Evolutionary developmental psychology

Last updated

Evolutionary developmental psychology (EDP) is a research paradigm that applies the basic principles of evolution by natural selection, to understand the development of human behavior and cognition. It involves the study of both the genetic and environmental mechanisms that underlie the development of social and cognitive competencies, as well as the epigenetic (gene-environment interactions) processes that adapt these competencies to local conditions. [1]

Contents

EDP considers both the reliably developing, species-typical features of ontogeny (developmental adaptations), as well as individual differences in behavior, from an evolutionary perspective. While evolutionary views tend to regard most individual differences as the result of either random genetic noise (evolutionary byproducts) [2] and/or idiosyncrasies (for example, peer groups, education, neighborhoods, and chance encounters) [3] rather than products of natural selection, EDP asserts that natural selection can favor the emergence of individual differences via "adaptive developmental plasticity." [1] [4] From this perspective, human development follows alternative life-history strategies in response to environmental variability, rather than following one species-typical pattern of development. [1]

EDP is closely linked to the theoretical framework of evolutionary psychology (EP), but is also distinct from EP in several domains, including: research emphasis (EDP focuses on adaptations of ontogeny, as opposed to adaptations of adulthood); consideration of proximate ontogenetic; environmental factors (i.e., how development happens) in addition to more ultimate factors (i.e., why development happens). These things of which are the focus of mainstream evolutionary psychology. [5]

History

Development and evolution

Like mainstream evolutionary psychology, EDP is rooted in Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection. Darwin himself emphasized development, using the process of embryology as evidence to support his theory. [6] [7] [8] From The Descent of Man:

"Man is developed from an ovule...which differs in no respect from the ovules of other animals. The embryo itself at a very early period can hardly be distinguished from that of other members of the vertebrate kingdom." [7]

Darwin also published his observations of the development of one of his own sons in 1877, noting the child's emotional, moral, and linguistic development. [9]

Despite this early emphasis on developmental processes, theories of evolution and theories of development have long been viewed as separate, or even opposed to one another (for additional background, see nature versus nurture). Since the advent of the modern evolutionary synthesis, evolutionary theory has been primarily "gene-centric", and developmental processes have often been seen as incidental. [8] Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins's appraisal of development in 1973 illustrates this shift: "The details of embryological developmental processes, interesting as they may be, are irrelevant to evolutionary considerations." [10] Similarly, sociobiologist E. O. Wilson regarded ontogenetic variation as "developmental noise". [11] [12]

As a consequence of this shift in perspective, many biologists interested in topics such as embryology and developmental systems subsequently branched off into evolutionary developmental biology. [13]

Evolutionary perspectives in developmental psychology

Despite the minimization of development in evolutionary theory, early developmental psychology was influenced by evolution. Both Darwin's theory of evolution and Karl Ernst von Baer's developmental principles of ontogeny shaped early thought in developmental psychology. [12] Wilhelm T. Preyer, a pioneer of child psychology, was heavily inspired by Darwin's work and approached the mental development of children from an evolutionary perspective. [14]

However, evolutionary theory has had a limited impact on developmental psychology as a whole, [5] and some authors argue that even its early influence was minimal. [15] Developmental psychology, as with the social sciences in general, has long been resistant to evolutionary theories of development [5] (with some notable exceptions, such as John Bowlby's work on attachment theory). [16] Evolutionary approaches to human behavior were, and to some extent continue to be, considered a form of genetic determinism and dismissive of the role of culture and experience in shaping human behavior (see Standard social science model). [5] [17]

One group of developmental psychologists who have embraced evolutionary perspectives are nativists, who argue than infants possess innate cognitive mechanisms (or modules) which allow them to acquire crucial information, such as language (for a prominent example, see universal grammar). [18] [19]

Evolutionary developmental psychology

Evolutionary developmental psychology can be viewed as a more focused theoretical framework derived from the larger field of evolutionary psychology (EP). Mainstream evolutionary psychology grew out of earlier movements which applied the principles of evolutionary biology to understand the mind and behavior such as sociobiology, ethology, and behavioral ecology, [5] differing from these earlier approaches by focusing on identifying psychological adaptations rather than adaptive behavior. [20] While EDP theory generally aligns with that of mainstream EP, it is distinguished by a conscious effort to reconcile theories of both evolution and development. [5] EDP theory diverges from mainstream evolutionary psychology in both the degree of importance placed on the environment in influencing behavior, and in how evolution has shaped the development of human psychology. [5]

