Skip to main content
Social Sci LibreTexts

19.2: What are some key issues upon which these meta-theories differ?

  • Page ID
    9372
  • \( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \) \( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)\(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)\(\newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

    An obvious first place to start in identifying similarities and differences among the four meta-theories is their relative emphasis on nature versus nurture, or on the relative importance of the person and of the environment. Before we embark on this issue, it is important to point that none of the meta-theories assumes that only one of these ingredients (i.e., person or environment) is both necessary and sufficient to generate development. Even the most maturational of meta-theories acknowledges that the environment must provide essential nutrients for the maturational program to unfold. No seeds will germinate without soil, water, and sun. However, it is the seed that contains the developmental blueprint that determines the mature design of the organism. In a similar vein, not even the most mechanistic of meta-theories looses track of the fact that without certain organismic capacities—such as the ability to detect and respond to environmental contingencies—no social conditioning is possible. However, it is the environment that brings the developmental agenda that will shape the trajectory of behavior.

    It is the relative weight given to each factor that distinguishes the meta-theories. Figure 8.1 depicts the four meta-theories along two important axes: the horizontal axis represents the relative importance that the meta-theory assigns to the person, and the vertical axis represents the relative importance of the environment. As can be seen by the placement of the meta-theories, Maturational meta-theories assign great weight to the person and very little weight to the environment; these meta-theories assume that any average expectable environment would be sufficient to support the maturational program. For that reason, we sometimes refer to them as “big O” meta-theories (for their overriding emphasis on the “O”rganism). In contrast, Mechanistic meta-theories assign great weight to the environment and very little weight to the person; they assume that normal humans come with the equipment needed to detect and respond to social conditioning. For that reason, we sometimes refer to them as “big E” meta-theories (for their overriding emphasis on the “E”nvironment).

    Organismic meta-theories assign great weight to the organism (as might be inferred from the name of the meta-theory) but, since the organism’s goal is to adapt to the environment, these meta-theories assign a more important role to the environment. For that reason, we sometimes refer to them as “big O-little e” meta-theories (for their emphasis on the “O”rganism without forgetting the “e”nvironment). Contextual meta-theories, as the name implies, assign great weight to the context but, since the individual is considered to be an active agent that selects, initiates, and responds to the environment, these meta-theories view the person as also playing an important role. For that reason, we sometimes refer to them as “big E-little o” meta-theories (for their emphasis on the “E”nvironment without forgetting the “o”rganism).