human development hypothesis

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar

IResearchNet

Theories of Human Development

This article delves into the multifaceted world of human development theories, exploring the intellectual legacies of prominent theorists who have shaped our understanding of how individuals grow and change over the lifespan. It provides an insightful journey through the Psychoanalytic Perspective, elucidating the stages of psychosexual development as conceptualized by Sigmund Freud and the psychosocial stages of Erik Erikson. The Cognitive Development Perspective delves into the cognitive maturations posited by Jean Piaget and the sociocultural framework introduced by Lev Vygotsky. The article also navigates the Behavioral and Social Learning Perspective, encompassing the principles of operant conditioning by B.F. Skinner and the observational learning theory of Albert Bandura. As we conclude, we reflect on the enduring relevance and contemporary applications of these developmental theories in the ever-evolving landscape of psychology.

Introduction

The field of human development is an intricate tapestry woven from the threads of biology, psychology, sociology, and culture. It is the study of how individuals evolve physically, cognitively, and emotionally as they progress from infancy to old age. It seeks to unravel the mysteries of human growth, transformation, and the intricate interplay between nature and nurture.

Understanding the theories of human development is of paramount importance in various realms of science, education, healthcare, and beyond. These theories serve as guiding beacons, illuminating the pathways along which human beings journey throughout their lives. By comprehending the underlying principles and frameworks that underpin the developmental process, we gain insights into the fundamental questions of who we are, how we become who we are, and why we act as we do.

The purpose of this article is to embark on a journey through the intricate landscape of human development theories. We will delve into the theoretical constructs put forth by eminent psychologists, unveiling the core tenets of their philosophies and the stages they postulate for human maturation. Specifically, this article is structured to explore three prominent perspectives: the Psychoanalytic Perspective, the Cognitive Development Perspective, and the Behavioral and Social Learning Perspective. Each perspective has given rise to a unique set of concepts and ideas that provide windows into the mysteries of human development.

In the following sections, we will begin by examining the Psychoanalytic Perspective, which includes the groundbreaking work of Sigmund Freud and Erik Erikson. We will then navigate the Cognitive Development Perspective, shedding light on the cognitive milestones proposed by Jean Piaget and the sociocultural insights of Lev Vygotsky. Finally, we will venture into the realm of the Behavioral and Social Learning Perspective, where the operant conditioning principles of B.F. Skinner and Albert Bandura’s observational learning theory take center stage. Together, these perspectives offer a comprehensive overview of the theories that have shaped our understanding of human development, and they continue to influence fields as diverse as psychology, education, and clinical practice.

The Psychoanalytic Perspective

The Psychoanalytic Perspective represents a pivotal paradigm in the realm of human development, fostering an intricate understanding of the inner workings of the human mind and the progression of human personalities over time. Within this perspective, two seminal figures emerge—Sigmund Freud and Erik Erikson—each contributing distinctive theories that have played a significant role in shaping our comprehension of developmental processes.

Sigmund Freud’s Psychosexual Theory:

Sigmund Freud, the Austrian neurologist and father of psychoanalysis, introduced the Psychosexual Theory of development. This theory postulates that human development unfolds in a series of psychosexual stages, each characterized by a unique focus on specific erogenous zones and conflicts that must be resolved. Freud’s work in the late 19th and early 20th centuries has left an indelible mark on psychology and beyond.

Freud’s psychosexual theory consists of five key stages:

Oral Stage (0-1 years) : In this initial stage, an infant’s pleasure is centered on oral activities like sucking and biting. The primary conflict involves weaning from the breast or bottle, and the successful resolution leads to trust and autonomy.

Anal Stage (1-3 years) : During this stage, children derive pleasure from controlling their bowel movements. The primary conflict pertains to toilet training, and the resolution shapes the child’s sense of self-control and order.

Phallic Stage (3-6 years) : This phase is marked by the emergence of the Oedipus and Electra complexes. Children develop sexual desires for the opposite-sex parent and experience rivalry with the same-sex parent. The resolution of these conflicts plays a crucial role in the formation of the superego.

Latency Stage (6-12 years) : In this stage, sexual desires remain dormant, and children focus on developing social and intellectual skills. The resolution of earlier conflicts contributes to psychological health.

Genital Stage (12+ years) : This final stage represents mature adult sexuality, where individuals seek to satisfy their sexual desires through relationships with others. The successful resolution of the earlier stages is thought to facilitate healthy, loving relationships.

While Freud’s work revolutionized our understanding of the unconscious mind and its impact on human behavior, it is not without its critics and limitations. Many contemporary psychologists challenge the emphasis on sexual and aggressive drives in human development, as well as the notion of unconscious conflicts. Critics argue that his theory is overly focused on male experiences and neglects the role of cultural and social factors.

Nonetheless, Freud’s contributions to psychology are undeniable. He pioneered the exploration of the unconscious and laid the groundwork for the psychoanalytic approach to therapy. His work on defense mechanisms, dream analysis, and the structure of the mind has left a lasting legacy, impacting both psychology and popular culture.

Erik Erikson’s Psychosocial Theory:

Erik Erikson, a German-American psychoanalyst, expanded upon Freud’s ideas and introduced the Psychosocial Theory of development. In contrast to Freud’s focus on the early years of life, Erikson proposed that development unfolds across the entire lifespan, with a total of eight stages, each associated with a unique psychosocial crisis.

Erikson’s eight stages of psychosocial development are as follows:

Trust vs. Mistrust (0-1 year) : In infancy, the central conflict is between developing trust in caregivers and a sense of mistrust. Successful resolution leads to hope and confidence.

Autonomy vs. Shame and Doubt (1-3 years) : Toddlers assert their independence and develop a sense of autonomy or face feelings of shame and doubt.

Initiative vs. Guilt (3-6 years) : In the early childhood years, children grapple with the conflict between taking initiative and experiencing guilt.

Industry vs. Inferiority (6-12 years) : The school-age years focus on the development of a sense of industry and competence.

Identity vs. Role Confusion (12-18 years) : Adolescents explore their identities and grapple with questions of who they are and what roles they will occupy.

Intimacy vs. Isolation (18-40 years) : Young adults seek intimacy and meaningful relationships, or they may experience isolation.

Generativity vs. Stagnation (40-65 years) : Middle-aged adults confront the need for generativity, which includes making a lasting contribution to society.

Integrity vs. Despair (65+ years) : In the final stage, older adults reflect on their lives, either experiencing a sense of integrity or despair.

Erikson’s theory has garnered substantial recognition for its lifespan approach, which highlights the ongoing nature of human development. It underscores the importance of psychosocial challenges throughout life and the potential for personal growth and development in later years. Critics, however, contend that his theory is somewhat vague and that the stages are not always universally applicable to all individuals.

Despite these critiques, Erikson’s contributions to developmental psychology are notable. His focus on identity, relationships, and the interplay of societal and cultural influences continues to influence psychological research and clinical practice, making his theory a valuable addition to the field of human development.

The Cognitive Development Perspective

The Cognitive Development Perspective focuses on how individuals acquire, process, and utilize information as they mature. This perspective encompasses theories that delve into cognitive growth, and two prominent theorists who have significantly impacted our understanding of cognitive development are Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky.

Jean Piaget, a Swiss psychologist, introduced the Cognitive Development Theory, which is characterized by the concept of cognitive stages. According to Piaget, children progress through four distinct stages, each marked by qualitative changes in their cognitive abilities and understanding of the world.

The stages in Piaget’s theory are as follows:

Sensorimotor Stage (0-2 years) : During this stage, infants explore the world through their senses and motor actions. They develop object permanence, the understanding that objects continue to exist even when they are out of sight.

Preoperational Stage (2-7 years) : In this stage, children become capable of symbolic thought and language development. However, their thinking is often egocentric and characterized by animism and centration.

Concrete Operational Stage (7-11 years) : Children in this stage can perform operations on concrete objects and think logically about concrete situations. They develop conservation and reversibility abilities.

Formal Operational Stage (11+ years) : Adolescents and adults at this stage can think abstractly, engage in hypothetical and deductive reasoning, and grapple with complex moral dilemmas.

Jean Piaget’s theory has had a profound impact on educational psychology and child development. His emphasis on the active role of children in their own cognitive development has greatly influenced teaching and learning strategies. However, Piaget’s theory has also faced criticism for underestimating the cognitive abilities of children and adolescents, as well as for not accounting for cultural and individual differences in development.

Despite these critiques, Piaget’s work continues to be a foundational framework for understanding how children think and learn. His research into the cognitive development of children laid the groundwork for a host of subsequent studies in this area and has enduring relevance in educational and developmental psychology.

Lev Vygotsky, a Soviet psychologist, introduced the Sociocultural Theory of cognitive development. This theory posits that social interaction and cultural context play a fundamental role in cognitive growth. According to Vygotsky, development occurs through a process known as the “zone of proximal development” (ZPD), where children can learn with the help of more knowledgeable individuals.

The central tenets of Vygotsky’s theory include:

The Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) : This concept defines the range of tasks a learner can perform independently and the tasks they can accomplish with guidance or assistance from a more knowledgeable person.

Scaffolding : Scaffolding is the process by which a more knowledgeable individual provides support to a learner, gradually reducing this support as the learner becomes more capable of completing tasks independently.

Cultural Tools : Vygotsky emphasized the role of cultural tools, such as language, in shaping thought and development. He believed that language serves as a crucial means for thought and learning.

Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory has garnered praise for its emphasis on the role of social interaction, culture, and language in cognitive development. It has been particularly influential in educational practices, as it highlights the importance of collaborative learning and the role of the teacher as a facilitator of learning.

Critics have argued that Vygotsky’s theory might overemphasize the role of social interaction at the expense of individual cognitive processes. Additionally, some have questioned the universality of his ideas, suggesting that they may not be applicable to all cultural contexts.

Nonetheless, Vygotsky’s contributions to the understanding of cognitive development, particularly in the context of cultural influences and educational practices, continue to shape the field of psychology and education, with his concepts serving as valuable tools for both researchers and educators.

The Behavioral and Social Learning Perspective

The Behavioral and Social Learning Perspective focuses on the external influences and experiences that shape human development, emphasizing the role of behavior and social interaction. Within this perspective, two influential theorists, B.F. Skinner and Albert Bandura, have contributed significantly to our understanding of how individuals learn and develop through their interactions with the environment.

B.F. Skinner, an American psychologist, is renowned for his development of the theory of operant conditioning, which posits that behavior is influenced by the consequences that follow it. Skinner’s work, carried out in the mid-20th century, has had a profound impact on the fields of psychology and education.

The principles of Skinner’s operant conditioning theory can be summarized as follows:

Reinforcement : Skinner introduced the concept of reinforcement, which involves providing consequences that strengthen the likelihood of a specific behavior occurring again. Positive reinforcement involves presenting a desirable stimulus, while negative reinforcement involves removing an aversive stimulus.

Punishment : In contrast to reinforcement, punishment aims to weaken or reduce the occurrence of a behavior. Positive punishment involves introducing an aversive stimulus, while negative punishment involves removing a desirable stimulus.

Extinction : If a behavior is no longer reinforced, it may eventually cease to occur. This process is known as extinction.

Schedules of Reinforcement : Skinner explored various schedules of reinforcement, including fixed-ratio, variable-ratio, fixed-interval, and variable-interval schedules, each affecting the frequency and pattern of behavior differently.

B.F. Skinner’s operant conditioning theory has had a significant impact on the field of psychology, especially in the realm of behavior modification and therapy. Critics, however, argue that it oversimplifies the complexity of human behavior and cognition. It has also been criticized for its lack of attention to cognitive processes and emotions, which play vital roles in human development.

Nonetheless, Skinner’s principles of operant conditioning have practical applications in various settings, including education, clinical psychology, and behavior management. His work has been instrumental in shaping behavioral interventions, and his ideas continue to influence the development of new therapeutic techniques and classroom strategies.

Albert Bandura, a Canadian-American psychologist, introduced the Social Cognitive Theory, which emphasizes the reciprocal relationship between cognitive processes, behavior, and the environment. Bandura’s work, which gained prominence in the mid-20th century, has illuminated the role of observational learning and self-regulation in human development.

The key components of Bandura’s theory include:

Observational Learning : Bandura proposed that individuals can acquire new behaviors and information by observing and imitating the actions and behaviors of others. This process is often referred to as social learning or modeling.

Self-Efficacy : Bandura introduced the concept of self-efficacy, which pertains to an individual’s belief in their ability to perform specific tasks and achieve goals. High self-efficacy is associated with increased motivation and persistence.

Reciprocal Determinism : Bandura highlighted the dynamic interplay between personal factors, behaviors, and the environment. This mutual influence underscores the complexity of human development.

Albert Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory has had a profound influence on various fields, including education, psychology, and social sciences. His emphasis on observational learning has enriched our understanding of how children and adults learn through modeling and imitation.