Advocates of EDP assert that evolutionary psychologists, while acknowledging the role of the environment in shaping behavior and making claims as to its effects, rarely develop explicit models (i.e., predictions of how the environment might shape behavior) to support their claims . [5] EDP seeks to distinguish itself from mainstream evolutionary psychology in this way by embracing a developmental systems approach, and emphasizing that function at one level of organization (e.g., the genetic level) effects organization at adjacent levels of an organization. Developmental systems theorists such as Robert Lickliter point out that the products of development are both genetic and epigenetic, and have questioned the strictly gene-centric view of evolution. [21] [22] However, some authors have rebutted the claim that mainstream evolutionary psychologists do not integrate developmental theory into their theoretical programs, and have further questioned the value of developmental systems theory [23] (see Criticism).

Additionally, evolutionary developmental psychologists emphasize research on psychological development and behaviors across the lifespan. Pioneers of EDP contrast their work with that of mainstream evolutionary psychologists, who they argue focus primarily on adults, especially on behaviors related to socializing and mating. [1]

Evolutionary developmental psychologists have worked to integrate evolutionary and developmental theories, attempting to synthesize the two without discarding the theoretical foundations of either. This effort is evident in the types of questions which researchers working in the EDP paradigm ask; in reference to Nikolaas Tinbergen's four categories of questions, EP typically focuses on evolutionary ("Why") questions, while EDP explicitly integrates proximate questions ("How"), with the assumption that a greater understanding of the former category will yield insights into the latter. [5] See the following table for an overview of Tinbergen's questions.

Sequential vs. Static Perspective
Historical/Developmental

Explanation of current form in terms of a historical sequence

Current Form

Explanation of the current form of species

How vs. Why QuestionsProximate

How an individual organism's structures function

Ontogeny

Developmental explanations for changes in individuals, from DNA to their current form

Mechanism

Mechanistic explanations for how an organism's structures work

Evolutionary

Why a species evolved the structures (adaptations) it has

Phylogeny

The history of the evolution of sequential changes in a species over many generations

Adaptation

A species trait that evolved to solve a reproductive or survival problem in the ancestral environment

Basic assumptions

The following list summarizes the broad theoretical assumptions of EDP. From "Evolutionary Developmental Psychology," [1] in The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology:

  1. All evolutionarily-influenced characteristics in the phenotype of adults develop, and this requires examining not only the functioning of these characteristics in adults but also their ontogeny.
  2. All evolved characteristics develop via continuous and bidirectional gene-environment interactions that emerge dynamically over time.
  3. Infants and children are prepared by natural selection to process some information more readily than others.
  4. Development is constrained by genetic, environmental, and cultural factors.
  5. Infants and children show a high degree of developmental plasticity and adaptive sensitivity to context.
  6. An extended childhood is needed in which to learn the complexities of human social communities.
  7. Many aspects of childhood serve as preparations for adulthood and were selected over the course of evolution (deferred adaptations).
  8. Some characteristics of infants and children were selected to serve an adaptive function at specific times in development and not as preparations for adulthood (ontogenetic adaptations).

Developmental adaptations

EDP assumes that natural selection creates adaptations for specific stages of development, rather than only specifying adult states. [1] [5] [8] Frequently, EDP researchers seek to identify such adaptations, which have been subdivided into deferred adaptations, ontogenetic adaptations, and conditional adaptations. [1]

Deferred adaptations

Some behaviors or traits exhibited during childhood or adolescence may have been selected to serve as preparations for adult life, a type of adaptation that evolutionary developmental psychologists have named "deferred adaptations". [24] Sex differences in children's play may be an example of this type of adaptation: higher frequencies of "rough-and-tumble" play among boys, as well as content differences in fantasy play (cross-culturally, [25] girls engage in more "parenting" play than boys), [26] seem to serve as early preparation for the roles that men and women play in many extant contemporary societies, and, presumably, played over human evolutionary history. [1]

Ontogenetic adaptations

In contrast to deferred adaptations, which function to prepare individuals for future environments (i.e., adulthood), ontogenetic adaptations adapt individuals to their current environment. [5] These adaptations serve a specific function during a particular period of development, after which they are discarded. Ontogenetic adaptations can be physiological (for example, when fetal mammals deriving nutrition and oxygen from the placenta before birth, but no longer utilize the placenta after birth) and psychological. [1] David F. Bjorklund has argued that the imitation of facial gestures by infants, which has a predictable developmental window and seemingly different functions at different ages, shows evidence of being an ontogenetic adaptation. [27]

