Temperament, Attachment, and Conduct

Evolutionary and biologically based perspectives of attachment, development, and temperament are presented in juxtaposition with addressing the diagnostic construct conduct disorder. Many theorists, authors, and researchers recognize the need models describing various aspects of development to incorporate evolutionary and biologically based perspectives.This adjustment is more or less problematic for some theories of development depending upon whether an account can readily be made of biologically or evolutionary based developmental issues. For example, Bowlby's attachment theory is biologically and ethologically based taking the evolutionary perspective to its heart. Attachment theory elegantly takes into account and is constructed from the central principles of natural selection that include species survival and reproduction. Further, attachment theory matures with the emergence and integration of considerable information about human neural development. The model fits the data without strain, particularly with reference to the neural basis of "working models of attachment." Attachment theory does not explain all aspects of optimal and sub-optimal development, nor should it. However, certain aspects of development are explained quite well, without the need for overarching changes to the processes or definitions described in either attachment theory or evolutionary theory.The maturation of attachment theory in the face of emergent neurobiological data may be contrasted with that of the theories of temperament, personality and social learning in development. There has been considerable convergence in the domains of human development that temperament theory and attachment theory, in the beginning, sought to explain. These theories formulate explanations of common developmental domains that emphasize different theoretical perspectives (constitutional versus experiential) elaborated in divergent lexicons (reward-dependent habit-system versus attachment behavioral system).Such dichotomy is not uncommon, especially in the area of research into human behavior. Dichotomy may drive and motivate human thought. However, some authors point out that divergent theoretical dichotomies are always not useful in advancing the common goal of understanding human development and behavior. I argue that temperament theory overstepped its explanatory domain and call for a redefinition of the boundaries of temperament in terms of sensory thresholds.