Critics argue that Bandura’s theory might understate the role of innate factors and the influence of emotions in shaping behavior. Nonetheless, his work has led to the development of therapeutic techniques such as cognitive-behavioral therapy, which utilizes concepts like self-efficacy to promote positive change in individuals.

In contemporary psychology, Bandura’s ideas continue to provide a valuable framework for understanding how individuals learn, develop, and adapt to their surroundings, with his work remaining instrumental in shaping educational practices, psychotherapy, and the study of human development.

In this comprehensive exploration of developmental theories, we have navigated through three prominent perspectives that have significantly shaped our understanding of human growth and behavior. The Psychoanalytic Perspective, pioneered by Sigmund Freud and Erik Erikson, delves into the intricate interplay between early life experiences and the development of personality. The Cognitive Development Perspective, as articulated by Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky, has illuminated the cognitive milestones and the role of social interaction in the journey from infancy to adulthood. The Behavioral and Social Learning Perspective, exemplified by B.F. Skinner and Albert Bandura, underscores the impact of external influences, conditioning, and observational learning on human development.

The relevance of these developmental theories in understanding human behavior and growth cannot be overstated. These theories provide vital frameworks for comprehending the multifaceted processes that individuals undergo as they traverse the stages of life. They have been instrumental in fields such as psychology, education, and clinical practice, informing strategies for learning, therapy, and behavioral intervention.

Nevertheless, it is essential to acknowledge that the field of developmental psychology is not static. Ongoing debates and the evolution of developmental theories continue to shape the landscape of research and practice. Contemporary discussions explore the interplay between nature and nurture, the cultural and contextual factors that influence development, and the potential impact of emerging technologies. As our understanding of human development deepens, so too will the theories that seek to explain this intricate journey, contributing to a more comprehensive and nuanced perspective on the growth and transformation of individuals from birth to old age. In this ever-evolving field, these foundational theories provide the essential building blocks for future research, fostering a richer comprehension of the human experience.

What is Development?

Human Development or Lifespan Development is the scientific study of the ways in which people change, as well as remain the same, from conception to death. You will discover that the field, known more broadly as developmental science , examines changes and stability across multiple domains of psychological and social functioning. These include physical and neurophysiological processes, cognition, language, emotion, personality, moral, and psychosocial development, including our relationships with others.

Originally concerned with infants and children, the field has expanded to include adolescence and more recently, aging and the entire life span. Previously, the message was once you are 25, your development is essentially completed. Our academic knowledge of the lifespan has changed, and although there is still less research on adulthood than on childhood, adulthood is gaining increasing attention. This is particularly true now that the large cohort known as the “baby boomers” are beginning to enter late adulthood. The assumption that early childhood experiences dictate our future is also being called into question. Instead, we have come to appreciate that growth and change continues throughout life and experience continues to have an impact on who we are and how we relate to others. We now recognize that adulthood is a dynamic period of life marked by continued cognitive, social, and psychological development.

You will also discover that developmental psychologists investigate key questions, such as whether children are qualitatively different from adults or simply lack the experience that adults draw upon. Other issues they consider include the question of whether development occurs through the gradual accumulation of knowledge or through qualitative shifts from one stage of thinking to another, or if children are born with innate knowledge or figure things out through experience, and whether development is driven by the social context or something inside each child. From these questions, you may already be thinking that developmental psychology is related to other applied fields. You are right. Developmental science informs many applied fields, including, educational psychology, developmental psychopathology, and intervention science. It also complements several other basic research fields in psychology including social psychology, cognitive psychology, and cross-cultural psychology. Lastly, it draws from the theories and research of several scientific fields including biology, sociology, health care, nutrition, and anthropology.

Learning Objectives: Lifespan Perspective

• Explain the lifespan perspective and its assumptions about development
• Differentiate periods of human development
• Identify key assumptions and major meta-theories underlying lifespan development 
• Identify major historical and contemporary theories focusing on lifespan development

Lifespan Perspective

Paul Baltes identified several underlying principles of the lifespan perspective (Baltes, 1987; Baltes, Lindenberger, & Staudinger, 2006).

• Development is lifelong . Lifespan theorists believe that development is life-long, and change is apparent across the lifespan. No single age period is more crucial, characterizes, or dominates human development. Consequently, the term lifespan development will be used throughout the textbook.
• Development is multidirectional and multidimensional.  Lifespan researchers hold that different people follow different developmental pathways, and proceed along pathways at different rates. Even within the same person, different dimensions or domains of development can change in different ways.
• Development includes both gains and losses . Lifespan theorists do not agree with the traditional view of development that childhood is a period characterized by developmental gains, whereas old age is a time of loss. Instead, the lifespan approach holds that at every age, we may show gains in some areas of development, while showing losses in other areas. Every change, whether it is finishing high school, getting married, or becoming a parent, entails both growth and loss.
• Development is characterized by plasticity. Plasticity is about malleability , or our potential to change and to follow a wide range of developmental pathways.  For instance, plasticity is illustrated in the brain’s ability to learn from experience and the many ways it can recover from injury.
• Development is embedded in historical and cultural contexts. Lifespan researchers believe that d evelopment is influenced by the many social contexts in which it unfolds. How  people develop will depend on their societal and cultural contexts, and on the historical period during which their development takes place.
•   Development is multiply determined. Lifespan theorists argue that development is caused by multiple factors, and is always shaped by  both biological and environmental factors. In addition, the individual plays an active role in their own development.
• Development is multidisciplinary. As mentioned at the start of the chapter, human development is such a vast topic of study that it requires the theories, research methods, and knowledge bases of many academic disciplines.

Contextualism as paradigm.  Baltes (1987) identified three specific developmental systems of influence, all of which include biological and environmental forces.

• Normative age-graded influences: An age-grade is a specific age group, such as toddler, adolescent, or senior . Humans experience particular age-graded social experiences (e.g., starting school) and biological changes (e.g., puberty).
• Normative history-graded influences: The time period in which you are born (see Table 1.1) shapes your experiences. A cohort is a group of people who are born at roughly the same period in a particular society. These people travel through life often experiencing similar historical changes at similar ages. History-graded influences include both environmental determinants (e.g., historical changes in the job market) and biological determinants (e.g., historical changes in life expectancy).
• Non-normative influences : People’s development is also shaped by specific influences that are not organized by age or historical time, such as immigration, accidents, or the death of a parent. These can be environmental (e.g., parental mental health issues) or biological (e.g., life threatening illness).

Table 1.1. Which generation (cohort) are you?

adapted from Lally & Valentine-French, 2019

Domains of development. We change across three general domains/dimensions; physical, cognitive, and psychosocial. The physical domain includes changes in height and weight, sensory capabilities, the nervous system, as well as the propensity for disease and illness . The cognitive domain encompasses the changes in intelligence, wisdom, perception, problem-solving, memory, and language. The psychosocial domain focuses on changes in emotion, self-perception and interpersonal relationships with families, peers, and friends. All three domains influence each other. It is also important to note that a change in one domain may cascade and prompt changes in the other domains. For instance, an infant who has started to crawl or walk will encounter more objects and people, thus fostering developmental change in the child’s understanding of the physical and social world.

Contextual perspectives , like the lifespan approach, highlight societal contexts that influence our development. An important societal factor is our social standing, socioeconomic status, or social class. Socioeconomic status (SES) is a way to identify families and households based on their shared levels of education, income, and occupation. While there is certainly individual variation, members of a social class tend to share similar privileges, opportunities, lifestyles, patterns of consumption, parenting styles, stressors, religious preferences, and other aspects of daily life. All of us born into a class system are socially located, and we may move up or down depending on a combination of both socially and individually created limits and opportunities.

Families with higher socioeconomic status usually are in occupations (e.g., attorneys, physicians, executives) that not only pay better, but also grant them a certain degree of freedom and control over their job. Having a sense of autonomy or control is a key factor in experiencing job satisfaction, personal happiness, and ultimately health and well-being (Weitz, 2007). Those families with lower socioeconomic status are typically in occupations that are more routine, more heavily supervised, and require less formal education. These occupations are also more subject to job disruptions, including lay-offs and lower wages.

Poverty level is an income amount established by the federal government that is based on a set of thresholds that vary by family size (United States Census Bureau, 2016). If a family’s income is less than the government threshold, that family is considered in poverty. Those living at or near poverty level may find it extremely difficult to sustain a household with this amount of income. Poverty is associated with poorer health and a lower life expectancy due to poorer diet, less healthcare, greater stress, working in more dangerous occupations, higher infant mortality rates, poorer prenatal care, greater iron deficiencies, greater difficulty in school, and many other problems. Members of higher income status may fear losing that status, but the poor may have greater concerns over losing housing.

Today we are more aware of the variations in development and the impact that culture and the environment have on shaping our lives. Culture is the totality of our shared language, knowledge, material objects, and behavior. It includes ideas about what is right and wrong, what to strive for, what to eat, how to speak, what is valued, as well as what kinds of emotions are called for in certain situations. Culture teaches us how to live in a society and allows us to advance because each new generation can benefit from the solutions found and passed down from previous generations. Culture is learned from parents, schools, houses of worship, media, friends and others throughout a lifetime. The kinds of traditions and values that evolve in a particular culture serve to help members function and value their own society. We tend to believe that our own culture’s practices and expectations are the right ones. This belief that our own culture is superior is called ethnocentrism and is a normal by-product of growing up in a culture. It becomes a roadblock, however, when it inhibits understanding of cultural practices from other societies. Cultural relativity is an appreciation for cultural differences and the understanding that cultural practices are best understood from the standpoint of that particular culture.

Culture is an extremely important context for human development and understanding development requires being able to identify which features of development are culturally based. This understanding is somewhat new and still being explored. Much of what developmental theorists have described in the past has been culturally bound and difficult to apply to various cultural contexts. The reader should keep this in mind and realize that there is still much that is unknown when comparing development across cultures.

Lifespan vs. Life expectancy: At this point you must be wondering what the difference between lifespan and life expectancy is, according to developmentalists. Lifespan , or longevity, refers to the maximum age any member of a species can reach under optimal conditions . For instance, the grey wolf can live up to 20 years in captivity, the bald eagle up to 50 years, and the Galapagos tortoise over 150 years (Smithsonian National Zoo, 2016). The longest recorded lifespan for a human was Jean Calment who died in 1994 at the age of 122 years, 5 months, and 14 days (Guinness World Records, 2016). Life expectancy is the average number of years a person born in a particular time period can typically expect to live (Vogt & Johnson, 2016).

Conceptions of Age

How old are you? Chances are you would answer that question based on the number of years since your birth, or what is called your chronological age . Ever felt older than your chronological age? Some days we might “feel” like we are older, especially if we are not feeling well, are tired, or are stressed out. We might notice that a peer seems more emotionally mature than we are, or that they are physically more capable. So years since birth is not the only way we can conceptualize age.

Biological age: Another way developmental researchers can think about the concept of age is to examine how quickly the body is aging , this is your biological age . Several factors determine the rate at which our body ages. Our nutrition, level of physical activity, sleeping habits, smoking, alcohol consumption, how we mentally handle stress, and the genetic history of our ancestors, to name but a few.

Psychological age: Our psychologically adaptive capacity compared to others of our chronological age is our psychological age . This includes our cognitive capacity along with our emotional beliefs about how old we are. An individual who has cognitive impairments might be 20 years of age, yet has the mental capacity of an 8-year-old. A 70- year-old might be travelling to new countries, taking courses at college, or starting a new business. Compared to others of our age group, we may be more or less active and excited to meet new challenges. Remember you are as young or old as you feel.

Social age: Our social age is based on the social norms of our culture and the expectations our culture has for people of our age group . Our culture often reminds us whether we are “on target” or “off target” for reaching certain social milestones, such as completing our education, moving away from home, having children, or retiring from work. However, there have been arguments that social age is becoming less relevant in the 21st century (Neugarten, 1979; 1996). If you look around at your fellow students at college you might notice more people who are older than traditional aged college students, those 18 to 25. Similarly, the age at which people are moving away from the home of their parents, starting their careers, getting married or having children, or even whether they get married or have children at all, is changing.

Those who study lifespan development recognize that chronological age does not completely capture a person’s age. Our age profile is much more complex than this. A person may be physically more competent than others in their age group, while being psychologically immature. So, how old are you?

Table 1.2 Age Periods of Development

Table 1.2 shows the developmental periods that will be explored in this book, starting with prenatal development and continuing thought late adulthood to death. Both childhood and adulthood are divided into multiple developmental periods. So, while both an 8-month old and an 8-year-old are considered children, they have very different motor abilities, social relationships, and cognitive skills. Their nutritional needs are different and their primary psychological concerns are also distinctive. The same is true of an 18-year-old and an 80-year-old, even though both are considered adults.

Prenatal Development : Conception occurs and development begins. All of the major structures of the body are forming, and the health of the mother is of primary concern. Understanding nutrition, teratogens , or environmental factors that can lead to birth defects , and labor and delivery are primary concerns.

Infancy and Toddlerhood : The first two years of life are ones of dramatic growth and change. A newborn, with a keen sense of hearing but very poor vision, is transformed into a walking, talking toddler within a relatively short period of time. Caregivers are also transformed from someone who manages feeding and sleep schedules to a constantly moving guide and safety inspector for a mobile, energetic child.

Early Childhood: This period is also referred to as the preschool years and consists of the years that follow toddlerhood and precede formal schooling. As a two to six-year-old, the child is busy learning language, gaining a sense of self and greater independence, and  beginning to understand the workings of the physical world.

Middle and Late Childhood: The ages of six to the onset of puberty comprise middle and late childhood, and much of what children experience at this age is connected to their involvement in the early grades of school. Now the world becomes one of learning and testing new academic skills, and assessing one’s abilities and accomplishments by making comparisons between self and others.

Adolescence : Adolescence is a period of dramatic physical change marked by an overall growth spurt and sexual maturation, known as puberty . It is also a time of cognitive change as the adolescent begins to think of new possibilities and to consider abstract concepts such as love, fear, and freedom. At the same time, adolescents have a sense of invincibility that puts them at greater risk of accidents or contracting sexually transmitted infections that can have lifelong consequences.

Emerging Adulthood: The period of emerging adulthood is a transitional time between the end of adolescence and before individuals acquire all the benchmarks of adulthood. Continued identity exploration and preparation for full independence from parents are negotiated. Although at one’s physiological peak, emerging adults are most at risk for involvement in violent crimes and substance abuse.

Early Adulthood : The twenties and thirties are identified as early adulthood. Intimate relationships, establishing families (of all shapes and sizes), and work are primary concerns at this stage of life.  For adults with children, developmental changes can become organized around the family life cycle.

Middle Adulthood : The forties through the mid-sixties are referred to as middle adulthood. This is a period in which aging becomes more noticeable and when many people are at their peak of productivity in love and work.  At this age, some people are negotiating adolescent children and aging parents at the same time.

Late Adulthood : Late adulthood is sometimes subdivided into two categories: The young-old who are from 65-84 years and the oldest-old who are 85 years and older. One of the primary differences between these groups is that the young-old are still relatively healthy, productive, active, and the majority continue to live independently. With both age groups the risks of diseases such as arteriosclerosis, cancer, and cerebral vascular disease increase substantially.

Meta-theories of Human Development

The study of development is guided by the assumptions researchers hold about the nature of humans and their development. These assumptions are called meta-theories . “Meta” means “above” or “beyond,” like “meta-physics.” Other terms used to describe meta-theories are “world views,” “cosmologies,” “perspectives,” or “paradigms,” as in “paradigm shifts.” Explicit discussions of meta-theories are found most often in philosophy.

What are meta-theories of human development?

Meta-theories (or world views or paradigms) of human development are sets of assumptions people hold about the nature of humans and the meaning of development — what it looks like, how it happens, what causes it. These assumptions are important because everyone has them, including researchers, but they are often implicit, meaning we are not always consciously aware of them. In the study of development, such assumptions influence everything about how research is conducted: the questions we ask, the measures and methods that are used, and the interpretation of data. For example, if researchers assume that development ends at 18, they do not look for developmental changes after that age. Or, if researchers assume that aging is a process of decline, then they never look for characteristics that might improve as people get older.

All researchers have meta-theories, since assumptions are baked into the theories and methodologies they use. But researchers are often unaware of them, and so these assumptions are rarely acknowledged. It is important to note that meta-theories are not just cold cognitions. They are often deeply held convictions that researchers will fiercely defend. Typically researchers think that their assumptions are self-evident truths. They are often convinced that their assumptions are right and everyone else’s are wrong.

Researchers holding different meta-theories can have difficulty communicating with each other. Since they are asking different questions and using different truth criteria for research, they often argue past each other or misunderstand each other. One group of researchers will offer what they consider to be irrefutable proof of their ideas, which other researchers then dismiss as irrelevant. Discrepancies, inconsistencies, arguments, and furor often characterize an area of study in which researchers from multiple meta-theories are working.

What kinds of assumptions guide the study of human development?

We consider six key assumptions. You may have heard of many of them, since they are perennial issues in the study of development. They include:

• Assumptions about human nature : whether people are born as blank slates ( tabula rasa ) or whether people are inherently good or inherently bad.
• Assumptions about the causes of development : whether development is determined by nature (genes, biology) or determined by nurture (environment, learning).
• Assumptions about the role of the individual in his or her own development: whether people are passive participants, reacting to external forces or whether they are active in choosing and shaping their own development.
• Assumptions about stability vs. change : whether traits, characteristics, and experiences early in life have permanent effects or whether people are malleable and open to change throughout life.
• Assumptions about continuity vs. discontinuity : whether development involves quantitative incremental change or qualitative shifts.
• Assumptions about universality vs. context specificity : whether development follows a universal pathway or depends more on specific experiences and environmental contexts.

Nature of humans. What is the nature of humans? These assumptions refer to beliefs about the underlying qualities of our species– whether humans are born as blank slates ( tabula rasa ) or whether we all bring intrinsic human characteristics with us into the world. For example, these different assumptions are readily apparent in alternative conceptualizations of motivation—some theories assume that motives and motivation are all acquired, whereas others assume that all humans come with intrinsic motivations.

Nature and Nurture: Why are you the way you are? As you consider some of your features (height, weight, personality, being diabetic, etc.), ask yourself whether these features are a result of heredity or environmental factors, or both. Chances are, you can see the ways in which both heredity and environmental factors (such as lifestyle, diet, and so on) have contributed to these features. For decades, scholars have carried on the “nature/nurture” debate. For any particular feature, those on the side of nature would argue that heredity plays the most important role in bringing about that feature. Those on the side of nurture would argue that one’s environment is most significant in shaping the way we are. This debate continues in all aspects of human development, and most scholars agree that there is a constant interplay between the two forces. It is difficult to isolate the root of any single behavior as a result solely of nature or nurture.

Active versus Passive: How much do you play a role in your own developmental path? Are you at the whim of your genetic inheritance or the environment that surrounds you? Some theorists see humans as playing a much more active role in their own development. Piaget, for instance believed that children actively explore their world and construct new ways of thinking to explain the things they experience. In contrast, many behaviorists view humans as being more passive in the developmental process.

Stability versus Change: How similar are you to how you were as a child? Were you always as out-going or reserved as you are now? Some theorists argue that the personality traits of adults are rooted in the behavioral and emotional tendencies of the infant and young child. Others disagree, and believe that these initial tendencies are modified by social and cultural forces over time.

Continuity versus Discontinuity: Is human development best characterized as a slow, gradual process, or is it best viewed as one of more abrupt change? The answer to that question often depends on which developmental theorist you ask and what topic is being studied. The theories of Freud, Erikson, Piaget, and Kohlberg are called stage theories. Stage theories or discontinuous development assume that developmental change occurs in distinct stages that are qualitatively different from each other, and that unfold in a set, universal sequence . At each stage of development, children and adults have different qualities and characteristics. Thus, stage theorists assume development is discontinuous. Others, such as the behaviorists, Vygotsky, and information processing theorists, assume development is a more slow and gradual process known as continuous development . For instance, they would see the adult as not possessing new skills, but as using more advanced skills that were already present in some form in the child. Brain development and environmental experiences contribute to the acquisition of more developed skills.

Universal vs. context specific . A final assumption focuses on whether pathways of development are presumed to be (1) normative and universal, meaning that all people pass through them in the same sequence, or (2) differential and specific, meaning that a variety of different patterns and pathways of developmental change are possible depending on the individual and the context. Some theorists, like Piaget or Erickson, assume that everyone progresses through the same stages of cognitive development in the same order, or that everyone negotiates the same set of developmental tasks at about the same ages. Other theorists, who endorse lifespan or ecological systems approaches, believe that development can take on a wide variety of patterns and pathways, depending on the specific cultural, historical, and societal under which it unfolds.

What are the guiding meta-theories in human development?

These six basic assumptions are clustered into “packages” that go together. Clusters are organized around metaphors, which are at the root of meta-theories of humans and their development. We consider four meta-theories, each with its own metaphor: (1) humans as seeds , as depicted by Maturational meta-theories; (2) humans as machines , as depicted in Mechanistic meta-theories (3) humans as butterflies , as depicted in Organismic meta-theories; and (4) humans as participants in a tennis game, conversation, or dance , as depicted by Contextualist meta-theories. For an overview of these guiding meta-theories, see this chart [pdf] .

• Maturational meta-theory : Maturational meta-theories can be understood using the plant as a metaphor. It is as if humans develop the same way as plants. The important thing to study is people’s “seeds,” that is, their genetic make-up. People are assumed to be passive, the product of their genes. The environment can provide support and nutrition (rain, sun, and soil), but can’t change a person’s nature (poppy seeds will always produce poppies). The role of the person is to be reactive—to their genes. The course of development will be continuous or discontinuous depending on the genetic program, although acorns always grow into oak trees.
• Mechanistic meta-theory : Mechanistic meta-theories can be understood using the machine as a metaphor. It is as if humans change the same way as machines. People are assumed to be made up of pieces that can be studied apart from the rest of them. They are passive, with the energy coming from outside (like gasoline for a car). Development is continuous and people do not develop into something else (a car stays a car). The person can only react to the environment that is controlling them (like a car responding to the gas pedal or the brake). All causes for development come from the outside, from environmental forces.
• Organismic meta-theory : Organismic meta-theories can be understood using the butterfly as a metaphor. It is as if humans develop the same way as butterflies. People are assumed to be made up of structured wholes. Their nature is to be curious, interested, and open to growth. They are active and develop through discontinuous qualitatively different stages (like the caterpillar, chrysalis, and butterfly). People construct their own next steps in development based on the affordances and opportunities provided by the environment. Development is caused by imbalances that lead to structural reorganizations. Development is progressive (gets better) and only goes in one direction (from caterpillar toward butterfly) and not the reverse.
• Contextual meta-theory : Contextual meta-theories can be understood using the tennis game (or dance) as a metaphor. It is as if humans’ development is like a game of tennis or a dance. The important thing to study is the back and forth between the person and his or her context, both of which are assumed to be proactive and acting on their own agendas. Development can be continuous or discontinuous depending on how the game is played. Both person and environment are active partners in the system, which can lead to transformations in both.

What are examples of theories that fall within each meta-theory?

Nested within each higher-order meta-theory are sets of lower-level approaches or theories called “families” of perspectives or theories to denote that they share common properties, based on their similarity to the root metaphors and characteristics of the guiding meta-theories. This table contains several examples of “big” theories of development and provides an analysis of their defining features according to the meta-theoretical assumptions we have been discussing [pdf]. Based on this analysis, we indicate the higher-order family to which we think each big theory or approach belongs.

Although maturational meta-theories were prevalent in the beginning of the 20th century, their popularity has waxed and waned since then, and they have taken on many different forms. These include some formulations of behavioral genetics, sociobiology, evolutionary, ethological, neuroscience, temperament, and personality theories. Maturational assumptions are signaled by concepts such as “trait,” the search for “the aggression gene,” the discovery of the brain system, hormone, or neurotransmitter responsible for a specific condition, or any other terms that suggest development is solely the product of innate or immutable characteristics of individuals. Although they are not typically referred to as “maturational,” there are many kinds of theories that place all the active ingredients of behavior or development inside the head (or more specifically the social cognitions) of the person. Even if they are not direct descendants, these theories can be considered cousins of Maturational meta-theories because they are exclusively focused on the role of the individual.

The prototypic Mechanistic theories are behaviorist, operant, and classical conditioning learning theories, like social learning theory. This family of theories dominated psychology from the early to the mid-20th century, but Mechanistic theories are still alive and well in many areas, such as learning and motivation, and especially in many theories that have been adapted for use in educational systems. New kinds of machines serve as prototypes for mechanistic theories of memory, learning, and automatic functioning—focusing on the computer, the robot, and the automaton. Such assumptions have even pervaded our understanding of biological systems, as seen in metaphors like “the brain is a computer.” And although the “cognitive revolution” was supposed to have overthrown behaviorist assumptions, some cognitivistic theories treat humans as if they were information processing machines.

Perhaps surprisingly, there are also mechanistic assumptions embedded in certain progressive analyses of the effects of societal and social conditions, such as poverty, oppression, racism, and discrimination, which sometimes seem to imply that these external forces are the sole determinants of the development of stereotypes or implicit attitudes. In this case, because all people are presumed to passively internalize these societal prejudices, psychological phenomena are modeled after the metaphor of the “Xerox machine.” Just as in Maturational meta-theories, where humans could be seen as “hosts” to their genes, who were really running the show, in Mechanistic meta-theories, humans can be seen as “hosts” to their own behaviors, which are automatically reflexively produced based on previous social programming.

The prototypical Organismic theory is Piaget’s constructivist theory of cognitive and affective development, and the several neo-constructivist theories that were inspired by Piaget, for example, Kohlberg’s theory of the development of moral reasoning. Other theories living under the Organismic umbrella include Werner’s comparative psychology, focusing on the orthogenetic principle of differentiation and integration, and Erikson, who posited universal age-graded developmental tasks. Other theories that claim kinship with Organismic meta-theories (e.g., theories of intrinsic motivation) do not typically include notions of universal stages or tasks, but focus instead on Organismic assumptions about the nature of humans, specifically, that humans are innately active, curious, and interested, and inherently desire to explore, understand, and fit in with their social and physical environments. With the rise of radical contextualism and cultural relativism in psychology, theories of “universal” anything (e.g., psychological needs, stages, developmental tasks) have come increasingly under attack.

Some of the better-known members of the Contextualist family include Bronfenbrenner’s bio-ecological model and the lifespan approach, both of which arose in reaction to dominant meta-theories of their day (experimental child psychology and Piagetian psychology, respectively), with their almost exclusive focus on the child as a developing individual. The “contextualist” moniker reflects these perspectives’ insistence that development unfolds within and is shaped by higher-order multi-level ecological or contextual forces outside the individual, such as microsystem settings, and societal, cultural, and historical contexts.

Does the field of psychology have meta-theories?

During different historical periods, specific meta-theories dominated the field of psychology. For example, during the 1940s and 1950s, behaviorism held sway. In the 1960s, Piaget’s theories were introduced to the United States and captured the field’s attention. Some fierce theoretical and empirical battles were fought between behaviorists and Piagetians.

When a specific meta-theory governs the field, it becomes very difficult for researchers from opposing meta-theories to work—they have trouble getting funding, they have trouble getting their research findings published, and they are marginalized by other researchers. For example, when the area of motivation was dominated by behaviorists (who believed that all behavior was motivated by rewards and punishments), it was very difficult for researchers to study and publish research on intrinsic motivation.

What is the dominant meta-theory in the field today?

“Cognitivism” is a guiding meta-theory in the field of psychology today. “Cognitivism” is the assumption that all the causal factors that shape human behavior and development are inside the mind or belief system of the person. You can hear the assumptions in the theories of the field: self-efficacy, self-esteem, attributions, perceived social support, values, sense of purpose, goal orientations, internal working model, identity, and so on.

The paradigm that is currently taking over the field of psychology is neuroscience . That is, the brain is in charge of behavior, and neurobiology is destiny. Some branches of neuroscience are predominantly Maturational , as seen in discussions of the brain systems responsible for certain actions, predilections, and characteristics. Other branches are more Contextual , for example, research on neuroplasticity, which examines the way that social contexts and interactions shape the developing brain.

News flash : In the field of psychology outside developmental, most researchers assume that people don’t develop. In personality, social, cognitive, and industrial-organizational psychology, researchers largely examine individual differences as indicators of people’s permanent characteristics.

Who else has meta-theories?

Everyone has meta-theories about human nature and development: parents, teachers, nurses, social workers, doctors, business people, artists, politicians, and so on.

For example,

• doctors assume that weight loss is all about diet and exercise (nurture), so no one can do research on physiological differences in metabolism (nature).
• teachers have assumptions about whether students come with motivation (nature) or have to be motivated from the outside (nurture), and organize their classrooms accordingly.
• parents often argue about the nature of children’s development, whether it’s just the child’s personality (maturational), or the child is going through a normal stage (organismic), or if they are rewarding the wrong behavior (mechanistic).

What is the meta-theory that guides our class and this book?

Our class endorses a life-span perspective on human development, a contextualist perspective that fought its way through the dominant perspectives in child psychology (e.g., development ends at age 18), starting in the 1980s to become one of the dominant meta-theories governing the field of developmental science today. Note that your instructors chose your book, so their meta-theory is influencing the meta-theoretical filter through which you are learning about development.

What is the correct meta-theory?

There is no single correct definition of development or meta-theory. Really. Even the lifespan approach has its drawbacks.

However, as research accumulates, many theories derived from certain meta-theories have been found to be incomplete—so far researchers have not found any significant aspect of development that is caused only by nature or only by nurture. Therefore, most researchers currently say they favor interactionist metatheories, like contextualist or systems meta-theories. However, it is important to look carefully at researchers’ actual work, because sometimes they say that they have one meta-theory, but their work seems to be guided by assumptions from a different meta-theory.

Do I have a meta-theory about development?

Yes, you do. And you can figure out what it is. Although it’s not easy, you can discern your own assumptions about development—by thinking about which assumptions make the most sense to you. You can also see which kinds of theories you prefer and what kinds of recommendations you would make about how to structure development, like how people should parent, teach, or make policies. The hardest part about discovering your own meta-theory is realizing that it is made up of assumptions you have (based on your experiences and messages from society)—that aren’t necessarily true. Our meta-theories sure seem true to each of us!

How do I get rid of my meta-theory?

It’s not really possible to get rid of all of our assumptions. It is our goal to be aware of our own assumptions or meta-theories, to realize that they are not the truth but are our current working models of how the world operates and people develop. The most important thing is to be explicit about our assumptions and to be cognizant of how they are guiding our actions. It is a goal of this class to help students figure out their own assumptions and to help them become (or remain) open to alternative viewpoints.

Adapted from : Ellen Skinner, Glen Richardson, Jennifer Pitzer, and Cynthia Taylor. Portland State University. July 2011.

Historical Theories of Development

Preformationist View : Well into the 18th century, children were merely thought of as little adults. Preformationism , or the belief that a tiny, fully formed human is implanted in the sperm or egg at conception and then grows in size until birth, was the predominant early theory. Children were believed to possess all their sensory capabilities, emotions, and mental aptitude at birth, and as they developed these abilities unfolded on a predetermined schedule (Thomas, 1979). The environment was thought to play no role in determining development .

John Locke (1632-1704): Locke, a British philosopher, refuted the idea of innate knowledge and instead proposed that children are largely shaped by their social environments, especially their education as adults teach them important knowledge. He believed that through education a child learns socialization, or what is needed to be an appropriate member of society. Locke advocated thinking of a child’s mind as a tabula rasa or blank slate , and whatever comes into the child’s mind comes from the environment. Locke emphasized that the environment is especially powerful in the child’s early life because he considered the mind the most pliable then. Locke indicated that the environment exerts its effects through associations between thoughts and feelings, behavioral repetition, imitation, and rewards and punishments (Crain, 2005). Locke’s ideas laid the groundwork for the behavioral perspective and subsequent learning theories of Pavlov, Skinner and Bandura.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778): Like Locke, Rousseau also believed that children were not just little adults. However, he did not believe they were blank slates, but instead developed according to a natural plan which unfolded in different stages (Crain, 2005). He did not believe in teaching them the correct way to think, but believed children should be allowed to think by themselves according to their own ways and an inner, biological timetable. This focus on biological maturation resulted in Rousseau being considered the father of developmental psychology. Followers of Rousseau’s developmental perspective include Gesell, Montessori, and Piaget.

Arnold Gesell (1880-1961): Gesell spent 50 years at the Yale Clinic of Child Development, and with his colleagues he studied the neuromotor development of children. Gesell believed that the child’s development was activated by genes and he called this process maturation (Crain, 2005). Further, he believed that development unfolded in fixed sequences, and he opposed efforts to teach children ahead of schedule as he believed they will engage in behaviors when their nervous systems had sufficiently matured.

Sigmund Freud (1856-1939): Freud was a very influential figure in the area of development. Freud emphasized the importance of early childhood experiences in shaping our personality and behavior. In our natural state, we are biological beings and are driven primarily by instincts. During childhood, however, we begin to become social beings as we learn how to manage our instincts and transform them into socially acceptable behaviors. His assumptions were that personality formed during the first few years of life. The ways in which parents or other caregivers interacted with children were assumed to have a long-lasting impact on children’s emotional states. His beliefs formed the psychodynamic perspective and his theories of psychosexual development and psychopathology dominated the field of psychiatry until the growth of behaviorism in the 1950s.

However, Freud’s theory has been heavily criticized for several reasons. One is that it is very difficult to test scientifically (Crews, 1998). Freud suggested that much of what determines our actions were unknown to us, and as scientists we cannot measure these unconscious concepts. A second criticism is that Freud’s case studies were not validated and cannot be used as evidence for his theories. Many later theories, particularly behaviorism and humanism, came about as challenges to Freud’s views.

Contemporary Theories on Development

Erikson (1902-1994) and Psychosocial Theory: Now, let’s turn to a less controversial psychodynamic theorist, Erik Erikson. Erikson presents eight developmental stages that encompass the entire lifespan. For that reason, Erikson’s psychosocial theory forms the foundation for much of our discussion of psychosocial development.

Erikson (1950) proposed a model of lifespan development that provides a useful guideline for thinking about the changes we experience throughout life. Erikson broke with Freud’s emphasis on sexuality as the cornerstone of social-emotional development and instead suggested that social relationships fostered development. Erikson proposed that each period of life has a unique challenge or crisis that the person who reaches it must face, referred to as psychosocial crises . According to Erikson, successful development involves dealing with and resolving the goals and demands of each of these psychosocial crises in a positive way. These crises are usually called stages, although that is not the term Erikson used. If a person does not resolve a stage successfully, it may hinder their ability to deal with later stages. For example, the person who does not develop a sense of trust (Erikson’s first stage) may find it challenging as an adult to form a positive intimate relationship (Erikson’s sixth stage). Or an individual who does not develop a clear sense of purpose and identity (Erikson’s fifth stage) may become self-absorbed and stagnate rather than work toward the betterment of others (Erikson’s seventh stage).

However, most individuals are able to successfully complete the eight stages of his theory (See Table 1.3).

Table 1.3 Erikson's Psychosocial Stages

Erikson’s theory has been criticized for focusing so heavily on crises and assuming that the completion of one crisis is a prerequisite for the next crisis of development. His theory also focused on the social expectations that are found in certain cultures, but not in all. For instance, the idea that adolescence is a time of searching for identity might translate well in the middle-class culture of the United States, but not as well in cultures where the transition into adulthood coincides with puberty through rites of passage and where adult roles offer fewer choices.

Learning Theory: Also known as Behaviorism , is based on the premise that it is not possible to objectively study the mind, and therefore psychologists should limit their attention to the study of behavior itself. The most famous behaviorist was Burrhus Frederick (B. F.) Skinner (1904–1990), who expanded the principles of behaviorism and also brought them to the attention of the public at large. Skinner used the ideas of stimulus and response, along with the application of rewards or reinforcements, to train pigeons and other animals. In addition, he used the general principles of behaviorism to develop theories about how best to teach children and how to create societies that were peaceful and productive (Skinner, 1957, 1968, 1972).

The behaviorists made substantial contributions to psychology by identifying the principles of learning. Although the behaviorists were incorrect in their beliefs that it was not possible to measure thoughts and feelings, their ideas provided new insights that helped further our understanding regarding the nature-nurture debate as well as the question of free will. The ideas of behaviorism are fundamental to psychology and have been developed to help us better understand the role of prior experiences in a variety of areas of psychology.

Social Learning Theory , or learning by watching others , was developed by Albert Bandura (1977). His theory calls our attention to the ways in which many of our actions are not learned through conditioning, as suggested by Skinner . Young children frequently learn behaviors through imitation. Especially when children do not know what else to do, they learn by modeling or copying the behavior of others.

Bandura (1986) suggests that there is interplay between the environment and the individual. We are not just the product of our surroundings, rather we influence our surroundings. There is interplay between our personality and the way we interpret events and how they influence us. This concept is called reciprocal determinism . An example of this might be the interplay between parents and children. Parents not only influence their child’s environment, perhaps intentionally through the use of reinforcement, etc., but children influence parents as well. Parents may respond differently with their first child than with their fourth. Perhaps they try to be the perfect parents with their firstborn, but by the time their last child comes along they have very different expectations, both of themselves and their child. Our environment creates us and we create our environment.

Other social influences: TV or not TV? Bandura, Ross and Ross (1963) began a series of studies to look at the impact of television on the behavior of children. Bandura began by conducting an experiment in which he showed children a film of a woman hitting an inflatable clown or “bobo” doll. Then the children were allowed in the room, where they found the doll and during their play they began to hit it. The children also demonstrated novel ways of being aggressive toward the doll that were not demonstrated by those children who did not see the aggressive model. Bandura’s research raised concerns about the impact of violence on young children. Since then, considerable research has been conducted on the impact of violent media on children’s aggression including playing video games.

Cognitive Theory: The cognitive theories focus on how our mental processes or cognitions change over time . Three important theories are Jean Piaget’s, Lev Vygotsky’s, and Information-processing.

