The study of development is guided by the assumptions researchers hold about the nature of humans and their development. These assumptions are called meta-theories. “Meta” means “above” or “beyond,” like “meta-physics.” Other terms used to describe meta-theories are “world views,” “cosmologies,” “perspectives,” or “paradigms,” as in “paradigm shifts.” Explicit discussions of meta-theories are found most often in philosophy.

What are meta-theories of human development?

Meta-theories (or world views or paradigms) of human development are sets of assumptions people hold about the nature of humans and the meaning of development— what it looks like, how it happens, what causes it. These assumptions are important because everyone has them, including researchers, but they are often implicit, meaning we are not always consciously aware of them. In the study of development, such assumptions influence everything about how research is conducted: the questions we ask, the measures and methods that are used, and the interpretation of data. For example, if researchers assume that development ends at 18, they do not look for developmental changes after that age. Or, if researchers assume that aging is a process of decline, then they never look for characteristics that might improve as people get older.

All researchers have meta-theories, since assumptions are baked into the theories and methodologies they use. But researchers are often unaware of them, and so these assumptions are rarely acknowledged. It is important to note that meta-theories are not just cold cognitions. They are often deeply held convictions that researchers will fiercely defend. Typically researchers think that their assumptions are self-evident truths. They are often convinced that their assumptions are right and everyone else’s are wrong.

Researchers holding different meta-theories can have difficulty communicating with each other. Since they are asking different questions and using different truth criteria for research, they often argue past each other or misunderstand each other. One group of researchers will offer what they consider to be irrefutable proof of their ideas, which other researchers then dismiss as irrelevant. Discrepancies, inconsistencies, arguments, and furor often characterize an area of study in which researchers from multiple meta-theories are working.

What kinds of assumptions guide the study of human development?

We consider six key assumptions. You may have heard of many of them, since they are perennial issues in the study of development. They include:

1. Assumptions about human nature: whether people are born as blank slates (tabula rasa) or whether people are inherently good or inherently bad.
2. Assumptions about the causes of development: whether development is determined by nature (genes, biology) or determined by nurture (environment, learning).
3. Assumptions about the role of the individual in his or her own development: whether people are passive participants, reacting to external forces or whether they are active in choosing and shaping their own development.
4. Assumptions about stability vs. change: whether traits, characteristics, and experiences early in life have permanent effects or whether people are malleable and open to change throughout life.
5. Assumptions about continuity vs. discontinuity: whether development involves quantitative incremental change or qualitative shifts.
6. Assumptions about universality vs. context specificity: whether development follows a universal pathway or depends more on specific experiences and environmental contexts.

Nature of humans

What is the nature of humans? These assumptions refer to beliefs about the underlying qualities of our species– whether humans are born as blank slates (tabula rasa) or whether we all bring intrinsic human characteristics with us into the world. For example, these different assumptions are readily apparent in alternative conceptualizations of motivation—some theories assume that motives and motivation are all acquired, whereas others assume that all humans come with intrinsic motivations.

Nature and Nurture

Why are you the way you are? As you consider some of your features (height, weight, personality, being diabetic, etc.), ask yourself whether these features are a result of heredity or environmental factors, or both. Chances are, you can see the ways in which both heredity and environmental factors (such as lifestyle, diet, and so on) have contributed to these features. For decades, scholars have carried on the “nature/nurture” debate. For any particular feature, those on the side of nature would argue that heredity plays the most important role in bringing about that feature. Those on the side of nurture would argue that one’s environment is most significant in shaping the way we are. This debate continues in all aspects of human development, and most scholars agree that there is a constant interplay between the two forces. It is difficult to isolate the root of any single behavior as a result solely of nature or nurture.

Active versus Passive

How much do you play a role in your own developmental path? Are you at the whim of your genetic inheritance or the environment that surrounds you? Some theorists see humans as playing a much more active role in their own development. Piaget, for instance believed that children actively explore their world and construct new ways of thinking to explain the things they experience. In contrast, many behaviorists view humans as being more passive in the developmental process.

