Individual Development from an Interactional Perspective (Psychology Revivals)

A Longitudinal Study

David Magnusson

• Publisher: Psychology Press
• Year: 2015
• eBook ISBN: 9781317524342
• Topic: Psicologia
• Subtopic: Psicologia dello sviluppo

Originally published in 1988, this title presents a longitudinal research project 'Individual Development and Adjustment' (IDA), planned and implemented at the Department of Psychology, University of Stockholm. This title concerns the theoretical background of the project, the planning and collecting of data during the second phase of the project when the participants had reached adulthood, and the presentation of some empirical, illustrative studies based on the collected data.

Part I
Theoretical Background and the Implementation of the Project

The theoretical, interactional background is presented and its theoretical and methodological implications for developmental research are discussed. Against this background, the planning and implementation of the project with respect to methods and procedures for data collection are presented.

Chapter 1
A Theoretical Framework: The Interactional Perspective

Introduction

As a scientific discipline, psychology deals with problems of crucial importance and interest for individuals, groups, and societies. Solid knowledge about psychological phenomena could contribute to the formation of childbearing conditions, educational systems, working conditions, and other major aspects of human life that better suit the needs and potentials of individuals and groups. Unfortunately, tangible contributions in this respect have been surprisingly few. An essential and challenging task for psychology is to analyze the reasons for this state of affairs. Such an analysis ideally could contribute to better performance in the future.

More and more researchers agree that one of the main impediments to real progress in psychology is the fragmentation of the field. It has been compartmentalized into subareas, each with its own concepts, methodologies and methods, and research strategies (Eysenck, 1983; Sameroff, 1982; Staats, 1981; Toulmin, 1981). One implication of this fragmentation is that empirical research in different areas is not planned, implemented, or interpreted in one general theoretical frame of reference. We lack both the basic conditions for the accumulation of knowledge that are characteristic of progress in a maturing science and a common language for the exchange of ideas. As a result, much psychological theorizing goes in circles instead of moving forward (Meehl, 1978).

Sometimes researchers describe the fragmentation of theory and empirical research in psychology as the result of specialization and regard it as a natural process in the development of a scientific discipline. What appears to be specialization, however, can have other explanations. In his evaluation of the status of the behavioral sciences, Toulmin (1981) discussed the problem of fragmentation and concluded:

. . . while subdivisions of the physical and biological sciences into largely independent subdisciplines rests on a genuinely functional differentiation between their respective problems and issues, the fragmentation of the behavioral sciences rests— too often—oil nothing more than sectarial rivalry and incomprehension. As a result, what has grown up in the behavioral sciences is less a rational and functional division of labor than a state of bureaucratic warfare! Even—given the charismatic character of the leading figures involved—a condition of sectarial hostility (pp. 267-268).

As far as this description is valid, it further emphasizes the need for a common perspective or frame of reference for psychological theory and empirical research.

The focus of the longitudinal project and the theme of this book are individual development. A common framework for developmental research should include a model of the human being that can be used as a framework for psychological theory and empirical research as a whole (Cairns, 1979a). One of the main points of departure for such a common framework is the definition of psychology, its goal and the delineation of the phenomena that are of central interest for psychological theory and empirical research.

The Goal of Psychological Theory and Research

Definitions of specific disciplines and delineations of their boundaries in relation to other disciplines are more or less arbitrary. The boundaries are generally neither self-evident nor obvious, and they change as a result of scicntific progress. A good example is the development of physics and chemistry, where a very clear and strict distinction between the two has dissolved as a result of scientific progress in both fields.

At the same time, the central phenomena with which a certain discipline is concerned at its present state of development must be made clear. This clarification is essential, since the formulation of the goal of a scientific discipline has important consequences not only for theory but also for the way in which empirical research is planned, implemented, and interpreted. Making the goal explicit helps the researcher to see these consequences. The strong influence on the direction of development of a scientific field is illustrated by what happened to psychology after Watson (1913) formulated the goal of psychology as to "control and predict behavior."

The point of departure for a brief discussion of the theoretical framework for the present longitudinal project is our definition of the goal of psychology, a goal that connotes a strong heuristic value: to understand and explain why individuals think, feel, act and react as they do in real life situations. One important implication of this formulation is that it directs the main emphasis toward understanding and explaining the lawfulness of the way individuals function in real life (in the Wundt-James tradition) rather than toward predicting and controlling behavior (as in the Watson tradition).