Jean Piaget (1896-1980) was one of the most influential cognitive theorists in development. He was inspired to explore children’s ability to think and reason by watching his own children’s development. He was one of the first to recognize and map out the ways in which children’s intelligence differs from that of adults (Piaget, 1929). He became interested in this area when he was asked to test the IQ of children and began to notice that there was a pattern in their wrong answers. He believed that children’s intellectual skills change over time and that maturation, rather than training, brings about that change. Children of differing ages interpret the world differently. Piaget theorized that children progressed through four stages of cognitive development (see Table 1.4).

Table 1.4 Piaget's Stages of Cognitive Development

Piaget has been criticized for overemphasizing the role that physical maturation plays in cognitive development and in underestimating the role that culture and experience plays. Looking across cultures reveals considerable variation in what children are able to do at various ages. Research has shown considerable overlap among the four stages and that development is more continuous.

Lev Vygotsky (1896-1934) was a Russian psychologist who wrote in the early 1900s, but whose work was not discovered by researchers in the United States until the 1960s and became more widely known in the 1980s (Crain, 2005). His sociocultural theory emphasizes the importance of culture and interaction in the development of cognitive abilities . Vygotsky differed with Piaget in that he believed that a person not only has a set of abilities, but also a set of potential abilities that can be realized if given the proper guidance from others. Vygotsky developed theories on teaching that have been adopted by educators today.

Information Processing is not the work of a single theorist, but based on the ideas and research of several cognitive scientists studying how individuals perceive, analyze, manipulate, use, and remember information . This approach assumes that humans gradually improve in their processing skills; that is, cognitive development is continuous rather than stage-like. The more complex mental skills of adults are built from the primitive abilities of children. We are born with the ability to notice stimuli, store, and retrieve information. Brain maturation enables advancements in our information processing system. At the same time, interactions with the environment also aid in our development of more effective strategies for processing information.

Urie Bronfenbrenner (1917-2005) developed the Ecological Systems Theory , which provides a framework for understanding and studying the many influences on human development (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Bronfenbrenner recognized that human interaction is influenced by larger social forces and that an understanding of these forces is essential for understanding an individual. The individual is impacted by several systems including:

• Microsystem includes the individual’s setting and those who have direct, significant contact with the person, such as parents or siblings . The input of those is modified by the cognitive and biological state of the individual as well. These influence the person’s actions, which in turn influence systems operating on him or her.
• Mesosystem includes the larger organizational structures, such as school, the family, or religion. These institutions impact the microsystems just described. The philosophy of the school system, daily routine, assessment methods, and other characteristics can affect the child’s self-image, growth, sense of accomplishment, and schedule thereby impacting the child, physically, cognitively, and emotionally.
• Exosystem includes the larger contexts of community . A community’s values, history, and economy can impact the organizational structures it houses. Mesosystems both influence and are influenced by the exosystem.
• Macrosystem includes the cultural elements, such as global economic conditions, war, technological trends, values, philosophies, and a society’s responses to the global community.
• Chronosystem is the historical context in which these experiences occur. This relates to the different generational time periods previously discussed, such as the baby boomers and millennials.

In sum, a child’s experiences are shaped by larger forces, such as the family, schools, religion, culture, and time period. Bronfenbrenner’s model helps us understand all of the different environments that impact each one of us simultaneously. Despite its comprehensiveness, Bronfenbrenner’s ecological system’s theory is not easy to use. Taking into consideration all the different influences makes it difficult to research and determine the impact of all the different variables (Dixon, 2003). Consequently, psychologists have not fully adopted this approach, although they recognize the importance of the ecology of the individual. Figure 1.9 is a model of Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory.

Figure 1.9. Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory

Supplemental Materials

• This article discusses the importance of critical reflection on the underlying assumptions of developmental psychology as a science.

Teo, T. (1997). Developmental Psychology and the Relevance of a Critical Metatheoretical Reflection. Human Development, 40 (4), 195–210. https://doi.org/10.1159/000278723

Baltes, P. B. (1987). Theoretical propositions of life span developmental psychology: On the dynamics between growth and decline. Developmental Psychology, 23, 611-626.

Baltes, P. B., Lindenberger, U., & Staudinger, U. M. (2006). Life span theory in developmental psychology. In W. Damon, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology , 6th edition (pp. 569-664). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory . New York: General Learning Press.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social-cognitive theory . Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A, Ross, D. &. Ross S. (1963). Imitation of film-mediated aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66 , 3-11.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Crain, W. (2005). Theories of development concepts and applications (5th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson.

Crews, F. C. (1998). Unauthorized Freud: Doubters confront a legend . New York, NY: Viking Press.

Dixon, W. E. (2003). Twenty studies that revolutionized child psy chology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society . New York: Norton.

Guinness World Records. (2016). Oldest person (ever). Retrieved from http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/search?term=oldest+person+%28ever%29

Neugarten, B. L. (1979). Policy for the 1980s: Age or need entitlement? In J. P. Hubbard (Ed.), Aging: Agenda for the eighties, a national journal issues book (pp. 48-52). Washington, DC: Government Research Corporation.

Neugarten, D. A. (Ed.) (1996). The meanings of age . Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Piaget, J. (1929). The child’s conception of the world . NY: Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich.

Smithsonian National Zoo. (2016). Retrieved from http://nationalzoo.si.edu/

Skinner, B. (1957). Verbal behavior . Acton, MA: Copley.

Skinner, B. (1968). The technology of teaching . New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Skinner, B. (1972). Beyond freedom and dignity . New York, NY: Vintage Books.

Thomas, R. M. (1979). Comparing theories of child development . Santa Barbara, CA: Wadsworth.

United States Census Bureau. (2016). Povert y. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/topics/income-poverty/poverty/about/glossary.html

Vogt, W.P., & Johnson, R.B. (2016). The SAGE dictionary of statistics and methodology . Los Angeles, CA: Sage

Webb, S. J., Dawson, G., Bernier, R., & Panagiotides, H. (2006). ERP evidence of atypical face processing in young children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 36 , 884-890. doi: 10.1007/s10803-006-0126-x

Weitz, R. (2007). The sociology of health, illness, and health care: A critical approach, (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson.

OER Attribution: “Lifespan Development: A Psychological Perspective, Second Edition” by Martha Lally and Suzanne Valentine-French is licensed under a CC-BY-NC-SA-3.0

Additional written material (Meta-theories of Human Development) by Ellen Skinner, Glen Richardson, Jennifer Pitzer, and Cynthia Taylor, Portland State University is licensed under a CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 .

Media Attributions

• Private: jana-sabeth-snDUMdYF7o8-unsplash © Jana Sabeth is licensed under a CC0 (Creative Commons Zero) license
• Private: garrett-jackson-oOnJWBMlb5A-unsplash © Garrett Jackson is licensed under a Public Domain license
• Private: 6152423507_009b2626cd_o © Woody Hibbard is licensed under a CC BY (Attribution) license
• Private: original © Noba Project is licensed under a CC BY-NC-SA (Attribution NonCommercial ShareAlike) license
• Private: Preformation is licensed under a Public Domain license
• Private: Sigmund_Freud,_by_Max_Halberstadt_(cropped) © Max Halberstadt is licensed under a Public Domain license
• Private: Erik_Erikson © Unknown is licensed under a Public Domain license
• Private: original © Semhur is licensed under a CC BY-SA (Attribution ShareAlike) license
• Private: Bronfenbrenner’s_Ecological_Theory_of_Development_(English) © Hchokr at English Wikipedia is licensed under a CC BY-SA (Attribution ShareAlike) license

Human Development Copyright © 2020 by Human Development Teaching & Learning Group is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

2.1 Meta-theories of Human Development

Learning objectives.

• Identify key assumptions and major meta-theories underlying lifespan development 
• Explore your own meta-theory of development

The study of development is guided by the assumptions researchers hold about the nature of humans and their development. These assumptions are called meta-theories . “Meta” means “above” or “beyond,” like “meta-physics.” Other terms used to describe meta-theories are “world views,” “cosmologies,” “perspectives,” or “paradigms,” as in “paradigm shifts.” Explicit discussions of meta-theories are found most often in philosophy.

What are meta-theories of human development?

Meta-theories (or world views or paradigms) of human development are sets of assumptions people hold about the nature of humans and the meaning of development — what it looks like, how it happens, what causes it. These assumptions are important because everyone has them, including researchers, but they are often implicit, meaning we are not always consciously aware of them. In the study of development, such assumptions influence everything about how research is conducted: the questions we ask, the measures and methods that are used, and the interpretation of data. For example, if researchers assume that development ends at 18, they do not look for developmental changes after that age. Or, if researchers assume that aging is a process of decline, then they never look for characteristics that might improve as people get older.

All researchers have meta-theories, since assumptions are baked into the theories and methodologies they use. But researchers are often unaware of them, and so these assumptions are rarely acknowledged. It is important to note that meta-theories are not just cold cognitions. They are often deeply held convictions that researchers will fiercely defend. Typically researchers think that their assumptions are self-evident truths. They are often convinced that their assumptions are right and everyone else’s are wrong.

Researchers holding different meta-theories can have difficulty communicating with each other. Since they are asking different questions and using different truth criteria for research, they often argue past each other or misunderstand each other. One group of researchers will offer what they consider to be irrefutable proof of their ideas, which other researchers then dismiss as irrelevant. Discrepancies, inconsistencies, arguments, and furor often characterize an area of study in which researchers from multiple meta-theories are working.

What kinds of assumptions guide the study of human development?

We consider six key assumptions. You may have heard of many of them, since they are perennial issues in the study of development. They include:

• Assumptions about human nature : whether people are born as blank slates ( tabula rasa ) or whether people are inherently good or inherently bad.
• Assumptions about the causes of development : whether development is determined by nature (genes, biology) or determined by nurture (environment, learning).
• Assumptions about the role of the individual in his or her own development: whether people are passive participants, reacting to external forces or whether they are active in choosing and shaping their own development.
• Assumptions about stability vs. change : whether traits, characteristics, and experiences early in life have permanent effects or whether people are malleable and open to change throughout life.
• Assumptions about continuity vs. discontinuity : whether development involves quantitative incremental change or qualitative shifts.
• Assumptions about universality vs. context specificity : whether development follows a universal pathway or depends more on specific experiences and environmental contexts.

Nature of humans

What is the nature of humans? These assumptions refer to beliefs about the underlying qualities of our species– whether humans are born as blank slates ( tabula rasa ) or whether we all bring intrinsic human characteristics with us into the world. For example, these different assumptions are readily apparent in alternative conceptualizations of motivation—some theories assume that motives and motivation are all acquired, whereas others assume that all humans come with intrinsic motivations.

Nature and Nurture

Why are you the way you are? As you consider some of your features (height, weight, personality, being diabetic, etc.), ask yourself whether these features are a result of heredity or environmental factors, or both. Chances are, you can see the ways in which both heredity and environmental factors (such as lifestyle, diet, and so on) have contributed to these features. For decades, scholars have carried on the “nature/nurture” debate. For any particular feature, those on the side of nature would argue that heredity plays the most important role in bringing about that feature. Those on the side of nurture would argue that one’s environment is most significant in shaping the way we are. This debate continues in all aspects of human development, and most scholars agree that there is a constant interplay between the two forces. It is difficult to isolate the root of any single behavior as a result solely of nature or nurture.

Active versus Passive

How much do you play a role in your own developmental path? Are you at the whim of your genetic inheritance or the environment that surrounds you? Some theorists see humans as playing a much more active role in their own development. Piaget, for instance believed that children actively explore their world and construct new ways of thinking to explain the things they experience. In contrast, many behaviorists view humans as being more passive in the developmental process.

Stability versus Change

How similar are you to how you were as a child? Were you always as out-going or reserved as you are now? Some theorists argue that the personality traits of adults are rooted in the behavioral and emotional tendencies of the infant and young child. Others disagree, and believe that these initial tendencies are modified by social and cultural forces over time.

Continuity versus Discontinuity

Is human development best characterized as a slow, gradual process, or is it best viewed as one of more abrupt change? The answer to that question often depends on which developmental theorist you ask and what topic is being studied. The theories of Freud, Erikson, Piaget, and Kohlberg are called stage theories. Stage theories or discontinuous development assume that developmental change occurs in distinct stages that are qualitatively different from each other, and that unfold in a set, universal sequence . At each stage of development, children and adults have different qualities and characteristics. Thus, stage theorists assume development is discontinuous. Others, such as the behaviorists, Vygotsky, and information processing theorists, assume development is a more slow and gradual process known as continuous development . For instance, they would see the adult as not possessing new skills, but as using more advanced skills that were already present in some form in the child. Brain development and environmental experiences contribute to the acquisition of more developed skills.

Universal vs. context specific.

A final assumption focuses on whether whether pathways of development are presumed to be (1) normative and universal, meaning that all people pass through them in the same sequence, or (2) differential and specific, meaning that a variety of different patterns and pathways of developmental change are possible depending on the individual and the context. Some theorists, like Piaget or Erickson, assume that everyone progresses through the same stages of cognitive development in the same order, or that everyone negotiates the same set of developmental tasks at about the same ages. Other theorists, who endorse lifespan or ecological systems approaches, believe that development can take on a wide variety of patterns and pathways, depending on the specific cultural, historical, and societal under which it unfolds.

