Relational organicism-contextualism. Human Development, 50, 154–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Oyama, S. (1989). Ontogeny and the central dogma: Do we need the concept of genetic programming in order to have an evolutionary perspective? In M. R. Gunnar & E. Thelen (Eds.), The Minnesota symposia on child psychology, Vol. 22. Systems and development (pp. 211–218). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  66. Petermann, F., Niebank, K., & Scheithauer, H. (2004). Entwicklungswissenschaft. Entwicklungspsychologie—Genetik—Neuropsychologie [Developmental Science. Developmental Psychology—Genetics—Neuropsychology.]. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  67. Petronis, A., Gottesman, I., Peixiang, K., Kennedy, J., Basile, V., Paterson, A. et al. (2003). Monozygotic twins exhibit numerous epigenetic differences: Clues to twin discordance. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 29, 169–178.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Plomin, R. (2004). Genetics and developmental psychology. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 50, 341–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Posner, M. I. (2002). Convergence of psychological and biological development. Developmental Psychobiology, 40, 339–343.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Psychosocial Paediatrics Committee, Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) (2004). Maternal depression and child development. Paediatrics and Child Health, 9, 575–583.Google Scholar
  71. Richters, J. E. (1997). The Hubble hypothesis and the developmentalist’s dilemma. Development and Psychopathology, 9, 193–229.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Rosel, J., & Plewis, I. (2008). Longitudinal data analysis with structural equations. Methodology, 4, 37–50.Google Scholar
  73. Sameroff, A. J., & Chandler, M. J. (1975). Reproductive risk and the continuum of caretaker casualty. In F. D. Horowitz, M. Hetherington, S. Scarr-Salapatek, & G. Siegal (Eds.), Review of child development research (Vol. 4, pp. 187–244). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  74. Sameroff, A. J., & MacKenzie, M. J. (2003a). A quarter-century of the transactional model: How have things changed? ZERO TO THREE, September 2003, 14–22.Google Scholar
  75. Sameroff, A. J., & MacKenzie, M. J. (2003b). Research strategies for capturing transactional models of development: The limits of the possible. Development and Psychopathology, 15, 613–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Sander, F. (1927). Über Gestaltqualitäten [On Qualities of Gestalt]. Proceedings of the 8th International Congress of Psychology, 1926 (pp. 183–189). Groningen: Noordhoff.Google Scholar
  77. Sander, F. (1932). Funktionale Struktur, Erlebnisganzheit und Gestalt [Functional Structure, Erlebnisganzheit and Gestalt]. Archiv für die gesamte Psychologie, 85, 237–260.Google Scholar
  78. Savelsbergh, G., van der Maas, H., & van Geert, P. (Eds.). (1999). Nonlinear developmental processes. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.Google Scholar
  79. Scheithauer, H., Niebank, K., & Gottlieb, G. (2007). To see an elephant: Developmental science. European Journal of Developmental Science, 1, 6–22.Google Scholar
  80. Schmitz, B. (1990). Univariate and multivariate time-series models: The analysis of intraindividual variability and intraindividual relationships. In A. von Eye (Ed.), Statistical methods in longitudinal reasearch. Vol. II: Time series and categorical longitudinal data (pp. 351–386). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  81. Shanahan, M. J., Sulloway, F. J., & Hofer, S. M. (2000). Change and constancy in developmental contexts. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 24, 421–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Thelen, E., & Smith, L. (1994). A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  83. Valsiner, J., & Van der Veer, R. (2000). The social mind. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  84. van der Maas, H. L. J., & Hopkins, B. (1998). Developmental transitions: So what’s new? British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 16, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. van Geert, P., & Steenbeek, H. (2005). Explaining after by before: Basic aspects of a dynamic systems approach to the study of development. Developmental Review, 25, 408–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. van Geert, P., & van Dijk, M. (2002). Focus on variability: New tools to study intra-individual variability in developmental data. Infant Behavior and Development, 25, 340–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General systems theory. New York.Google Scholar
  88. Wagman, J. B., & Miller, D. B. (2003). Nested reciprocities: The organism–environment system in perception–action and development. Developmental Psychobiology, 42, 317–334.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Weiss, P. (1959). Cellular dynamics. Reviews of Modern Physics, 31, 11–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Werner, H. (1926). Über Mikromelodik und Mikroharmonik. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 98, 74–89.Google Scholar
  91. Werner, H. (1937). Process and achivement. A basic problem of education and developmental psychology. The Harvard Educational Review, 7, 353–368.Google Scholar
  92. Wimmers, R. H., Beek, P. J., Savelsbergh, G. J. P., & Hopkins, B. (1998). Developmental changes in action: Theoretical and methodological issues. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 16, 45–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Witherington, D. C. (2007). The dynamic systems approach as metatheory for developmental psychology. Human Development, 50, 127–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Wright, S. (1968). Evolution and the genetics of populations, Vol. 1: Genetic and biometric foundations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Developmental Science and Applied Developmental PsychologyFreie Universität BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations