What are assumptions about human nature?
Assumptions about human nature refer to beliefs about whether people are born as blank slates (tabula rasa) or whether people bring their own intrinsic characteristics with them into the world. One of the most important assumptions about human nature is whether people can be considered “active” or “reactive.” A “reactive” nature suggests that humans are inherently at rest, and so they tend to be relatively passive, non-conscious, and non-agentic. In contrast, an “active” nature suggests that humans are inherently and spontaneously active and energetic; that humans by nature are goal-directed, agentic, self-regulating, conscious, and reflective beings. These differences in assumptions can be clearly seen in theories of motivation—in which some families of theories assume that motives and motivation are acquired, and some assume that humans are intrinsically motivated.
What are assumptions about the nature of the environment?
One of the most important assumptions about the nature of the environment also refers to how “active” or “passive” it is. This notion in reference to environments is very much like the idea of active and passive humans. “Active” environments are ones that have goals and an agenda, and so are energetically trying to shape the developing person in particular directions, whereas “passive” environments do not have a specific agenda that they are using to make decisions about how to interact with the developing person. In school contexts, an example of an “active” environment would be teachers, who have an agenda and goals for their students; in contrast, students’ peer groups, who may also be important contexts for their academic development, generally do not have an agenda for the development of their members.
What are assumptions about the “unit of analysis of change”?
These refer to assumptions about the nature of the entities that are developing and which ones are most important to study. Some meta-theories assume that the most important units to study are the fundamental building blocks that make up humans, such as their genes and their related phenotype expressions, or human neurophysiological structures (like the brain), or stable traits and attributes (like intelligence, temperament, or personality). Other meta-theories focus attention on observable behaviors and responses. Others suggest that the key developing entities that deserve our attention are bio-psychological structures and their functions in regulating actions. Yet others suggest that the fundamental units to consider are the interactions between the person and the context.
These presumptions about the nature of the focal system and “where the developmental action” is located are among the most basic assumptions of meta-theories of development. They are visible in each theory’s choice of target phenomena as well as in each study’s object of investigation. In analyzing these assumptions, it is, of course, important to note the “bull's eye” that theories and studies consider to be the focal point of their activities. However, it is equally important to notice what these theories dismiss as irrelevant, as evidenced in their decisions about what not to include in theories and what not to study. For example, theories of parenting obviously focus on the role of parents in shaping children’s development, but some of them also consider how children shape their parents behavior and some do not. In a similar vein, almost all theories of psychopathology currently include a place for the neurophysiological differences that underpin the presentation of behavioral problems, but some also consider the experiences that shape those neurophysiological systems and some do not.
What are assumptions about the “course of development”?
These are the fundamental parameters that describe the way that development proceeds. One of the most important features of the course of development, as shown already in Figure 2.1, is whether development involves quantitative continuous incremental change or discontinuous qualitative shifts. Some meta-theories assume that development is “more” or “less” of some characteristic, as reflected in descriptors like “trajectories” and the analysis of mean level changes or growth curves. Other meta-theories assume that development involves qualitative changes in the form, structure or organization of a system, as reflected in descriptors like
“phases,” “stages,” or “developmental tasks,” and the empirical search for age-graded shifts. A second is assumption about the course of development, also depicted in Figure 2.1, is whether (1) pathways of development are presumed to be normative and universal, meaning that all people pass through them in the same sequence (and sometimes even the same rate), or (2) pathways are presumed to be differential or individual- and context-specific, meaning that a variety of different pathways are possible and that different people show different patterns of developmental change. Sometimes assumptions about the course of development also refer to its directionality and presumed end state—whether development always refers to positive healthy growth and progression or whether it encompass changes in many different directions, sometimes toward gains but sometimes toward declines or losses.
