Abstract:From the late 1800s, under the auspices of G. Stanley Hall and then independently by others, investigations of children’s development were undertaken from the perspective of recapitulation theory. This application of the theory was guided by the overarching premises that (a) human evolution was a linear chronology of biological and sociocultural progress; (b) an individual’s abilities, behaviors, and biological development followed the same evolutionary stages as had the human species (i.e., Ernst Haeckel’s dictum that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny); and (c) the path of human evolution could be traced backward through identification of contemporary manifestations of development and behavior. An assumption of the theory was that the human species is hierarchically differentiated by race, a concept defined by physical attributes and sociocultural practices. Persons of north-western European descent were believed to be of a race that had achieved the greatest evolutionary advancement; those of African descent, as belonging to that with the least evolutionary distance from ape ancestry. Evolutionary achievement was also differentiated by gender and economic status, with Caucasian bourgeois males ranked as superior over all others. Additionally, evolutionary progress was applied to individuals in relation to their proximity to ideals of appearance, heteronormativity, behavior and well-being. Incorporation of these beliefs into the study of human development was productive of treatises and practices that had widespread influence in scientific and popular culture. Child-centred parenting advice, progressive educational reform, and youth organizations emphasized gendered behaviors that, it was believed, would ensure children’s surpassing their parent’s evolutionary attainment, resulting in continued progress toward an ideal Euro-Anglo race. The playground movement’s segregation of non-whites, the disabled, poor and unattractive from archetype white children was similarly based on the theory’s dictum that the former being seen by the latter would contaminate white evolutionary well-being. The theoretical beliefs became further rationalization for the incarceration of Indigenous children in residential facilities that through coercion and isolation from their communities were intended to abolish the ‘race’s’ genetic lineage. Even though child study regard for the theory declined by the 1920s, its regulatory prescripts endured within developmental psychology, continuing to significantly impact beliefs about women, non-whites, the economically disadvantaged, those with disabilities and those who are gender nonconforming. As example, through policies that limit access to educational funding with explanations that such opportunities fail to alter the economic trajectory of non-whites, and through educational content that presents bourgeois Euro-Anglo persons as representing developmental normality, Academic defence of the theory’s and its founding adherents includes its use to rationalize bigotry, violence and discrimination. It is a legacy that requires concerted effort to defeat.

How deep do we have to go to rehabilitate evolutionary psychology? Reply to Bjorklund et al. (2022).

Integrating Development and Evolution in Psychological Science: Evolutionary Developmental Psychology, Developmental Systems, and Explanatory Pluralism

Developmental psychopathology as a meta-paradigm: From zero-sum science to epistemological pluralism in theory and research

Exaptation, adaptation, and evolutionary psychology

What Taking Development Seriously Means for Evolutionary Theory

Cross-cultural, developmental psychology: Integrating approaches and key insights

Twenty years on from Developmental Plasticity and Evolution : middle-range theories and how to test them

Self-reflexivity, Recessivity and the Evolution of Psychology

The Road Not Taken: What Developmental Psychology Might Learn From Darwin’s Insights Concerning Sexual Selection

The significance and scope of evolutionary developmental biology: a vision for the 21st century

Taking stock to move forward: Where the field of developmental psychopathology might be heading

The Road Not Taken: What Developmental Psychology Might Learn From Darwin's Insights Concerning Sexual Selection

After 150 years of watching: is there a need for synthetic ethology?

A prolegomenon for a viable evolutionary psychology--the myth and the reality: comment on Lickliter and Honeycutt (2003).

Stop trying to carve Nature at its joints! The importance of a process-based developmental science for understanding neurodiversity

The Legacy of Recapitulation Theory in the History of Developmental Psychology

Inching Toward a Unified Metatheory for Psychology

Potential for Collaboration: Differences Between Evolutionary Anthropology and Evolutionary Psychology as Scientific Disciplines

Why developmental psychology is incomplete without comparative and cross-cultural perspectives

Developmental psychopathology: Our welcoming, inclusive, and eclectic intellectual home

Pluripotency of a founding field: rebranding developmental biology