Conditional adaptations

EDP emphasizes that children display considerable developmental plasticity, and proposes a special type of adaptation to facilitate adaptive developmental plasticity, called a conditional adaptation. Conditional adaptations detect and respond to relevant environmental cues, altering developmental pathways in ways which better adapt an individual to their particular environment. These adaptations allow organisms to implement alternative and contingent life history strategies, depending on environmental factors. [28]

Social learning and the evolution of childhood

The social brain (or Machiavellian) hypothesis posits that the emergence of a complex social environment (e.g., larger group sizes) served as a key selection pressure in the evolution of human intelligence. [29] Among primates, larger brains result in an extension of the juvenile period, [30] and some authors argue that humans evolved (and/or expanded) novel developmental stages, childhood and adolescence, [31] in response to increasing social complexity and sophisticated social learning. [1] [32]

While many species exhibit social learning to some degree and seemingly possess behavioral traditions (i.e., culture), humans can transmit cultural information across many generations with very high fidelity. [33] High fidelity cultural learning is what many have argued is necessary for cumulative cultural evolution, [34] [35] and has only been definitively observed in humans, although arguments have been made for chimpanzees, orangutans, and New Caledonian crows. [33] [36] Developmentally-oriented researchers have proposed that over-imitation of behavioral models facilitates cultural learning, [37] a phenomenon which emerges in children by age three [38] and is seemingly absent in chimpanzees. [39]

Cooperation and prosociality

Behaviors that benefit other members of one's social group, particularly those which appear costly to the prosocial or "altruistic" individual, have received considerable attention from disciplines interested in the evolution of behavior. [40] Michael Tomasello has argued that cooperation and prosociality are evolved characteristics of human behavior, [41] citing the emergence of "helping" behavior early in development (observed among 18-24 month old infants) as one piece of evidence. [42] Researchers investigating the ontogeny and evolution of human cooperation design experiments intended to reveal the prosociality of infants and young children, then compare children's performance with that of other animals, typically chimpanzees. [1] While some of the helping behaviors exhibited by infants and young children has also been observed in chimpanzees, preschool-age children tend to display greater prosociality than both human-raised and semi-free-ranging adult chimps. [43]

Life history strategies and developmental plasticity

EDP researchers emphasize that evolved strategies are context dependent, in the sense that a strategy which is optimal in one environment will often be sub-optimal in another environment. They argue that this will result in natural selection favoring "adaptive developmental plasticity," allowing an organism to alter its developmental trajectory in response to environmental cues. [1] [4]

Related to this is the idea of a life history strategy, which can be conceptualized as a chain of resource-allocation decisions (e.g., allocating resources towards growth or towards reproduction) that an organism makes. [1] Biologists have used life history theory to characterize between-species variation in resource-allocation in terms of a fast-slow continuum (see r/K selection theory), [44] and, more recently, some anthropologists and psychologists have applied this continuum to understand within-species variation in trade-offs between reproductive and somatic effort. [45] [46] [47]

Some authors argue that childhood environment and early life experiences are highly influential in determining an individual's life history strategy. [47] [48] Factors such as exposure to violence, harsh child-rearing, and environmental unpredictability (e.g., frequent moving, unstable family composition) have been shown to correlate with the proposed behavioral indicators of "fast" life history strategies [49] (e.g., early sexual maturation, unstable couple relationships, impulsivity, and reduced cooperation), where current reproduction is prioritized over future reproduction. [1]

Criticism

John Tooby, Leda Cosmides, and H. Clark Barrett have refuted claims that mainstream evolutionary psychology neglects development, arguing that their discipline is, in reality, exceptionally interested in and highly considerate of development. In particular, they cite cross-cultural studies as a sort of natural developmental "experiment," which can reveal the influence of culture in shaping developmental outcomes. The authors assert that the arguments of developmental systems theorists consists largely of truisms, of which evolutionary psychologists are well aware, and that developmental systems theory has no scientific value because it fails to generate any predictions. [17]

Debra Lieberman similarly objected to the characterization of evolutionary psychology as ignorant of developmental principles. Lieberman argued that both developmental systems theorists and evolutionary psychologists share a common goal of uncovering species-typical cognitive architecture, as well as the ontogeny of that architecture. [50]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Developmental psychology</span> Scientific study of psychological changes in humans over the course of their lives

Developmental psychology is the scientific study of how and why humans grow, change, and adapt across the course of their lives. Originally concerned with infants and children, the field has expanded to include adolescence, adult development, aging, and the entire lifespan. Developmental psychologists aim to explain how thinking, feeling, and behaviors change throughout life. This field examines change across three major dimensions, which are physical development, cognitive development, and social emotional development. Within these three dimensions are a broad range of topics including motor skills, executive functions, moral understanding, language acquisition, social change, personality, emotional development, self-concept, and identity formation.

