Abstract
BackgroundThe relational development systems (RDS) metamodel embodies a newly recognized scientific paradigm that stands in contrast to the nature-nurture split. It suggests that the bidirectional relationship between an organism and its environment must be the central focus of scientific inquiry.Main bodyRDS theorists suggest scientists have a moral obligation to benefit human kind. However, the potential for interventions that appear efficacious to simultaneously instigate an undesirable outcome suggests that moral clarity might not always exist in scientific practice. Contrasting RDS perspectives with life history theory highlights a pertaining disparity in approaches.ConclusionWhile the RDS metamodel posits many premises necessary to contemporary research, it may not yet be pragmatic to impose moral obligation on the sciences.
Highlights
Coinciding benefits and detriments The historical context that contemporary psychological science has evolved from distinctly illustrates the importance of ethical consideration and conduct (e.g., Baumrind [30], Zimbardo [31])
relational development systems (RDS) theorists suggest that the sciences have an explicit obligation to benefit the world, which may undermine the potential for positively oriented interventions to facilitate undesirable outcomes
In representing contemporary perspectives in psychology, the RDS metamodel stands in contrast to the Cartesian split through which many sciences have previously operated [4, 6]
Summary
The RDS metamodel attempts to explicitly define the paradigm through which contemporary psychological research is conducted [4]. In representing contemporary perspectives in psychology, the RDS metamodel stands in contrast to the Cartesian split through which many sciences have previously operated [4, 6]. This former scientific paradigm viewed the variables of nature (i.e., genetic makeup) and nurture (i.e., environment/ecology) as being independent of each other [4, 9]. Scholars will cease to invest in the divide between purely inquisitive research and applied research This idea has been further stressed by other developmental scholars, who suggest that a scientific field capable of improving “the course of human development is ethically obligated to do so” While moral trajectories are covertly implied in most psychological research, RDS theorists overtly push for them to be treated as inseparable from science as a whole
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