What are the guiding meta-theories in human development?

These six basic assumptions are clustered into “packages” that go together. Clusters are organized around metaphors, which are at the root of meta-theories of humans and their development. We consider four meta-theories, each with its own metaphor: (1) humans as seeds , as depicted by Maturational meta-theories; (2) humans as machines , as depicted in Mechanistic meta-theories (3) humans as butterflies , as depicted in Organismic meta-theories; and (4) humans as participants in a tennis game, conversation, or dance , as depicted by Contextualist meta-theories. For an overview of these guiding meta-theories, see this chart [pdf] .

• Maturational meta-theory : Maturational meta-theories can be understood using the plant as a metaphor. It is as if humans develop the same way as plants. The important thing to study is people’s “seeds,” that is, their genetic make-up. People are assumed to be passive, the product of their genes. The environment can provide support and nutrition (rain, sun, and soil), but can’t change a person’s nature (poppy seeds will always produce poppies). The role of the person is to be reactive—to their genes. The course of development will be continuous or discontinuous depending on the genetic program, although acorns always grow into oak trees.
• Mechanistic meta-theory : Mechanistic meta-theories can be understood using the machine as a metaphor. It is as if humans change the same way as machines. People are assumed to be made up of pieces that can be studied apart from the rest of them. They are passive, with the energy coming from outside (like gasoline for a car). Development is continuous and people do not develop into something else (a car stays a car). The person can only react to the environment that is controlling them (like a car responding to the gas pedal or the brake). All causes for development come from the outside, from environmental forces.
• Organismic meta-theory : Organismic meta-theories can be understood using the butterfly as a metaphor. It is as if humans develop the same way as butterflies. People are assumed to be made up of structured wholes. Their nature is to be curious, interested, and open to growth. They are active and develop through discontinuous qualitatively different stages (like the caterpillar, chrysalis, and butterfly). People construct their own next steps in development based on the affordances and opportunities provided by the environment. Development is caused by imbalances that lead to structural reorganizations. Development is progressive (gets better) and only goes in one direction (from caterpillar toward butterfly) and not the reverse.
• Contextual meta-theory : Contextual meta-theories can be understood using the tennis game (or dance) as a metaphor. It is as if humans’ development is like a game of tennis or a dance. The important thing to study is the back and forth between the person and his or her context, both of which are assumed to be proactive and acting on their own agendas. Development can be continuous or discontinuous depending on how the game is played. Both person and environment are active partners in the system, which can lead to transformations in both.

What are examples of theories that fall within each meta-theory?

Nested within each higher-order meta-theory are sets of lower-level approaches or theories called “families” of perspectives or theories to denote that they share common properties, based on their similarity to the root metaphors and characteristics of the guiding meta-theories. This table contains several examples of “big” theories of development and provides an analysis of their defining features according to the meta-theoretical assumptions we have been discussing [pdf]. Based on this analysis, we indicate the higher-order family to which we think each big theory or approach belongs.

Although maturational meta-theories were prevalent in the beginning of the 20th century, their popularity has waxed and waned since then, and they have taken on many different forms. These include some formulations of behavioral genetics, sociobiology, evolutionary, ethological, neuroscience, temperament, and personality theories. Maturational assumptions are signaled by concepts such as “trait,” the search for “the aggression gene,” the discovery of the brain system, hormone, or neurotransmitter responsible for a specific condition, or any other terms that suggest development is solely the product of innate or immutable characteristics of individuals. Although they are not typically referred to as “maturational,” there are many kinds of theories that place all the active ingredients of behavior or development inside the head (or more specifically the social cognitions) of the person. Even if they are not direct descendants, these theories can be considered cousins of Maturational meta-theories because they are exclusively focused on the role of the individual.

The prototypic Mechanistic theories are behaviorist, operant, and classical conditioning learning theories, like social learning theory. This family of theories dominated psychology from the early to the mid-20th century, but Mechanistic theories are still alive and well in many areas, such as learning and motivation, and especially in many theories that have been adapted for use in educational systems. New kinds of machines serve as prototypes for mechanistic theories of memory, learning, and automatic functioning—focusing on the computer, the robot, and the automaton. Such assumptions have even pervaded our understanding of biological systems, as seen in metaphors like “the brain is a computer.” And although the “cognitive revolution” was supposed to have overthrown behaviorist assumptions, some cognitivistic theories treat humans as if they were information processing machines.

Perhaps surprisingly, there are also mechanistic assumptions embedded in certain progressive analyses of the effects of societal and social conditions, such as poverty, oppression, racism, and discrimination, which sometimes seem to imply that these external forces are the sole determinants of the development of stereotypes or implicit attitudes. In this case, because all people are presumed to passively internalize these societal prejudices, psychological phenomena are modeled after the metaphor of the “Xerox machine.” Just as in Maturational meta-theories, where humans could be seen as “hosts” to their genes, who were really running the show, in Mechanistic meta-theories, humans can be seen as “hosts” to their own behaviors, which are automatically reflexively produced based on previous social programming.

The prototypical Organismic theory is Piaget’s constructivist theory of cognitive and affective development, and the several neo-constructivist theories that were inspired by Piaget, for example, Kohlberg’s theory of the development of moral reasoning. Other theories living under the Organismic umbrella include Werner’s comparative psychology, focusing on the orthogenetic principle of differentiation and integration, and Erikson, who posited universal age-graded developmental tasks. Other theories that claim kinship with Organismic meta-theories (e.g., theories of intrinsic motivation) do not typically include notions of universal stages or tasks, but focus instead on Organismic assumptions about the nature of humans, specifically, that humans are innately active, curious, and interested, and inherently desire to explore, understand, and fit in with their social and physical environments. With the rise of radical contextualism and cultural relativism in psychology, theories of “universal” anything (e.g., psychological needs, stages, developmental tasks) have come increasingly under attack.

Some of the better-known members of the Contextualist family include Bronfenbrenner’s bio-ecological model and the lifespan approach, both of which arose in reaction to dominant meta-theories of their day (experimental child psychology and Piagetian psychology, respectively), with their almost exclusive focus on the child as a developing individual. The “contextualist” moniker reflects these perspectives’ insistence that development unfolds within and is shaped by higher-order multi-level ecological or contextual forces outside the individual, such as microsystem settings, and societal, cultural, and historical contexts.

Does the field of psychology have meta-theories?

During different historical periods, specific meta-theories dominated the field of psychology. For example, during the 1940s and 1950s, behaviorism held sway. In the 1960s, Piaget’s theories were introduced to the United States and captured the field’s attention. Some fierce theoretical and empirical battles were fought between behaviorists and Piagetians.

When a specific meta-theory governs the field, it becomes very difficult for researchers from opposing meta-theories to work—they have trouble getting funding, they have trouble getting their research findings published, and they are marginalized by other researchers. For example, when the area of motivation was dominated by behaviorists (who believed that all behavior was motivated by rewards and punishments), it was very difficult for researchers to study and publish research on intrinsic motivation.

What is the dominant meta-theory in the field today?

“Cognitivism” is a guiding meta-theory in the field of psychology today. “Cognitivism” is the assumption that all the causal factors that shape human behavior and development are inside the mind or belief system of the person. You can hear the assumptions in the theories of the field: self-efficacy, self-esteem, attributions, perceived social support, values, sense of purpose, goal orientations, internal working model, identity, and so on.

The paradigm that is currently taking over the field of psychology is neuroscience . That is, the brain is in charge of behavior, and neurobiology is destiny. Some branches of neuroscience are predominantly Maturational , as seen in discussions of the brain systems responsible for certain actions, predilections, and characteristics. Other branches are more Contextual , for example, research on neuroplasticity, which examines the way that social contexts and interactions shape the developing brain.

News flash : In the field of psychology outside developmental, most researchers assume that people don’t develop. In personality, social, cognitive, and industrial-organizational psychology, researchers largely examine individual differences as indicators of people’s permanent characteristics.

Who else has meta-theories?

Everyone has meta-theories about human nature and development: parents, teachers, nurses, social workers, doctors, business people, artists, politicians, and so on.

For example,

• doctors assume that weight loss is all about diet and exercise (nurture), so no one can do research on physiological differences in metabolism (nature).
• teachers have assumptions about whether students come with motivation (nature) or have to be motivated from the outside (nurture), and organize their classrooms accordingly.
• parents often argue about the nature of children’s development, whether it’s just the child’s personality (maturational), or the child is going through a normal stage (organismic), or if they are rewarding the wrong behavior (mechanistic).

What is the meta-theory that guides our class and this book?

Our class endorses a life-span perspective on human development, a contextualist perspective that fought its way through the dominant perspectives in child psychology (e.g., development ends at age 18), starting in the 1980s to become one of the dominant meta-theories governing the field of developmental science today. Note that your instructor chose your book, so their meta-theory is influencing the meta-theoretical filter through which you are learning about development.

What is the correct meta-theory?

There is no single correct definition of development or meta-theory. Really. Even the lifespan approach has its drawbacks.

However, as research accumulates, many theories derived from certain meta-theories have been found to be incomplete—so far researchers have not found any significant aspect of development that is caused only by nature or only by nurture. Therefore, most researchers currently say they favor interactionist metatheories, like contextualist or systems meta-theories. However, it is important to look carefully at researchers’ actual work, because sometimes they say that they have one meta-theory, but their work seems to be guided by assumptions from a different meta-theory.

Do I have a meta-theory about development?

Yes, you do. And you can figure out what it is. Although it’s not easy, you can discern your own assumptions about development—by thinking about which assumptions make the most sense to you. You can also see which kinds of theories you prefer and what kinds of recommendations you would make about how to structure development, like how people should parent, teach, or make policies. The hardest part about discovering your own meta-theory is realizing that it is made up of assumptions you have (based on your experiences and messages from society)—that aren’t necessarily true. Our meta-theories sure seem true to each of us!

How do I get rid of my meta-theory?

It’s not really possible to get rid of all of our assumptions. It is our goal to be aware of our own assumptions or meta-theories, to realize that they are not the truth but are our current working models of how the world operates and people develop. The most important thing is to be explicit about our assumptions and to be cognizant of how they are guiding our actions. It is a goal of this class to help students figure out their own assumptions and to help them become (or remain) open to alternative viewpoints.

Adapted from : Ellen Skinner, Glen Richardson, Jennifer Pitzer, and Cynthia Taylor. Portland State University. July 2011.

Supplemental Materials

• This article discusses the importance of critical reflection on the underlying assumptions of developmental psychology as a science.

Teo, T. (1997). Developmental Psychology and the Relevance of a Critical Metatheoretical Reflection. Human Development, 40 (4), 195–210. https://doi.org/10.1159/000278723

CC Licensed Content

“Lifespan Development: A Psychological Perspective, Second Edition”  by Martha Lally and Suzanne Valentine-French is licensed under a  CC-BY-NC-SA-3.0

Lifespan Human Development: A Topical Approach Copyright © by Meredith Palm is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Human Development Report 2023-24
• Towards 2025 Human Development Report
• 2023 Global Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI)
• 2023 Gender Social Norms Index Publication
• Human Development Index
• Country Insights
• Human Climate Horizons data and insights platform
• Thematic Composite Indices
• Documentation and downloads
• What is Human development?
• NHDR/RHDR Report preparation toolkit

What is Human Development?

While the expression “human development” is widely used, it is understood in different ways around..

HDRO Outreach

2015 marks 25 years since the first Human Development Report introduced a new approach for advancing human flourishing. And while the expression “human development” is widely used, it is understood in different ways around the world. So on the occasion of the 25th anniversary year of human development reporting, we’d like to highlight how the Human Development Report Office (HDRO) presents human development.

Credit: UNDP Kosovo’s animation "What is Human Development?" explains and promotes sustainable human development.

Human development grew out of global discussions on the links between economic growth and development during the second half of the 20th Century. By the early 1960s there were increasingly loud calls to “dethrone” GDP: economic growth had emerged as both a leading objective, and indicator, of national progress in many countries i , even though GDP was never intended to be used as a measure of wellbeing ii . In the 1970s and 80s development debate considered using alternative focuses to go beyond GDP, including putting greater emphasis on employment, followed by redistribution with growth, and then whether people had their basic needs met.

These ideas helped pave the way for the human development approach, which is about expanding the richness of human life, rather than simply the richness of the economy in which human beings live. It is an approach that is focused on creating fair opportunities and choices for all people. So how do these ideas come together in the human development approach?

• People: the human development approach focuses on improving the lives people lead rather than assuming that economic growth will lead, automatically, to greater opportunities for all. Income growth is an important means to development, rather than an end in itself.

