The behaviour genetic decomposition of individual differences has been presented as being irrelevant to the study of human behavioural ontogeny. This introduces two problems. First, the analysis of systematic differences constitutes the basis for most statistical models used in the social sciences. If, generally speaking, this type of analysis is uninformative regarding development, how then can one empirically investigate human development? Second, behaviour genetic analyses are the only way to arrive at meaningful statements regarding the contributions of heredity and environment to human development. If results thus obtained are irrelevant, it is impossible to say anything on the subject of heredity, environment, and human ontogeny that is both meaningful and informative.
It is argued that developmental behaviour genetics should not be viewed as a theory of development, but rather as a method of testing certain well-defined hypotheses regarding the contributions of genetic and environmental influences to human development.
Individual differences assessed at any point in time reflect developmental processes prior to that time-gene-environment models are in a very basic sense inherently developmental... (Loehlin, 1975, p.41).
Obviously the finding of innate differences in behaviour does not illuminate the development of that behaviour in any way (Johnston, 1988, p. 623).
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anastasi, A. (1958). Heredity, environment, and the question "How?". Psychological Review, 56, 197-208.
2.
Baltes, P.B., & Nesselroade, J.R. (1973). The developmental analysis of individual differences on multiple measures. In J.R. Nesselroade & H.W. Reese (Eds.), Life-span developmental psychology: Methodological issues (pp. 219-251). Academic Press: New York.
3.
Bateson, P.P.G. (1987). Biological approaches to the study of behavioural development. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 10, 1-22.
4.
Boomsma, D.I., & Molenaar, P.C.M. (1987). Genetic analysis of repeated measures. I. Simplex models. Behavior Genetics, 17, 111-124.
5.
Bornstein, M.H., & Sigman, M.D. (1986). Continuity in mental development from infancy. Child Development, 57, 251-274.
6.
Buss, A.R., & Royce, J.R. (1975). Ontogenetic changes in cognitive structure from a multivariate perspective. Developmental Psychology, 11, 87-101.
7.
Eaves, L.J., Long, J., & Heath, A.C. (1986). A theory of developmental change in quantitative phenotypes applied to cognitive development. Behavior Genetics, 16, 142-162.
8.
Freedman, D.G. (1974). Human infancy: An evolutionary perspective. New York: Wiley.
9.
Fulker, D.W., Cardon L.R., DeFries, J.C., & Kimberling, W.J. (1991). Multiple regression analysis of sib-pair data on reading to detect quantative trait loci. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 3, 299-313.
10.
Gottlieb, G. (1983). The psychobiological approach to the developmental issues. In M.M. Haith & J.J. Campos (Eds.). Handbook of child development: Infancy and biological bases (4th ed.) (Vol. 2, pp. 1-26). New York: Wiley.
11.
Gottlieb, G. (1991). Experiential canalization of behavioural development: Theory. Developmental Psychology, 27, 4-13.
12.
Hebb, D.O. (1953). Heredity and environment in mammalian behaviour. British Journal of Animal Behaviour, 1, 43-47.
13.
Hewitt, J.K. (1990). Changes in genetic control during learning, development, and aging. In M.E. Hahn, J.K. Hewitt, N.D. Henderson, & R.H. Benno (Eds.), Developmental behaviour genetics: Neural, biometrical and evolutionary approaches (pp. 217-235). New York: Oxford University Press.
14.
Johnston, T.D. (1987). The persistence of dichotomies in the study of behavioural development. Developmental Review, 7,149-182.
15.
Johnston, T.D. (1988). Developmental explanation and the ontogeny of birdsong: Nature/ nurture redux. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11, 617-663.
16.
Lehrman, D.S. (1953). A critique of Konrad Lorenz's theory of instinctive behaviour. Quarterly Review of Biology, 28, 337-363.
17.