Evolutionary psychology is a theoretical approach in psychology that examines cognition and behavior from a modern evolutionary perspective. It seeks to identify human psychological adaptations with regards to the ancestral problems they evolved to solve. In this framework, psychological traits and mechanisms are either functional products of natural and sexual selection or non-adaptive by-products of other adaptive traits.

The theory of recapitulation, also called the biogenetic law or embryological parallelism—often expressed using Ernst Haeckel's phrase "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"—is a historical hypothesis that the development of the embryo of an animal, from fertilization to gestation or hatching (ontogeny), goes through stages resembling or representing successive adult stages in the evolution of the animal's remote ancestors (phylogeny). It was formulated in the 1820s by Étienne Serres based on the work of Johann Friedrich Meckel, after whom it is also known as Meckel–Serres law.

Modularity of mind is the notion that a mind may, at least in part, be composed of innate neural structures or mental modules which have distinct, established, and evolutionarily developed functions. However, different definitions of "module" have been proposed by different authors. According to Jerry Fodor, the author of Modularity of Mind, a system can be considered 'modular' if its functions are made of multiple dimensions or units to some degree. One example of modularity in the mind is binding. When one perceives an object, they take in not only the features of an object, but the integrated features that can operate in sync or independently that create a whole. Instead of just seeing red, round, plastic, and moving, the subject may experience a rolling red ball. Binding may suggest that the mind is modular because it takes multiple cognitive processes to perceive one thing.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Baldwin effect</span> Effect of learned behavior on evolution

In evolutionary biology, the Baldwin effect describes an effect of learned behaviour on evolution. James Mark Baldwin and others suggested that an organism's ability to learn new behaviours will affect its reproductive success and will therefore have an effect on the genetic makeup of its species through natural selection. It posits that subsequent selection might reinforce the originally learned behaviors, if adaptive, into more in-born, instinctive ones. Though this process appears similar to Lamarckism, that view proposes that living things inherited their parents' acquired characteristics. The Baldwin effect only posits that learning ability, which is genetically based, is another variable in / contributor to environmental adaptation. First proposed during the Eclipse of Darwinism in the late 19th century, this effect has been independently proposed several times, and today it is generally recognized as part of the modern synthesis.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">David C. Geary</span> American cognitive and evolutionary psychologist

David Cyril Geary is an American cognitive developmental and evolutionary psychologist with interests in mathematical learning and sex differences. He is currently a Curators’ Professor and Thomas Jefferson Fellow in the Department of Psychological Sciences and Interdisciplinary Neuroscience Program at the University of Missouri in Columbia, Missouri.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Psychological adaptation</span>

A psychological adaptation is a functional, cognitive or behavioral trait that benefits an organism in its environment. Psychological adaptations fall under the scope of evolved psychological mechanisms (EPMs), however, EPMs refer to a less restricted set. Psychological adaptations include only the functional traits that increase the fitness of an organism, while EPMs refer to any psychological mechanism that developed through the processes of evolution. These additional EPMs are the by-product traits of a species’ evolutionary development, as well as the vestigial traits that no longer benefit the species’ fitness. It can be difficult to tell whether a trait is vestigial or not, so some literature is more lenient and refers to vestigial traits as adaptations, even though they may no longer have adaptive functionality. For example, xenophobic attitudes and behaviors, some have claimed, appear to have certain EPM influences relating to disease aversion, however, in many environments these behaviors will have a detrimental effect on a person's fitness. The principles of psychological adaptation rely on Darwin's theory of evolution and are important to the fields of evolutionary psychology, biology, and cognitive science.

The theory of a biological basis of love has been explored by such biological sciences as evolutionary psychology, evolutionary biology, anthropology and neuroscience. Specific chemical substances such as oxytocin are studied in the context of their roles in producing human experiences, emotions and behaviors that are associated with love.