The use of the goal outlined above necessitates a distinction between theories and models which analyze and explain individual functioning in a current perspective and those which employ a developmental perspective. Models that use the current perspective analyze and explain the way an individual thinks, feels, acts and reacts in terms of his/her current psychological and biological dispositions, independently of the developmental process that might have led to the present state of affairs. Developmental models analyze and explain current functioning in terms of the individual's developmental history.

Three Metatheoretical Approaches to Research on Human Functioning

The general theoretical perspective for the planning, implementation, and interpretation of the longitudinal project is interactional. As a background to a description of the main aspects of an interactional view, three main approaches at a metatheorctical level, to why individuals think, feel, react and act as they do will be sketched (cf. Magnusson, 1985a).

The first approach is mentalistic; it emphasizes mental factors. According to this approach, the main explanation for an individual's way of thinking, feeling, acting, and reacting is to be found in the functioning of the mind and can be discussed and explained in terms of intrapsychic processes of perceptions, thoughts, values, goals, plans, and conflicts. To this approach belongs the main stream of research on cognitive processes, information processing, decision making, and learning as well as personality theories such as most trait theories and psychodynamic models for individuals' current functioning. In developmental research this is reflected in the interest in the stability and change of personal characteristics such as cognition, intelligence, ego control, attachment, ability to delay gratification, and so forth. According to this approach, it is enough to investigate mental factors in order to understand why an individual thinks, feels, acts, and reacts as he does.

The second general approach identifies biological factors as having a primary influence on human behavior.¹ According to this reductionistic approach, individuals' way of thinking, feeling, acting, and reacting basically can be traced back to biological factors and individual differences explained in those terms.

When current biological models are applied, an individual's thoughts, feelings, reactions, and actions are assumed to be determined presumably by his/her biological equipment and its way of functioning. Primary determining factors are assumed to be found in the physiological system, in the brain and the autonomic nervous system. An important aspect of the traditional application of this approach is the assumption that there is a unidirectional causality between biological factors on the one hand and mental factors and conduct on the other.

In biological developmental models, the major determining biological factors are genetic and maturational. For individual development, this view implies that individual differences in the course of development are caused by genes, with little emphasis on environmental factors. Cairns (1979a) described the extreme expression of this view in terms of the organism as a "gene machine" (p. 221). Hunt (1962) discussed and criticized this general view, which he summarized in terms of the concepts of "predetermined development" and "fixed intelligence", in his classic book Intelligence and Experience, and Scarr (1981) critically assessed it from the point of view of behavioral genetics.

The third approach locates the main causal factors for individual functioning in the environment. This general approach is reflected in theories and models of human behavior at all levels of generality for environmental factors: macrosocial theories, theories about the role of the "sick family" (Laing & Esterson, 1964) and S-R models for very specific aspects of behavior.

Experimental psychology in the S-R tradition is a good example of a current environmental model. Laws and principles for individual functioning are studied in terms of reactions to variation in the intensity of one or more aspects of the physical environment. Frequently, these studies are conducted in the laboratory under standardized conditions.

In developmental psychology, there are various environmental streams with different sources. One is the behavioristic model, which emphasizes the enormously strong role of the environment in individual development; Watson (1930) expressed this view when he wrote: "Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I'll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select—doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief, and yes, even beggerman and thief, regardless of his talents, tensions, tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his ancestors" (p. 104). Another approach is rooted in sociology and is reflected in the vast amount of research on children growing up in environments that differ with respect to general, geographical or social characteristics such as social class, rural vs. urban cultures, or more specific characteristics such as one vs. two parent families, home vs. day care, mother's employment status, how many hours the father spends on child care and household tasks etc., in other words, what Bronfenbrenner and Crouter (1983) called the "new demography."

Like the biological model of a human being, one essential characteristic of the environmental model is the assumption of unidirectional causality, in this case between environmental factors and individual behavior. This characteristic is reflected in the planning and interpretation of research as well as in the interpretation of the many correlations presented between sociological characteristics of the environment and individual factors, particularly correlations concerned with various forms of extrinsic and intrinsic adjustment, for example, most textbooks on the developmental background of criminality now refer to environmental upbringing conditions as a main causal factor.

The distinction among the three approaches is not only a theoretical issue. It has important implications for planning and performing research on essential issues, as well as consequences for psychological application and political and administrative decisions and actions.