• Choices: human development is, fundamentally, about more choice. It is about providing people with opportunities, not insisting that they make use of them. No one can guarantee human happiness, and the choices people make are their own concern. The process of development – human development - should at least create an environment for people, individually and collectively, to develop to their full potential and to have a reasonable chance of leading productive and creative lives that they value.

The human development approach, developed by the economist Mahbub Ul Haq, is anchored in Amartya Sen’s work on human capabilities, often framed in terms of whether people are able to “be” and “do” desirable things in life iii . Examples include

Beings: well fed, sheltered, healthy

Doings: work, education, voting, participating in community life.

Freedom of choice is central: someone choosing to be hungry (during a religious fast say) is quite different to someone who is hungry because they cannot afford to buy food.

As the international community seeks to define a new development agenda post-2015, the human development approach remains useful to articulating the objectives of development and improving people’s well-being by ensuring an equitable, sustainable and stable planet.

i Kennedy, Robert. (1968). Address to the University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas on March 18, 1968. www.informationclearinghouse.info/article27718.htm ii Simon Kuznets, who created GDP, warned expressly against using it as a measure of wellbeing. Kuznets, Simon. “National Income, 1929–1932.” U.S. Congress, Senate Doc. No. 124–73, at 7 (1934) iii Professor Sen was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 1998 for his work in welfare economics.

Photo credit: UNDP Mongolia's #GivingTuesday

More on human development

Related News

Announcement: 2021/22 Human Development Report set to be released on 8 September 2022

Two steps forward, one step back - where are we heading with gender equality?

• Bachelor’s Degrees
• Master’s Degrees
• Doctorate Degrees
• Certificate Programs
• Nursing Degrees
• Cybersecurity
• Human Services
• Science & Mathematics
• Communication
• Liberal Arts
• Social Sciences
• Computer Science
• Admissions Overview
• Tuition and Financial Aid
• Incoming Freshman and Graduate Students
• Transfer Students
• Military Students
• International Students
• Early Access Program
• About Maryville
• Our Faculty
• Our Approach
• Our History
• Accreditation
• Tales of the Brave
• Student Support Overview
• Online Learning Tools
• Infographics

Home / Online Bachelor’s Degree Programs / Online Bachelor’s in Human Development and Family Studies / Bachelor’s in Human Development and Family Studies Resources / Stages of Human Development: What It Is & Why It’s Important

What Is Human Development and Why Is It Important? What Is Human Development and Why Is It Important? What Is Human Development and Why Is It Important?

Take your next brave step.

Receive information about the benefits of our programs, the courses you'll take, and what you need to apply.

Tables of Contents

• Eight Stages of Human Development?
• Theories of Human Development

Human Development vs. Developmental Psychology

What are the genetic factors that affect human growth and development, why do we study human growth and development.

Imagine two children born in the same town and the same year to families with similar socioeconomic statuses. One child grows up to be assertive and confident, while the other grows up to be timid and shy. The study of the stages of human development can help explain the reasons for these differences and much more.

What is human development, exactly? Human development is a branch of psychology with the goal of understanding people — how they develop, grow, and change throughout their lives. This discipline, which can help individuals better understand themselves and their relationships, is broad. As such, it can be used in various professional settings and career paths.

What Are the Eight Stages of Human Development?

If human development is the study of how people change throughout their lives, how and when does this development happen? Many scientists and psychologists have studied various aspects of human development, including ego psychologist Erik Erikson. He examined the impact of social experiences throughout an individual’s life and theorized that  psychosocial development happens in eight sequential parts . What are the eight stages of human development?

Stage 1 — Infancy: Trust vs. Mistrust

In the first stage of human development, infants learn to trust based on how well their caregivers meet their basic needs and respond when they cry. If an infant cries out to be fed, the parent can either meet this need by feeding and comforting the infant or not meet this need by ignoring the infant. When their needs are met, infants learn that relying on others is safe; when their needs go unmet, infants grow up to be less trusting.

Stage 2 — Toddlerhood: Autonomy vs. Shame and Doubt

In addition to autonomy versus shame and doubt, another way to think of the second stage is independence versus dependence. Like in the first stage, toddlers go through this stage responding to their caregivers. If caregivers encourage them to be independent and explore the world on their own, toddlers will grow up with a sense of self-efficacy. If the caregivers hover excessively or encourage dependence, these toddlers grow up with less confidence in their abilities.

For example, if a toddler wants to walk without assistance in a safe area, the caregiver should encourage this autonomy by allowing the independent behavior. If the caregiver insists on holding the toddler’s hand even when it’s not necessary, this attention can lead to doubt later in life.

Stage 3 — Preschool Years: Initiative vs. Guilt

During the preschool years, children learn to assert themselves and speak up when they need something. Some children may state that they’re sad because a friend stole their toy. If this assertiveness is greeted with a positive reaction, they learn that taking initiative is helpful behavior. However, if they’re made to feel guilty or ashamed for their assertiveness, they may grow up to be timid and less likely to take the lead.

Stage 4 — Early School Years: Industry vs. Inferiority

When children begin school, they start to compare themselves with peers. If children feel they’re accomplished in relation to peers, they develop strong self-esteem. If, however, they notice that other children have met milestones that they haven’t, they may struggle with self-esteem. For example, a first grader may notice a consistently worse performance on spelling tests when compared with peers. If this becomes a pattern, it can lead to feelings of inferiority.

The key components of Erikson’s model of human development include stage one, infancy, trust versus mistrust; stage two, toddlerhood, autonomy versus shame and doubt; stage three, preschool years, initiative versus guilt; stage four, early school years, industry versus inferiority; stage five, adolescence, identity versus role confusion; stage six, young adulthood, intimacy versus isolation; stage seven, middle adulthood, generativity versus stagnation; and stage eight, late adulthood, integrity versus despair.

Back To Top

Stage 5 — Adolescence: Identity vs. Role Confusion

The adolescent stage is where the term “identity crisis” originated, and for good reason. Adolescence is all about developing a sense of self. Adolescents who can clearly identify who they are grow up with stronger goals and self-knowledge than teenagers who struggle to break free of their parents’ or friends’ influences. Adolescents who still deeply depend on their parents for social interaction and guidance may experience more role confusion than teenagers who pursue their own interests.

Stage 6 — Young Adulthood: Intimacy vs. Isolation

In young adulthood, which begins roughly at age 20, people begin to solidify their lifelong bonds; many people enter committed relationships or marriages, while others form lifelong friendships. People who can create and maintain these relationships reap the emotional benefits, while those who struggle to maintain relationships may suffer from isolation. A young adult who develops strong friendships in college may feel more intimacy than one who struggles to form and maintain close friendships.

Stage 7 — Middle Adulthood: Generativity vs. Stagnation

In middle adulthood, people tend to struggle with their contributions to society. They may be busy raising children or pursuing careers. Those who feel that they’re contributing experience generativity, which is the sense of leaving a legacy. On the other hand, those who don’t feel that their work or lives matter may experience feelings of stagnation. For example, a middle-aged adult who’s raising a family and working in a career that presumably helps people may feel more fulfilled than an adult who’s working at a day job that feels meaningless.

Stage 8 — Late Adulthood: Integrity vs. Despair

As adults reach the end of life, they look back on their lives and reflect. Adults who feel fulfilled by their lives, either through a successful family or a meaningful career, reach ego integrity, in which they can face aging and dying with peace. If older adults don’t feel that they’ve lived a good life, they risk falling into despair.

Other Theories of Human Development

Although widely used, Erikson’s psychosocial development theory has been critiqued for focusing too much on childhood. Critics claim that his emphasis makes the model less representative of the growth that people experienced in adulthood. Erikson’s model of the stages of human development is only one theory addressing growth and change throughout life, as many other psychologists have researched their own  theories of human development , including the following:

Cognitive Development

Jean Piaget developed the theory of cognitive development. Piaget’s theory is widely used in education programs to prepare teachers to instruct students in developmentally appropriate ways. The theory is based on four stages:

• Sensorimotor —  In the sensorimotor stage (birth to 2 years old), children learn object permanence, which is the understanding that people and objects still exist even when they’re out of view.
• Preoperational —  In the preoperational stage (2-7 years old), children develop symbolic thought, which is when they begin to progress from concrete to abstract thinking. Children in this stage often have imaginary friends.
• Concrete operational —  In the concrete operational stage (7-11 years old), children solidify their abstract thinking and begin to understand cause and effect and logical implications of actions.
• Formal operational —  In the formal operational stage (adolescence to adulthood), humans plan for the future, think hypothetically, and assume adult responsibilities.

Moral Development

Lawrence Kohlberg created a theory of human development based on moral development concepts. The theory comprises the following stages:

• Preconventional —  In the preconventional stage, people follow rules because they’re afraid of punishment and make choices only with their best interests in mind.
• Conventional —  In the conventional stage, people act to avoid society’s judgment and follow rules to maintain the systems and structures that are already in place.
• Postconventional —  In the postconventional stage, a genuine concern for the welfare of others and the greater good of society guides people.

Psychosexual Theory

Sigmund Freud popularized the  psychosexual theory . The theory comprises five stages:

• Oral —  In the oral stage (birth to 1 year old), children learn to suck and swallow and may experience conflict with weaning.
• Anal —  In the anal stage (1-3 years old), children learn to withhold or expel feces and may experience conflict with potty training.
• Phallic —  In the phallic stage (3-6 years old), children discover that their genitals can give them pleasure.
•   Latency —  In the latency stage (roughly 6 years old through puberty), they take a break from these physical stages and instead develop mentally and emotionally.
• Genital —  In the genital stage (puberty through adulthood), people learn to express themselves sexually.

Ideally, children move through each phase fluidly as their sexual libidos develop, but if they’re stuck in any of the phases, they may develop a fixation that hinders their development.

Behavioral Theory

The behavioral theory focuses solely on a person’s behaviors rather than the feelings that go alongside those behaviors. It suggests that behaviors are conditioned in an environment due to certain stimuli. Behavioral theorists believe that behavior determines feelings, so changing behaviors is important because this will in turn change feelings.

The  attachment theory  focuses on the deep relationships between people across their lifetime. An important attachment theory finding is that children must develop at least one strong bond in childhood to trust and develop relationships as adults. The attachment theory comprises four stages:

• Asocial or  pre-attachment   (birth to 6 weeks old)
• Indiscriminate attachment (6 weeks old to 7 months old)
• Specific or discriminate attachment (7-9 months old)
• Multiple attachments (10 months old or later)

Social Learning Theory

The social learning theory builds upon the behavioral theory and postulates that people learn best by observing the behavior of others. They watch how others act, view the consequences, and then make decisions regarding their own behavior accordingly. The four stages in this theory are:

• Reproduction

In the attention stage, people first notice the behavior of others. In the retention stage, they remember the behavior and the resulting consequences. In the reproduction stage, people develop the ability to imitate the behaviors they want to reproduce, and in the motivation stage, they perform these behaviors.

Sociocultural Theory

The  sociocultural theory  ties human development to the society or culture in which people live. It focuses on the contributions that society as a whole makes to individual human development. For example, children who are raised to play outdoors develop differently from children who are raised to play indoors.

An important part of this theory is the zone of proximal development, which is an area of knowledge and skills slightly more advanced than a child’s current level. The zone of proximal development helps teachers think about and plan instruction, so sociocultural theory plays a large role in preservice teacher training.

Resources: More Information on Theories of Human Development

• BetterHelp, “Behavioral Theory, Behavioral Psychology, or Behaviorism? How Behavior and Personality Intersect ”
• Encyclopedia Britannica, “Lawrence Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development”
• Healthline, “What Are Freud’s Psychosexual Stages of Development?”
• PositivePsychology.com, “What Is Attachment Theory? Bowlby’s 4 Stages Explained”
• Psychology Today , Social Learning Theory
• SimplyPsychology, “Lev Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory”
• SimplyPsychology, Theories of Psychology
• Verywell Mind, “The 4 Stages of Cognitive Development”

What are the differences between human development and developmental psychology? These terms are closely related. In fact, the study of developmental psychology is most people’s entry into human development.

Developmental psychology  is defined as a scientific approach to explaining growth, change, and consistency throughout a lifetime. It uses various frameworks to understand how people develop and transform throughout their lives. The goals of developmental psychology are to describe, explain, and optimize development to improve people’s lives. In the real world, developmental psychology is used in the study of physical, psychological, emotional, social, personality, and perceptual development.

The  study of developmental psychology  can lead to careers in several different fields. Developmental psychologists often work in colleges and universities and focus on research and teaching. Others work in healthcare facilities, clinics, assisted living facilities, hospitals, mental health clinics, or homeless shelters. In these applied settings, their focus is more on assessing, evaluating, and treating people. According to June 2020 data from PayScale, developmental  psychologists earn an average annual salary of about $68,000 .

One more key element of human growth and development left to explore is  genetics . Genetics influences the speed and way in which people develop, though other factors, such as parenting, education, experiences, and socioeconomic factors, are also at play. The multiple genetic factors that affect human growth and development include genetic interactions and sex chromosome abnormalities.