Personality development encompasses the dynamic construction and deconstruction of integrative characteristics that distinguish an individual in terms of interpersonal behavioral traits. Personality development is ever-changing and subject to contextual factors and life-altering experiences. Personality development is also dimensional in description and subjective in nature. That is, personality development can be seen as a continuum varying in degrees of intensity and change. It is subjective in nature because its conceptualization is rooted in social norms of expected behavior, self-expression, and personal growth. The dominant viewpoint in personality psychology indicates that personality emerges early and continues to develop across one's lifespan. Adult personality traits are believed to have a basis in infant temperament, meaning that individual differences in disposition and behavior appear early in life, potentially before language of conscious self-representation develop. The Five Factor Model of personality maps onto the dimensions of childhood temperament. This suggests that individual differences in levels of the corresponding personality traits are present from young ages.

Tinbergen's four questions, named after 20th century biologist Nikolaas Tinbergen, are complementary categories of explanations for animal behaviour. These are also commonly referred to as levels of analysis. It suggests that an integrative understanding of behaviour must include ultimate (evolutionary) explanations, in particular:

Evolutionary psychology seeks to identify and understand human psychological traits that have evolved in much the same way as biological traits, through adaptation to environmental cues. Furthermore, it tends toward viewing the vast majority of psychological traits, certainly the most important ones, as the result of past adaptions, which has generated significant controversy and criticism from competing fields. These criticisms include disputes about the testability of evolutionary hypotheses, cognitive assumptions such as massive modularity, vagueness stemming from assumptions about the environment that leads to evolutionary adaptation, the importance of non-genetic and non-adaptive explanations, as well as political and ethical issues in the field itself.

Developmental psychobiology is an interdisciplinary field, encompassing developmental psychology, biological psychology, neuroscience and many other areas of biology. The field covers all phases of ontogeny, with particular emphasis on prenatal, perinatal and early childhood development. Conducting research into basic aspects of development, for example, the development of infant attachment, sleep, eating, thermoregulation, learning, attention and acquisition of language occupies most developmental psychobiologists. At the same time, they are actively engaged in research on applied problems such as sudden infant death syndrome, the development and care of the preterm infant, autism, and the effects of various prenatal insults on the development of brain and behavior.

Prosocial behavior, or intent to benefit others, is a social behavior that "benefit[s] other people or society as a whole", "such as helping, sharing, donating, co-operating, and volunteering". Obeying the rules and conforming to socially accepted behaviors are also regarded as prosocial behaviors. These actions may be motivated by empathy and by concern about the welfare and rights of others, as well as for egoistic or practical concerns, such as one's social status or reputation, hope for direct or indirect reciprocity, or adherence to one's perceived system of fairness. It may also be motivated by altruism, though the existence of pure altruism is somewhat disputed, and some have argued that this falls into philosophical rather than psychological realm of debate. Evidence suggests that pro sociality is central to the well-being of social groups across a range of scales, including schools. Prosocial behavior in the classroom can have a significant impact on a student's motivation for learning and contributions to the classroom and larger community. In the workplace, prosocial behaviour can have a significant impact on team psychological safety, as well as positive indirect effects on employee's helping behaviors and task performance. Empathy is a strong motive in eliciting prosocial behavior, and has deep evolutionary roots.

The study of the evolution of emotions dates back to the 19th century. Evolution and natural selection has been applied to the study of human communication, mainly by Charles Darwin in his 1872 work, The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. Darwin researched the expression of emotions in an effort to support his materialist theory of unguided evolution. He proposed that much like other traits found in animals, emotions apparently also evolved and were adapted over time. His work looked at not only facial expressions in animals and specifically humans, but attempted to point out parallels between behaviors in humans and other animals.

The differential susceptibility theory proposed by Jay Belsky is another interpretation of psychological findings that are usually discussed according to the diathesis-stress model. Both models suggest that people's development and emotional affect are differentially affected by experiences or qualities of the environment. Where the Diathesis-stress model suggests a group that is sensitive to negative environments only, the differential susceptibility hypothesis suggests a group that is sensitive to both negative and positive environments. A third model, the vantage-sensitivity model, suggests a group that is sensitive to positive environments only. All three models may be considered complementary, and have been combined into a general environmental sensitivity framework.

