Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-bthnr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-06-02T14:58:28.542Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A call for an expanded synthesis of developmental and evolutionary paradigms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2012

Andrew J. Lewis
Andrew J. Lewis*
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria 3125, Australia. andrew.lewis@deakin.edu.au www.deakin.edu.au/hmnbs/staffprofiles/index.php?username=andlewis
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Charney's target article continues a critique of genetic blueprint models of development that suggests reconsideration of concepts of adaptation, inheritance, and environment, which can be well illustrated in current research on infant attachment. The concepts of development and adaptation are so heavily based on the model of genetics and inheritance forged in the modern synthesis that they will require reconsideration to accommodate epigenetic inheritance.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 35 , Issue 5 , October 2012 , pp. 368 - 369
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Fonagy, P., Gergely, G. & Target, M. (2007) The parent–infant dyad and the construction of the subjective self. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 48(3,4):288–328.Google Scholar
Griffiths, P. E. & Gray, R. D. (2005) Three ways to misunderstand developmental systems theory. Biology and Philosophy 20(2):417–25.Google Scholar
Jablonka, E. & Lamb, M. J. (2007) Précis of evolution in four dimensions. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 30(04):353–65.Google Scholar
Lehrman, D. S. (1970) Semantic and conceptual issues in the nature-nurture problem. In: Development and evolution of behavior: Essays in memory of T. C. Schneirla, ed. Aronson, L. R., Tobach, E., Lehrman, D. S. & Rosenblatt, J. S., pp. 17–52. W.H Freeman.Google Scholar
Lewis, A. J. & Tooley, G. (2009) Disorganized attachment and reproductive strategies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32(01):35–36.Google Scholar
Lewontin, R. C. (2001) Gene, organism and environment: A new introduction. In: Cycles of contingency: Developmental systems and evolution, ed. Oyama, S., Griffiths, P. E. & D Gray, R., pp. 55–57. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mattick, J. S. (2009) Deconstructing the dogma: A new view of the evolution and genetic programming of complex organisms. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1178:29–46.Google Scholar
Mousseau, T. A. & Fox, C. W. (1998) The adaptive significance of maternal effects. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13(10):403–407.Google Scholar
Müller, G. B. (2007) Evo-devo: Extending the evolutionary synthesis. Nature Reviews Genetics 8(12):943–49.Google Scholar
Plomin, R. (2011) Why are children in the same family so different from one another? Non-shared environment three decades later. International Journal of Epidemiology 40(3):563–82.Google Scholar
Schneirla, T. C. (1957) The concept of development in comparative psychology. In: The concept of development: An issue in the study of human behaviour, ed. Harris, D.B., pp. 78–108. University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Trivers, R. (1974) Parent-offspring conflict. American Zoologist 14(1):249–64.Google Scholar