Experiential canalization of behavioral development: Theory.

Abstract

Waddington's (1942) notion of canalization has been widely invoked in developmental psychology to conceptualize species-typical regularities in behavioral development as genetically determined. In contrast, a developmental systems view, such as the one described in the present article, sees the genes as only one component in a hierarchy of influences, all of which contribute to canalize behavioral development. A key issue is that genetic activity does not by itself produce finished traits; differentiation occurs as a consequence of events above as well as below the cellular level, necessarily involving factors in addition to genetic influences to canalize behavioral development. In exploring the possible experiential canalization of development, it was found that the mallard duck embryo's contact call plays a canalizing role in species-specific perceptual development (Gottlieb, 1991). Thus, normally occurring experience, in concert with genetic and other activities, can canalize behavioral development.

Early environments and the ecology of inflammation

“…Infectious threats to self are confronted quickly and effectively with a robust response, but collateral damage to self is minimized by actively down-regulating responses after resolution. Like many other experience-based neural and physiological systems (13,71,72), active engagement with the environment during critical stages of development is necessary to achieve this functional state. In the case of immune/inflammatory systems, microbial exposures seem to be important, expectable inputs that have been a normal part of the human environment for millennia.…”

Developmental Dynamics: Toward a Biologically Plausible Evolutionary Psychology.

“…Wright, 1994). Fueled in large part by the influence of sociobiology on the behavioral sciences over the past several decades, proponents of evolutionary psychology assert that applying insights from evolutionary theory to explanations of human behavior will stimulate more fruitful research programs and provide a powerful framework for discovering evolved psychological mechanisms thought to be forged by natural selection operating over thousands of generations (Bjorklund & Pellegrini, 2000Buss, 1989Buss, , 1991Charlesworth, 1986;Tooby & Cosmides, 1990b).Ideas gleaned from evolutionary biology have certainly influenced theory building in psychology (see Cairns, 1998;Cairns, Gariepy, & Hood, 1990;Edelman, 1989;Gottlieb, 1991Johnston, 1985;Sameroff, 1983). There is little doubt that the incorporation of evolutionary principles and perspectives into the psychological sciences can provide a useful heuristic framework for exploring the origins and nature of human psychological mechanisms (e.g., Deacon, 1997;Edelman & Tononi, 2000;Stewart & Cohen, 1997).…”

Genes, interactions, and the development of behavior.

“…The representation of development in Figure 3 is similar in spirit to other depictions, such as those of Gottlieb (1991, Figure 1) and Bateson (1996, Figure 1.1), but it extends them and explicates some important features of development as follows.…”

“…This statement, of course, has been made before (e.g., Bateson, 1983Bateson, , 1987Gottlieb, 1998), but the model helps to make the statement more precise by showing the pathway by which experience activates genes through the agency of neural activity. There is considerable evidence to suggest that the initial stage in this process involves a class of genes known as immediate-early genes (IEGs; Arenander & Herschman, 1993;Morgan & Curran, 1989, 1991Robertson, 1992). The possible role of IEGs in behavioral development is further discussed in a later section.…”

“…Such a taxonomy of genetic roles would be conceptually similar to that proposed by Gottlieb (1976) for the contributions of experience to development; the latter has been a useful model despite the fact that it does not specify all the processes that intervene between the experience and the behavior (cf. Gottlieb, 1991Gottlieb, , 1995. For example, in a review of the effects of single-gene mutations on the development of touch receptors in the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans, Chalfie (1993) proposed four developmental roles (generation, specification, function, and maintenance) for the 18 genes that have been implicated so far in touch receptor development.…”