Stability versus Change

How similar are you to how you were as a child? Were you always as out-going or reserved as you are now? Some theorists argue that the personality traits of adults are rooted in the behavioral and emotional tendencies of the infant and young child. Others disagree, and believe that these initial tendencies are modified by social and cultural forces over time.

Continuity versus Discontinuity

Is human development best characterized as a slow, gradual process, or is it best viewed as one of more abrupt change? The answer to that question often depends on which developmental theorist you ask and what topic is being studied. The theories of Freud, Erikson, Piaget, and Kohlberg are called stage theories. Stage theories or discontinuous development assume that developmental change occurs in distinct stages that are qualitatively different from each other, and that unfold in a set, universal sequence. At each stage of development, children and adults have different qualities and characteristics. Thus, stage theorists assume development is discontinuous. Others, such as the behaviorists, Vygotsky, and information processing theorists, assume development is a more slow and gradual process known as continuous development. For instance, they would see the adult as not possessing new skills, but as using more advanced skills that were already present in some form in the child. Brain development and environmental experiences contribute to the acquisition of more developed skills.

Universal vs. context specific.

A final assumption focuses on whether whether pathways of development are presumed to be (1) normative and universal, meaning that all people pass through them in the same sequence, or (2) differential and specific, meaning that a variety of different patterns and pathways of developmental change are possible depending on the individual and the context. Some theorists, like Piaget or Erickson, assume that everyone progresses through the same stages of cognitive development in the same order, or that everyone negotiates the same set of developmental tasks at about the same ages. Other theorists, who endorse lifespan or ecological systems approaches, believe that development can take on a wide variety of patterns and pathways, depending on the specific cultural, historical, and societal under which it unfolds.

What are the guiding meta-theories in human development?

These six basic assumptions are clustered into “packages” that go together. Clusters are organized around metaphors, which are at the root of meta-theories of humans and their development. We consider four meta-theories, each with its own metaphor: (1) humans as seeds, as depicted by Maturational meta-theories; (2) humans as machines, as depicted in Mechanistic meta-theories (3) humans as butterflies, as depicted in Organismic meta-theories; and (4) humans as participants in a tennis game, conversation, or dance, as depicted by Contextualist meta-theories. For an overview of these guiding meta-theories, see this chart [pdf].

1. Maturational meta-theory: Maturational meta-theories can be understood using the plant as a metaphor. It is as if humans develop the same way as plants. The important thing to study is people’s “seeds,” that is, their genetic make-up. People are assumed to be passive, the product of their genes. The environment can provide support and nutrition (rain, sun, and soil), but can’t change a person’s nature (poppy seeds will always produce poppies). The role of the person is to be reactive—to their genes. The course of development will be continuous or discontinuous depending on the genetic program, although acorns always grow into oak trees.
2. Mechanistic meta-theory: Mechanistic meta-theories can be understood using the machine as a metaphor. It is as if humans change the same way as machines. People are assumed to be made up of pieces that can be studied apart from the rest of them. They are passive, with the energy coming from outside (like gasoline for a car). Development is continuous and people do not develop into something else (a car stays a car). The person can only react to the environment that is controlling them (like a car responding to the gas pedal or the brake). All causes for development come from the outside, from environmental forces.
3. Organismic meta-theory: Organismic meta-theories can be understood using the butterfly as a metaphor. It is as if humans develop the same way as butterflies. People are assumed to be made up of structured wholes. Their nature is to be curious, interested, and open to growth. They are active and develop through discontinuous qualitatively different stages (like the caterpillar, chrysalis, and butterfly). People construct their own next steps in development based on the affordances and opportunities provided by the environment. Development is caused by imbalances that lead to structural reorganizations. Development is progressive (gets better) and only goes in one direction (from caterpillar toward butterfly) and not the reverse.
4. Contextual meta-theory: Contextual meta-theories can be understood using the tennis game (or dance) as a metaphor. It is as if humans’ development is like a game of tennis or a dance. The important thing to study is the back and forth between the person and his or her context, both of which are assumed to be proactive and acting on their own agendas. Development can be continuous or discontinuous depending on how the game is played. Both person and environment are active partners in the system, which can lead to transformations in both.

What are examples of theories that fall within each meta-theory?