Human ethology is the study of human behavior. Ethology as a discipline is generally thought of as a sub-category of biology, though psychological theories have been developed based on ethological ideas. The bridging between biological sciences and social sciences creates an understanding of human ethology. The International Society for Human Ethology is dedicated to advancing the study and understanding of human ethology.

Psychology encompasses a vast domain, and includes many different approaches to the study of mental processes and behavior. Below are the major areas of inquiry that taken together constitute psychology. A comprehensive list of the sub-fields and areas within psychology can be found at the list of psychology topics and list of psychology disciplines.

The history of evolutionary psychology began with Charles Darwin, who said that humans have social instincts that evolved by natural selection. Darwin's work inspired later psychologists such as William James and Sigmund Freud but for most of the 20th century psychologists focused more on behaviorism and proximate explanations for human behavior. E. O. Wilson's landmark 1975 book, Sociobiology, synthesized recent theoretical advances in evolutionary theory to explain social behavior in animals, including humans. Jerome Barkow, Leda Cosmides and John Tooby popularized the term "evolutionary psychology" in their 1992 book The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and The Generation of Culture. Like sociobiology before it, evolutionary psychology has been embroiled in controversy, but evolutionary psychologists see their field as gaining increased acceptance overall.

The theoretical foundations of evolutionary psychology are the general and specific scientific theories that explain the ultimate origins of psychological traits in terms of evolution. These theories originated with Charles Darwin's work, including his speculations about the evolutionary origins of social instincts in humans. Modern evolutionary psychology, however, is possible only because of advances in evolutionary theory in the 20th century.

Evolutionary psychology has traditionally focused on individual-level behaviors, determined by species-typical psychological adaptations. Considerable work, though, has been done on how these adaptations shape and, ultimately govern, culture. Tooby and Cosmides (1989) argued that the mind consists of many domain-specific psychological adaptations, some of which may constrain what cultural material is learned or taught. As opposed to a domain-general cultural acquisition program, where an individual passively receives culturally-transmitted material from the group, Tooby and Cosmides (1989), among others, argue that: "the psyche evolved to generate adaptive rather than repetitive behavior, and hence critically analyzes the behavior of those surrounding it in highly structured and patterned ways, to be used as a rich source of information out of which to construct a 'private culture' or individually tailored adaptive system; in consequence, this system may or may not mirror the behavior of others in any given respect.".