Lehrman, D.S. (1970). Semantic and conceptual issues in the nature-nurture problem. In L.R. Aronson, E. Tobach, D.S. Lehrman, & J.S. Rosenblatt. (Eds.), Development and evolution: Essays in memory of T.C. Schneirla (pp. 17-52). San Francisco: Freeman.
18.
Lerner, R.M. (1986). Concepts and theories of human development (2nd ed.). New York: Random.
19.
Lerner, R.M., Skinner, E.A., & Sorell, G.T. (1980). Methodological implications of the contextual/dialectical theories of development. Human Development, 23, 225-235.
20.
Lerner, R.M., & von Eye, A. (1992). Sociobiology and human development: arguments and evidence. Human Development, 35,12-33.
21.
Lewontin, R.C. (1974). The analysis of variance and the analysis of causes. American Journal of Human Genetics, 26,400-411.
22.
Loehlin, J.C. (1975). Empirical methods in quantitative human behaviour genetics. In K.W. Schaie, V.E. Anderson, G.E. McClearn, & J. Money (Eds.), Developmental human behavior genetics. (pp. 41-55). Lexington, M.A.: Lexington.
23.
Mather, K., & Jinks, J.L. (1977). Introduction to biometrical genetics. London: Chapman & Hall.
24.
McCall, R.B. (1981). Nature-nurture and the two realms of development: A proposed integration with respect to mental development. Child Development, 52, 1-12.
25.
Medawar, P., & Medawar, J. (1977). The life science. New York: Granada.
Molenaar, P.C.M., & Oppenheimer, L. (1985). Dynamic models of development and the mechanistic-organismic controversy. New ideas in Psychology, 3, 233-242.
28.
Neale, M.C., & Cardon, L.R.Methodology for genetic studies of twins and families. NATO ASI Series D. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
29.
Oppenheim, R.W. (1982). Preformation and epigenesis in the origins of the nervous system and behaviour: issues, concepts, and their history. In P.P.G. Bateson & P.H. Klopfer (Eds.), Perspectives in ethology (Vol. 5, pp. 1-100). New York: Plenum.
30.
Oyama, S. (1982). A reformulation of the idea of maturation. In P.P.G. Bateson & P.H. Klopfer (Eds.), Perspectives in ethology (Vol. 5, pp. 101-131). New York: Plenum.
31.
Oyama, S. (1985). The ontogeny of information: Developmental systems and evolution. Cambridge University Press.
32.
Overton, W.F., & Reese, H.W. (1973). Models of Development: Methodological implications. In J.R. Nesselroade & H.W. Reese (Eds.), Life-span developmental psychology: Methodological issues (pp. 65-86). New York: Academic Press.
33.
Plomin, R. (1986). Development, genetics, and psychology. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
34.
Plomin, R.DeFries, J.C., & Fulker, D.W. (1988). Nature and nurture during infancy and early childhood. Cambridge University Press.
35.
Plomin, R., DeFries, J.C. & McClearn, G.E. (1990). Behavior genetics: a primer. San Francisco, CA: Freeman.
36.
Roubertoux, P.L., & Capron, C. (1990). Are intelligence differences hereditarily transmitted?European Bulletin of Cognitive Psychology, 10(special issue), 555-594.
37.
Sameroff (1983). Developmental systems: context and evolution. In M.M. Haith & J.J. Campos (Eds.), Handbook of child development; Infancy and biological bases (4th ed.) (Vol. 5, pp. 237-294). New York: Wiley.
38.
Scarr, S., & Weinberg, R.A. (1980). Calling all camps! The war is over. American Sociology Review, 45, 859-865.
39.
Wachs, T.D. (1983). The use and abuse of environment in behaviour genetic research. Child Development, 54, 396-407.
40.
Weiss, P.A. (1973). The science of life. New York: Futura.
41.
Wilson, O.E. (1978). On human nature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
42.
Wohlwill, J.F. (1973). The study of behavioral development. New York: Academic Press.