Nested within each higher-order meta-theory are sets of lower-level approaches or theories called “families” of perspectives or theories to denote that they share common properties, based on their similarity to the root metaphors and characteristics of the guiding meta-theories. This table contains several examples of “big” theories of development and provides an analysis of their defining features according to the meta-theoretical assumptions we have been discussing [pdf]. Based on this analysis, we indicate the higher-order family to which we think each big theory or approach belongs.

Although maturational meta-theories were prevalent in the beginning of the 20th century, their popularity has waxed and waned since then, and they have taken on many different forms. These include some formulations of behavioral genetics, sociobiology, evolutionary, ethological, neuroscience, temperament, and personality theories. Maturational assumptions are signaled by concepts such as “trait,” the search for “the aggression gene,” the discovery of the brain system, hormone, or neurotransmitter responsible for a specific condition, or any other terms that suggest development is solely the product of innate or immutable characteristics of individuals. Although they are not typically referred to as “maturational,” there are many kinds of theories that place all the active ingredients of behavior or development inside the head (or more specifically the social cognitions) of the person. Even if they are not direct descendants, these theories can be considered cousins of Maturational meta-theories because they are exclusively focused on the role of the individual.

The prototypic Mechanistic theories are behaviorist, operant, and classical conditioning learning theories, like social learning theory. This family of theories dominated psychology from the early to the mid-20th century, but Mechanistic theories are still alive and well in many areas, such as learning and motivation, and especially in many theories that have been adapted for use in educational systems. New kinds of machines serve as prototypes for mechanistic theories of memory, learning, and automatic functioning—focusing on the computer, the robot, and the automaton. Such assumptions have even pervaded our understanding of biological systems, as seen in metaphors like “the brain is a computer.” And although the “cognitive revolution” was supposed to have overthrown behaviorist assumptions, some cognitivistic theories treat humans as if they were information processing machines.

Perhaps surprisingly, there are also mechanistic assumptions embedded in certain progressive analyses of the effects of societal and social conditions, such as poverty, oppression, racism, and discrimination, which sometimes seem to imply that these external forces are the sole determinants of the development of stereotypes or implicit attitudes. In this case, because all people are presumed to passively internalize these societal prejudices, psychological phenomena are modeled after the metaphor of the “Xerox machine.” Just as in Maturational meta-theories, where humans could be seen as “hosts” to their genes, who were really running the show, in Mechanistic meta-theories, humans can be seen as “hosts” to their own behaviors, which are automatically reflexively produced based on previous social programming.

The prototypical Organismic theory is Piaget’s constructivist theory of cognitive and affective development, and the several neo-constructivist theories that were inspired by Piaget, for example, Kohlberg’s theory of the development of moral reasoning. Other theories living under the Organismic umbrella include Werner’s comparative psychology, focusing on the orthogenetic principle of differentiation and integration, and Erikson, who posited universal age-graded developmental tasks. Other theories that claim kinship with Organismic meta-theories (e.g., theories of intrinsic motivation) do not typically include notions of universal stages or tasks, but focus instead on Organismic assumptions about the nature of humans, specifically, that humans are innately active, curious, and interested, and inherently desire to explore, understand, and fit in with their social and physical environments. With the rise of radical contextualism and cultural relativism in psychology, theories of “universal” anything (e.g., psychological needs, stages, developmental tasks) have come increasingly under attack.

Some of the better-known members of the Contextualist family include Bronfenbrenner’s bio-ecological model and the lifespan approach, both of which arose in reaction to dominant meta-theories of their day (experimental child psychology and Piagetian psychology, respectively), with their almost exclusive focus on the child as a developing individual. The “contextualist” moniker reflects these perspectives’ insistence that development unfolds within and is shaped by higher-order multi-level ecological or contextual forces outside the individual, such as microsystem settings, and societal, cultural, and historical contexts.

Does the field of psychology have meta-theories?

During different historical periods, specific meta-theories dominated the field of psychology. For example, during the 1940s and 1950s, behaviorism held sway. In the 1960s, Piaget’s theories were introduced to the United States and captured the field’s attention. Some fierce theoretical and empirical battles were fought between behaviorists and Piagetians.