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Bjorklund, David F; Blasi, Carlos Hernández; Ellis, Bruce J (2015-10-26). "Evolutionary Developmental Psychology". In David M. Buss (ed.). The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology. Vol. 2. John Wiley & Sons. p. 905. ISBN   978-1-118-75580-8.
  2. Tooby, John (1990). "On the universality of human nature and the uniqueness of the individual: The role of genetics and adaptation". Journal of Personality. 58 (1): 17–67. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1990.tb00907.x. PMID   2198338.
  3. Pinker, Steven (2002). "Chapter 19: Children". The blank slate. New York: Penguin Books.
  4. 1 2 West-Eberhard, Mary Jane (2003). Developmental plasticity and evolution. Oxford University Press.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Blasi, Carlos Hernandez; Bjorklund, David F. (2003). "Evolutionary Developmental Psychology: A New Tool for Better Understanding Human Ontogeny". Human Development. 46 (5): 259–281. doi:10.1159/000071935. S2CID   143721157 . Retrieved March 31, 2016.
  6. Darwin, Charles (1859). On the Origin of Species. John Murray.
  7. 1 2 Darwin, Charles (1874). "Chapter 1: The Evidence of the Descent of Man from Some Lower Form". The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (2nd ed.). John Murray.
  8. 1 2 3 Machluf, Karin; Lidde, James R.; Bjorklund, David F. (2014). "An Introduction to Evolutionary Developmental Psychology". Evolutionary Psychology. 12 (2): 264–272. doi: 10.1177/147470491401200201 . PMC   10426875 . PMID   25299879.
  9. Darwin, Charles (1877). "A Biographical Sketch of an Infant". Mind.
  10. Dawkins, Richard (2006) [1976]. The Selfish Gene . Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp.  62. ISBN   978-0-19-929115-1.
  11. Wilson, Edward O. (1975). Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  12. 1 2 Cairns, Robert B (2007). "The Making of Developmental Psychology" (PDF). The Handbook of Developmental Psychology. John Wiley & Sons. doi:10.1002/9780470147658.chpsy0103. ISBN   978-0470147658. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-10-20. Retrieved 2016-04-20.
  13. Morange, Michel (2011). "Evolutionary developmental biology its roots and characteristics". Developmental Biology. Elsevier. 357 (1): 13–16. doi: 10.1016/j.ydbio.2011.03.013 . PMID   21447330.
  14. Preyer, Wilhelm (1948) [1882]. "The mind of the child". Readings in the history of psychology. East Norwalk, CT: Century. doi:10.1037/11304-030.
  15. Charlesworth, William R (1992). "Darwin and developmental psychology: Past and present". Developmental Psychology. 28: 5–16. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.28.1.5.
  16. Bowlby, John (1969). Attachment and loss. Vol. 1: Attachment. London: Hogarth.
  17. 1 2 Tooby, John; Cosmides, Leda (1992). "The psychological foundations of culture". In Barkow, Jerome H; Cosmides, Leda; Tooby, John (eds.). The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 19–139.
  18. Price, Michael (9 October 2009). "The nativists are restless". American Psychological Association Monitor on Psychology. American Psychological Association. Retrieved 22 April 2016.
  19. Kuhl, Patricia K; Meltzoff, Andrew N (1997). "Evolution, nativism, and learning in the development of language and speech". In Gopnik, Myrna (ed.). The inheritance and innateness of grammars . Oxford University Press. pp.  7–44. ISBN   978-0195115345.
  20. Hagen, Edward H. "Is evolutionary psychology just a politically correct version of sociobiology?". The Evolutionary Psychology FAQ. Retrieved 20 April 2016.
  21. Lickliter, Robert; Honeycutt, Hunter (2003). "Developmental Dynamics: Toward a Biologically Plausible Evolutionary Psychology". Psychological Bulletin. 129 (6): 819–835. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.6.819. PMID   14599279. S2CID   16065712.
  22. Lickliter, Robert (2008). "The growth of developmental thought: Implications for a new evolutionary psychology". New Ideas in Psychology. Elsevier. 26 (3): 353–369. doi:10.1016/j.newideapsych.2007.07.015. PMC   2621083 . PMID   19956346.
  23. Tooby, John; Cosmides, Leda; Barrett, H. Clark (2003). "The Second Law of Thermodynamics Is the First Law of Psychology: Evolutionary Developmental Psychology and the Theory Of Tandem, Coordinated Inheritances: Comment on Lickliter and Honeycutt" (PDF). Psychological Bulletin. 129 (6): 858–865. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.6.858. PMID   14599284 . Retrieved 2016-04-17.[ dead link ]
  24. Bjorklund, David F (1997). "The role of immaturity in human development". Psychological Bulletin. 122 (2): 153–169. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.122.2.153. PMID   9283298.
  25. Eibl-Eibesfeldt, Irenäus (1989). Human ethology. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
  26. Geary, David C. (2010). Male, female: The evolution of human sex differences (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  27. Bjorklund, David F (1987). "A note on neonatal imitation". Developmental Review. 7 (1): 86–92. doi:10.1016/0273-2297(87)90006-2.
  28. Boyce, W. Thomas; Ellis, Bruce J (2005). "Biological sensitivity to context: I. An evolutionary-developmental theory of the origins and functions of stress reactivity". Development and Psychopathology. 17 (2): 271–301. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.328.5321 . doi:10.1017/s0954579405050145. PMID   16761546. S2CID   15413527.