A good illustration of this point is the current discussion about the appropriate treatment of mental problems and mental illness. Each approach finds different consequences for cures and recommends different measures to forestall the development of such maladaptations. The mentalistic approach sees the main cause of an individual's suffering, from depression or schizophrenia, for example, as the malfunctioning of thought-processes: the natural treatment is assumed to be psychological therapy. According to the biological approach, an individual's thoughts, emotions, and actions can be influenced by changing his/her biological processes, and the appropriate therapy is therefore psychopharmacological treatment. The environmental approach holds that the genesis and development of various aspects of mental illness can be influenced and prevented by changing the environment through the removal, addition or improvement of external conditions. Another example can be found in the area of delinquency and the appropriate measures for prevention. Rutter and Giller (1983) argued that changes in the environment (the school, the area, the community, the physical environment) would be the most effective prevention. Farrington (1985) believed on the other hand, that it was as plausible to locate the causes of delinquency in the individual, a view that leads to other implications in the discussion about appropriate prevention measures.

The Interactional Perspective

In psychological theory and empirical research, one basic prerequisite for overcoming fragmentation is a common theoretical frame of reference for planning, implementing, and interpreting empirical research. This should integrate, at a metathcoretical level, the three approaches presented briefly in the preceding section. A model that views the person as a psychological and biological being in constant interaction with his/her environment offers such a perspective (see Russell, 1970). Such an interactional perspective formed the frame of reference for the planning of the longitudinal project and has guided the research process from the beginning.

As a background to their presentation of models about heredity and environment in the development of temperament, Buss and Plomin (1984) discussed "interactionism" with reference to the following quotation from Thomas, Birch, Chess, and Robbins (1961): "Behavioral phenomena are considered to be the expression of a continuous organism-environment interaction from the very first manifestations in the life of the individual" (Thomas, Birch, Chess, & Robbins, 1961, p. 723). Buss and Plomin commented upon this formulation in the following way: "Surely, no one will disagree with this truism, but it is not very informative" (p. 28-29). This way of discussing an interactional position using single statements at a very general level and the resulting negative attitude are not uncommon. There are at least two possible explanations. First, many of those who take a critical position are obviously not very well informed; the way they discuss the interactional perspective very often reveals a superficial analysis of the essential issues and little knowledge about the relevant literature. Second, when it comes to synchronizing theoretical ideas, methods, analyses, and interpretations of empirical research into an interactional perspective, little has been done.

As is reflected in the preceding quotation, to a casual observer and commentator, an interactional perspective may seem obvious, even trivial. However, when taken seriously, it has far-reaching and important implications for planning, implementation, and interpretation of psychological theorizing and research. This volume is an attempt to emphasize these implications for developmental research and to take these implications into account during actual empirical investigations of developmental problems.

Interaction is a central principle in functioning of open systems at all levels, from the macrocosmos to the microcosmos (cf. von Bertalanffy, 1968; Bronfenbrenner, 1979a; Miller, 1978). Components of open systems do not function in isolation, and they usually do not function interdependently in a linear way. The interaction is much more complex, particularly for the biological and psychological systems which interact together in an individual. Within the biological system, interdependence and non-linear interrelationships reflect a fundamental principle. The same is true for the relationship among the various aspects of the psychological system that are defined in terms of hypothetical constructs. Interaction is also the fundamental principle underlying the relationship between an individual and the environment.

Three Basic Propositions

The interactional perspective for individual functioning rests upon three basic propositions that should be considered simultaneously:

1. The individual develops and functions as a total, integrated organism. Development does not take place in single aspects per se, in isolation from the totality.
2. The individual develops and functions in a dynamic, continuous and reciprocal process of interaction with his/her environment.
3. The characteristic way in which the individual develops, in interaction with the environment, depends on and influences the continuous reciprocal process of interaction among subsystems of psychological and biological factors.

The meaning and implications of these three propositions are discussed in the following sections with special reference to aspects that have relevance for the planning and interpretation of the longitudinal project.

A Holistic "Person" Approach

In general, psychological research in fields such as intelligence, cognition, learning, information processing, decision making, and motivatio...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Original Title
• Original Copyright
• Contents
• PREFACE
• FOREWORD
• PROLOGUE
• Part I THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROJECT
• PART II EMPIRICAL STUDIES
• EPILOGUE
• REFERENCES
• AUTHOR INDEX
• SUBJECT INDEX