When a specific meta-theory governs the field, it becomes very difficult for researchers from opposing meta-theories to work—they have trouble getting funding, they have trouble getting their research findings published, and they are marginalized by other researchers. For example, when the area of motivation was dominated by behaviorists (who believed that all behavior was motivated by rewards and punishments), it was very difficult for researchers to study and publish research on intrinsic motivation.

What is the dominant meta-theory in the field today?

“Cognitivism” is a guiding meta-theory in the field of psychology today. “Cognitivism” is the assumption that all the causal factors that shape human behavior and development are inside the mind or belief system of the person. You can hear the assumptions in the theories of the field: self-efficacy, self-esteem, attributions, perceived social support, values, sense of purpose, goal orientations, internal working model, identity, and so on.

The paradigm that is currently taking over the field of psychology is neuroscience. That is, the brain is in charge of behavior, and neurobiology is destiny. Some branches of neuroscience are predominantly Maturational, as seen in discussions of the brain systems responsible for certain actions, predilections, and characteristics. Other branches are more Contextual, for example, research on neuroplasticity, which examines the way that social contexts and interactions shape the developing brain.

News flash: In the field of psychology outside developmental, most researchers assume that people don’t develop. In personality, social, cognitive, and industrial-organizational psychology, researchers largely examine individual differences as indicators of people’s permanent characteristics.

Who else has meta-theories?

Everyone has meta-theories about human nature and development: parents, teachers, nurses, social workers, doctors, business people, artists, politicians, and so on.

For example,

• doctors assume that weight loss is all about diet and exercise (nurture), so no one can do research on physiological differences in metabolism (nature).
• teachers have assumptions about whether students come with motivation (nature) or have to be motivated from the outside (nurture), and organize their classrooms accordingly.
• parents often argue about the nature of children’s development, whether it’s just the child’s personality (maturational), or the child is going through a normal stage (organismic), or if they are rewarding the wrong behavior (mechanistic).

What is the meta-theory that guides our class and this book?

Our class endorses a life-span perspective on human development, a contextualist perspective that fought its way through the dominant perspectives in child psychology (e.g., development ends at age 18), starting in the 1980s to become one of the dominant meta-theories governing the field of developmental science today. Note that your instructor chose your book, so their meta-theory is influencing the meta-theoretical filter through which you are learning about development.

What is the correct meta-theory?

There is no single correct definition of development or meta-theory. Really. Even the lifespan approach has its drawbacks.

However, as research accumulates, many theories derived from certain meta-theories have been found to be incomplete—so far researchers have not found any significant aspect of development that is caused only by nature or only by nurture. Therefore, most researchers currently say they favor interactionist metatheories, like contextualist or systems meta-theories. However, it is important to look carefully at researchers’ actual work, because sometimes they say that they have one meta-theory, but their work seems to be guided by assumptions from a different meta-theory.

Do I have a meta-theory about development?

Yes, you do. And you can figure out what it is. Although it’s not easy, you can discern your own assumptions about development—by thinking about which assumptions make the most sense to you. You can also see which kinds of theories you prefer and what kinds of recommendations you would make about how to structure development, like how people should parent, teach, or make policies. The hardest part about discovering your own meta-theory is realizing that it is made up of assumptions you have (based on your experiences and messages from society)—that aren’t necessarily true. Our meta-theories sure seem true to each of us!

How do I get rid of my meta-theory?

It’s not really possible to get rid of all of our assumptions. It is our goal to be aware of our own assumptions or meta-theories, to realize that they are not the truth but are our current working models of how the world operates and people develop. The most important thing is to be explicit about our assumptions and to be cognizant of how they are guiding our actions. It is a goal of this class to help students figure out their own assumptions and to help them become (or remain) open to alternative viewpoints.

Adapted from: Ellen Skinner, Glen Richardson, Jennifer Pitzer, and Cynthia Taylor. Portland State University. July 2011.

Supplemental Materials

• This article discusses the importance of critical reflection on the underlying assumptions of developmental psychology as a science.

Teo, T. (1997). Developmental Psychology and the Relevance of a Critical Metatheoretical Reflection. Human Development, 40(4), 195–210. https://doi.org/10.1159/000278723