  29. Dunbar, Robin I.M. (2003). "The social brain: Mind, language, and society in evolutionary perspective". Annual Review of Anthropology. 32: 163–181. doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.32.061002.093158.
  30. Dunbar, R.I.M.; Shultz, Suzanne (2007). "Understanding primate brain evolution". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 362 (1480): 649–58. doi:10.1098/rstb.2006.2001. PMC   2346523 . PMID   17301028.
  31. Bogin, Barry (2001). The growth of humanity. New York, NY: Wiley.
  32. Nielsen, Mark (2012). "Imitation, play, and childhood: Essential elements in the evolution of human culture?". Journal of Comparative Psychology. 126 (2): 170–181. doi:10.1037/a0025168. PMID   21859186.
  33. 1 2 Dean, Lewis G; Vale, Gill L; Laland, Kevin N; Flynn, Emma; Kendal, Rachel L (2014). "Human cumulative culture: a comparative perspective" (PDF). Biological Reviews. 89 (2): 284–301. doi:10.1111/brv.12053. PMID   24033987. S2CID   34151023.
  34. Henrich, Joseph; McElreath, Richard (2003). "The evolution of cultural evolution". Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews. 12 (3): 123–135. doi:10.1002/evan.10110. S2CID   14302229.
  35. Lewis, Hannah M; Laland, Kevin M (2012). "Transmission fidelity is the key to the build-up of cumulative culture". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. 367 (1599): 2171–2180. doi:10.1098/rstb.2012.0119. PMC   3385684 . PMID   22734060.
  36. Hunt, Gavin R; Gray, Russel D (2003). "Diversification and cumulative evolution in New Caledonian crow tool manufacture". Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences. 270 (1517): 867–874. doi:10.1098/rspb.2002.2302. PMC   1691310 . PMID   12737666.
  37. Whiten, Andrew; McGuigan, Nicola; Marshall-Pescini, Sarah; Hopper, Lydia M (2009). "Emulation, imitation, over-imitation and the scope of culture for child and chimpanzee". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. 364 (1528): 2417–2428. doi:10.1098/rstb.2009.0069. PMC   2865074 . PMID   19620112.
  38. Lyons, Derek E; Young, Andrew G; Keil, Frank C (2007). "The hidden structure of overimitation". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 104 (50): 19751–19756. Bibcode:2007PNAS..10419751L. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0704452104 . PMC   2148370 . PMID   18056814.
  39. Nielsen, Mark (2012). "Imitation, pretend play, and childhood: essential elements in the evolution of human culture?". Journal of Comparative Psychology. 126 (2): 170–181. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.401.5888 . doi:10.1037/a0025168. PMID   21859186.
  40. Simpson, Jeffry A; Beckes, Lane (2010). "Evolutionary perspectives on prosocial behavior". In Mikulincer, Mario; Shaver, Phillip R (eds.). Prosocial motives, emotions, and behavior: The better angels of our nature. American Psychological Association. pp. 35–53. ISBN   978-1433805462.
  41. Tomasello, Michael (2009). Why we cooperate. MIT Press.
  42. Warneken, Felix; Tomasello, Micheal (2006). "Altruistic helping in human infants and young chimpanzees". Science. 311 (5765): 1301–1303. Bibcode:2006Sci...311.1301W. doi:10.1126/science.1121448. PMID   16513986. S2CID   1119115.
  43. Warneken, Felix; Hare, Brian; Melis, Alicia P; Hanus, Daniel; Tomasello, Michael (2007). "Spontaneous altruism by chimpanzees and young children". PLOS Biol. 5 (7): e184. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0050184 . PMC   1896184 . PMID   17594177.
  44. Pianka, Eric R (1970). "On r-and K-selection". The American Naturalist. 104 (940): 592–597. doi:10.1086/282697. S2CID   83933177.
  45. Hill, Kim (1993). "Life history theory and evolutionary anthropology". Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews. 2 (3): 78–88. doi:10.1002/evan.1360020303. S2CID   84945984.
  46. Figueredo, Aurelio José; Vásquez, Geneva; Brumbach, Barbara H; Sefcek, Jon A; Kirsner, Beth R; Jacobs, W.J. (2005). "The K-factor: Individual differences in life history strategy". Personality and Individual Differences. 39 (8): 1349–1360. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.06.009.
  47. 1 2 Ellis, Bruce J; Figueredo, Aurelio José; Brumbach, Barbara H; Schlomer, Gabriel L (2009). "Fundamental dimensions of environmental risk: The impact of harsh versus unpredictable environments on the evolution and development of life history strategies". Human Nature. 20 (2): 204–268. doi:10.1007/s12110-009-9063-7. PMID   25526958. S2CID   20904498.
  48. Kuzawa, Christopher W; Bragg, Jared M (2012). "Plasticity in human life history strategy". Current Anthropology. 53 (S6): S369–S382. doi:10.1086/667410. S2CID   82882540.
  49. Ellis, Bruce J; Bjorklund, David F (2012). "Beyond mental health: An evolutionary analysis of development under risky and supportive environmental conditions". Developmental Psychology. 48 (3): 591–597. doi:10.1037/a0027651. PMID   22545847.
  50. Lieberman, Debra (2007). "Evolutionary Psychology and Developmental Systems Theory". In Gangestad, Steven W.; Simpson, Jeffry A. (eds.). The evolution of mind: Fundamental questions and controversies . New York, NY: Guilford Press. pp.  193–202. ISBN   9781593854089.

Relevant journals

Further reading