Youth Studies: an Interdisciplinary
Approach Analytical questions week
1-5 2020-2021
Meeting 1: APC analysis
Sameroff, A. (2010). A unified theory of development: a dialectic integration of nature
and nurture. Child Development, 81, 6-22.
1. In his introduction, Sameroff shows that the "nature – nurture” debate has been present
in scientific research for a long time. He also shows that theories differed in whether they
highlighted nature or nature (see Table 1).
a. What are the most important underlying assumptions distinguishing theories
underscoring nature vs. theories underscoring nature?
Nature: all characteristics of the individual are determined by predisposition, for example
genetic material. Its behavior is shaped by intrinsic factors, the child is responsible. A large
proportion of behavioral differences could be explained by genetic difference.
Nurture: all the individual's characteristics are determined by upbringing, mainly by the
living environment. So behavior is thought and the environment (i.e. parents, teachers etc.) is
responsible for the behavior of a child.
The nature-nurture debate is about phenomena that emerge with the development that can be
explained from the intrinsic properties of a species or from extrensic properties that are gained
through experiences. The nature-nurture question comes into play when a child has a problem
and the question arises "Who is responsible? "The child or the environment?
b. For each period, explain why it emphasized nature or nurture, respectively.
,1880-1940 nature: Francis Galton stated that human characteristics were inherited from
nature. Galton was the first to bring up the nature vs nurture debate.
1920-1950 nurture: The nurture counterpoint was most strongly stated in the work of John
Watson in the 1920s who propounded a new approach he labeled behaviorism, extending
Pavlov's conditioning. to explain human individual differences. Learning theory came to
dominate human developmental research for almost 50 years strengthened by the operant
paradigms promoted in the work of the Skinnerians.
1960-1970 nature: Where the nativist shift in the 1960s was driven by advances in biological
science. This tilt toward nurture began to shift in the 1960s under assault from three directions
- ethology, behavioral genetics, and the cognitive revolution.
Ethologists argued that the nature of the species put large restrictions on the effects of nurture
such that certain prepared responses were impervious (pigeons were not able to avoid pushing
a lever which gives them a shock but rats could). Statistical advances and data from large
samples of twins permitted behavioral geneticists to argue that very large proportions of
behavioral differences could be explained by genetic difference. The cognitive revolution
characterized in the work of Jean Piaget placed the source of development in the mind of the
child. Experience was necessary for the child to construct the world.
1980-1990 nurture: the nurturist shift in the 1980s was driven by three advances in the social
science - the war on poverty, the concept of a social ecology, and cultural deconstruction.
war on poverty: economic circumstance was a major constraint on the availability of
reinforcements, such that the developmental environments of the poor were deprived in
contrast with those of the affluent. Bronfenbrenner (1977) in his vision of the social ecology
offered a more differentiated model than provided by economics alone. The influence of
postmodernist deconstruction was manifest in the emergence of a cultural psychology that
went beyond cross- cultural descriptive studies. Meaning rather than behavior became
dominant through demonstrations that the same child behaviors could be given different
meanings in different societies leading to different developmental consequences.
,2000-2010 nature: the new millennium coincided with another swing of the pendulum in the
nativist direction, again tied to major advances in biology. Neuroscience and molecular
biology have been making major contributions to our understanding (revealed brain patterns).
2. Sameroff poses that models to describe and understand development become more
complex over time. On p. 6, he states that the models develop “from linear to interactive to
transactive to multilevel dynamic systems”. Describe each of these four models and explain
how each model views development.
Linear model: there is a period of stability of functioning followed by a transition to a
structurally different period of stability presumed to reflect more encompassing cognitive and
social functioning. If you’re small you don’t understand certain things but you develop
because you are getting older. As our ages increases then brain develops and we start to
understand more.
Interactive: adds the interaction with the environment to the linear model. Example cognitive
development: indeed as we grow older our brains develop and we start understanding things
better. But with parents who stimulate you or in wealthy countries you end up with higher
skills than with non-stimulating parents or countries in war. It depends on the social context,
the context determines what you learn. Takes into account social context but child doesn’t
really have a role in that. The factors in the environment have influence but the kid itself has
no influence, he has an passive role! When we grow older we always develop but the way we
develop depends on the context! The parenting style might interact with personality. The
same factor in the environment can have a different effect on different individuals
Transactive: adds a dynamic systems perspective to the relation between person and context,
so the child also influences the environment. He/she is not passive in the transactive model.
It’s about the interdependent effects of the child and environment which is depicted in the
bidirectional arrows. Development is product of interactions between the child and the
experience provided by his or her social settings. Every child is different, so one
environment/context might not be as beneficial for one child as for another child. For
example: you need different approaches for different children within one family. The child
characteristics also influence parenting style for example.
Multilevel dynamic systems: adds the broader context to the transactive model. So we have
development biologically, socially, and it goes two ways. But those processes take also place
in a broader context (country, culture) and you have to take that into account as well. It
depends on where you live for example. You need to understand anthropology and sociology
(interdisciplinary approach). The environment consists of different levels and these levels
influence each other on their own, not only the individual (Bronfenbrenner).
3. Can you explain Figure 7? Specifically,
, a. Why does the self (in the middle) become broader?
The biology and psychology are the grey and black parts. The child learns (cognitive
processes (psychology) grows) and he grows physically. The child takes on more
responsibility when it grows. He gets a bigger influence on its environment because its
capacities/skills are increased. The self regulation increases/ becomes more advanced during
the development stages, so that’s why it becomes broader. This while the regulation of others
decreases/ the influence of the environment gets less.
b. Why do we only see arrows where the breadth of the self increases?
As you grow older the arrows go from the individual to the others. The arrows are only there
where the breadth of the self increases because these are the transition moments. These
moments you are expending your environment. The moments that you can take life into your
own hands.
This means that as we grow older we get more influence on our environment because our
capacities/skills are increased. Once we get bigger you start developing your own ideas and
preferences. We have more layers of environment, but the influence are not equally as strong
for on a child in the childhood compared to later on.
4. Sameroff states on p. 19: “It is striking that the nonreductionist systems thinking that
those who define psychology as a natural science have avoided is now a central part of their
colleague disciplines of biology and physics.” What does he mean here exactly? What does he
encourage in this paragraph?
It is about disciplines working together. Development includes nature (biology, physics), as
well as nurture. Interdisciplinary collaboration was essential to the advance of developmental
research, which is benefiting from advances in the natural science. Psychology could benefit
from interdisciplinarity.
5. On top of p. 20 Sameroff’s call is most explicitly formulated: “The core element...(..)...
from anthropology.” Can you interpret this passage? What can sociology and anthropology
contribute to our understanding of human development, according to Sameroff?
Sameroff criticizes that developmental psychology is not interdisciplinary enough to
understand young peoples development. We have to become more interdisciplinary, and only
then we can fully capture it.
The major ingredients that need to be integrated into developmental science are: the
opportunity structure construct from sociology and economics and the meaning making
construct from anthropology.
Sociology adds to that individuals are embedded in networks of relationships that constrain or
encourage different aspects of individual behavior. Social institutions like families, schools,
and the workplace are composed of roles that children come to understand and fill. Individual
differences are limited by role demands in predicting developmental outcomes.
Anthropology is interested in cultural differences in behavior, and differences in meaning
systems, that is, how different cultures think about their practices. The same behavior can