Genetic Interactions

Genes can act in an additive way or sometimes conflict with one another. For example, a child with one tall parent and one short parent may end up between the two of them, at average height. Other times, genes follow a dominant-recessive pattern. If one parent has brown hair and the other has red hair, the red hair gene is the dominant gene if their child has red hair.

Gene-Environment Interactions

Humans’ genetic information is always interacting with the environment, and sometimes this can impact development and growth. For example, if a child in utero is exposed to drugs, the child’s cognitive abilities may be impacted, thus changing the developmental process. In addition, even if a child’s genes would indicate a tall height, if that child experiences poor nutrition as children, it may impact their height.

Sex Chromosome Abnormalities

Sex chromosome abnormalities impact as many as 1 in 500 births. The following syndromes are examples of sex chromosome abnormalities that can impact development:

• Klinefelter syndrome  is the presence of an extra X chromosome in males, which can cause physical characteristics such as decreased muscle mass and reduced body hair and may cause learning disabilities.
• Fragile X syndrome  is caused by a mutation in the FMR1 gene that makes the X chromosome  appear fragile . It can cause intellectual disability, developmental delays, or distinctive physical features such as a long face.
• Turner syndrome  happens when one of the X chromosomes is missing or partially missing. It only affects females and results in physical characteristics like short stature and webbed neck.

Down Syndrome

Down syndrome  is another common example of how genetics can impact development. This chromosomal disorder may cause some individuals to experience physical or intellectual development differences. Down syndrome occurs at the 21st chromosomal site, in which people with Down syndrome have three chromosomes rather than two.

Those with Down syndrome often have different physical characteristics and may be prone to physical problems like heart defects and hearing problems. Most individuals with Down syndrome have intellectual impairment, but the degree of this impairment varies from person to person.

The top reasons for studying human development are to gain an understanding of your own life experience, help others understand what they’re going through, understand the relationship of society and individual growth, lead more effectively, and support the physical and mental health of others.

The study of human growth and development offers a wealth of value for personal and professional growth and understanding. Many reasons exist for why we study human growth and development.

Common benefits include the following:

• To  gain a better understanding  of one’s own life experiences. This can help people personally reach an understanding of what childhood events shaped their adulthood.
• To  gain knowledge  of how social context impacts development. This knowledge can be invaluable for professionals like teachers as they gain a deeper understanding of their students.
• To  help others understand and contextualize  the ups and downs of life. This helps therapists and psychologists better aid their clients in self-discovery.
• To  understand how societal change can support growth  and development. This understanding helps decision-makers in schools change the educational culture for the better.
• To  become a more effective research, teacher, or leader  in many different industries. Understanding human development deeply and in context has many professional benefits that can lead to greater insight.
• To  support the physical and mental health of individuals  throughout their life span. Professionals like doctors, nurses, and therapists must understand human growth and development to better support their clients.

Students may choose to study human growth and development because of its array of applications across many professional fields. For example, students who want to become elementary school teachers may take courses on the stages of human development to understand cognitive development and how children’s brains grow and change.

Human development is a wide-reaching and ever-changing discipline. A knowledge of human development can be invaluable to people personally as they continue to learn and grow throughout their lives and professionally as they learn to apply what they’ve learned to their careers.

Infographic Sources

Financial Express, “The Eight Stages of Human Development”

VeryWell Mind, “5 Reasons to Study Human Development”

Bring us your ambition and we’ll guide you along a personalized path to a quality education that’s designed to change your life.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 12 June 2024

Gaps and opportunities in modelling human influence on species distributions in the Anthropocene

• Veronica F. Frans   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5634-3956 1 , 2 , 3 &
• Jianguo Liu   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6344-0087 1 , 2  

Nature Ecology & Evolution ( 2024 ) Cite this article

2915 Accesses

165 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Conservation biology
• Ecological modelling
• Theoretical ecology

Understanding species distributions is a global priority for mitigating environmental pressures from human activities. Ample studies have identified key environmental (climate and habitat) predictors and the spatial scales at which they influence species distributions. However, regarding human influence, such understandings are largely lacking. Here, to advance knowledge concerning human influence on species distributions, we systematically reviewed species distribution modelling (SDM) articles and assessed current modelling efforts. We searched 12,854 articles and found only 1,429 articles using human predictors within SDMs. Collectively, these studies of >58,000 species used 2,307 unique human predictors, suggesting that in contrast to environmental predictors, there is no ‘rule of thumb’ for human predictor selection in SDMs. The number of human predictors used across studies also varied (usually one to four per study). Moreover, nearly half the articles projecting to future climates held human predictors constant over time, risking false optimism about the effects of human activities compared with climate change. Advances in using human predictors in SDMs are paramount for accurately informing and advancing policy, conservation, management and ecology. We show considerable gaps in including human predictors to understand current and future species distributions in the Anthropocene, opening opportunities for new inquiries. We pose 15 questions to advance ecological theory, methods and real-world applications.

Similar content being viewed by others

Mechanisms, detection and impacts of species redistributions under climate change

A quixotic view of spatial bias in modelling the distribution of species and their diversity

Interannual climate variability improves niche estimates for ectothermic but not endothermic species

Correlating species’ occurrences with their surrounding habitat has been the best possible way to empirically approximate species’ niches in geographic space. Species distribution models (SDMs) are statistical and machine learning tools that correlate species’ locations with environmental predictors (that is, covariates, variables and parameters) to predict species’ probabilities of occurrence (or occupancy, habitat suitability and presence) across geographic space and/or time 1 , 2 . Species–environment relationships determined from SDMs also inform on the multi-dimensional environmental gradient (hypervolume 3 ) along which species’ niches can be defined. Across thousands of studies and across all domains, spatial scales and taxa, this hypervolume has been commonly represented by suites of predictors relating to climate (for example, temperature and precipitation) and other abiotic interactions (altitude, latitude and topography). Such predictors have been used to estimate species distributions with high accuracy 4 , 5 . However, while these predictors correspond to general ecological niche requirements, the emphasis on such predictors ignores a quintessential phenomenon most relevant to the conditions of our current era: human influence.

Ample evidence has shown that human activities (or simply human presence) have direct and indirect influence on species distributions in the Anthropocene 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 . Such influence has been the most obvious in examples relating to human population growth 7 , species invasions 11 , 12 , urban expansion 8 , 13 and land-use change 14 , 15 . Other less obvious examples exist for species found in the most remote or well-protected environments on the globe (for example, noise pollution from increased tourism in a nature reserve for conserving giant pandas ( Ailuropoda melanoleuca ) has caused them to prefer habitats outside the reserve 16 ). Despite evidence from ecological studies and international expressions of concern regarding the state of species as a result of human influence 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , it is unclear how often predictors relating to human activities, presence or pressures (hereafter called human predictors) are being used in SDMs.

The absence of human predictors can be especially problematic when species distributions are projected to novel environments. For example, a geographic area might be projected as suitable for a species because of its land cover and climate conditions, but is actually unsuitable due to night-time light intensity from distant residential areas 21 . If such important human predictors are not utilized, the mechanisms behind many ecological changes might not be revealed in even protected areas 22 , and resources and efforts to reintroduce a species as a result of SDM predictions could be unsuccessful 23 . A similar concern exists with projecting species distributions across time based on future climate scenarios if human activities have a greater effect on species distributions than climate 24 . Thus, inadequately accounting for human predictors in species projections could largely affect broader applications or interpretations from SDMs 23 , leading to false optimism about a species’ future trajectory or the implementation of misinformed policies.

As SDMs are used in a wide variety of fields—from disease ecology to conservation—understanding how human predictors are currently being used in SDMs can help direct modelling efforts as human influence in the Anthropocene amplifies. In this Analysis, we conducted a systematic review to critically examine how human influence is incorporated into models of species distributions. We examined whether SDM articles acknowledged human influence and, if so, whether human predictors were incorporated in models for assessing and predicting species distributions. We compiled a list of the unique human predictors being used in SDMs so far and examined the context for their use across domains (marine, terrestrial and freshwater), spatial scales and taxa all around the globe. Acknowledging the critical intersection between biodiversity and sustainability 19 , 25 , we also examined how these human predictors related to global Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 20 . Lastly, we searched for trends in model procedures for predictor selection, SDM training and forecasting, and evaluated researchers’ reports on model performance.

Our synthesis demonstrates the need for advances in SDMs, as we found substantial variability in SDM studies’ consideration of human influence. Since SDMs are open, easily accessible tools for conservation, management and ecological studies, covering even data-poor locations and data-deficient species, we propose that standardizing the use of human predictors in SDMs offers opportunities to (1) improve the realism and applications of predicting species distributions in novel spaces and time; (2) enhance global syntheses on the effects of human activities across various domains, taxa and spatial scales; and (3) broaden theoretical perspectives in ecology.

The current state of human influence in SDM research

Modelling human influence (human activities, presence or pressures) on species distributions is extremely uncommon. Among 12,854 SDM articles published up to 2021 and catalogued in the Web of Science ( Methods and Extended Data Fig. 1 ), we found that 5,177 (40%) of them acknowledged human influence on species distributions within their abstracts (Fig. 1a ) and only 1,429 articles published since 2000 (11%) went on to use human predictors (that is, predictors associated with human activities or human-induced pressures) within their SDMs. Another 267 articles (2%) used human predictors outside their models by, for example, masking (omitting) predicted areas of occurrence with human infrastructure or residential areas 26 . While the number of articles using human predictors in SDMs has increased over time, the relative interest in conducting such studies has plateaued to less than 15% of published SDM articles since the early 2000s (Fig. 1b ).

a , b , While the number of published SDM articles acknowledging human influence on species distributions has been increasing over time ( a , blue), the relative proportion of articles where human influence is incorporated within SDM procedures is substantially less (purple), and the interest in modelling human influence on species distributions ( b ) has plateaued to below 15% over the past two decades. These graphs represent the total articles published from 2000 to 2021 (teal), found in a Web of Science search (for search terms, see Methods ). Of these, the articles that acknowledge human influence on species distributions (blue) are those that describe human influence within their abstracts. The articles that use human predictors in SDMs (purple) are those that use human predictors in SDM training for their predictions.

Source data

From these 1,429 articles that used human predictors within SDMs, we found that human predictors have been used mostly in studies at local, regional (within country) and national spatial scales (Fig. 2a and Extended Data Fig. 2 ). Global and continental-scale studies were few (37 and 46 articles, respectively, or 3% each). While human influence is globally pervasive 27 , 28 , 29 , most studies using human predictors in SDMs focused on the United States ( n  = 274), China ( n  = 100), Spain ( n  = 100), Italy, Germany, Iran, India, Canada, Australia, Portugal and France, totalling 931 articles (65%; Fig. 2b and Extended Data Fig. 3 ). In other areas, such as South America, central and southern Africa, Scandinavia, Eastern Europe and Southeast Asia, where the global human footprint is predominantly high 28 , relatively few studies used human predictors in SDMs. In such areas, it was not until around 2010 that human predictors were first used in SDMs at global and continental scales. In Africa, South America and some parts of Asia especially, it was not until 2020 that human predictors were first used in SDMs at national, regional or even local scales (Fig. 2c ).

a – c , While most studies are at local, regional (within country) and national scales ( a ), there is a disparity in the global coverage of species distribution modelling studies using human predictors in model training compared with the 2020 Global Human Footprint ( b ) 28 and a temporospatial bias for when human predictors have first been used around the world across various scales ( c ). These studies represent 1,429 SDM articles published between 2000 and 2021 that include human predictors in model training. Note that the mapped studies in b include local to multi-national scales but exclude global and continental (all countries within-continent) scale studies; marine studies were appended to their respective countries. In c , we use the first years of publication between 2000 and 2021 as a proxy to signify the first year that a human predictor was used in an SDM within a given region (NA refers to locations where human predictors have not been used during this time period). See Extended Data Figs. 2 , 3 and 5 – 8 for more detailed maps, sorted by domain, taxa, study focus and spatial scale.

Articles including human predictors in SDMs collectively modelled the distributions of over 58,000 species. These studies were not specific to domain, taxa or the focus of research (Extended Data Fig. 4 ). There were 1,375 terrestrial, 184 freshwater and 38 marine studies (some articles included multiple domains; Extended Data Fig. 5 ). Most studies were of mammals (32%), followed by birds (22%) and invertebrates (15%), and covered most of the globe (Extended Data Fig. 6 ). The remaining studies included herbaceous plants (11%), fish (5%), reptiles (5%), trees or shrubs (4%), amphibians (4%) and microorganisms (2%).

Studies that include human predictors primarily focused on conservation (24%), exploratory work (for example, exemplifying new methodologies or frameworks 30 , 31 ; 23%), or species invasions (18%). Others focused on disturbance or habitat change (for example, human land-use shifts and land abandonment 31 ; 15%), reintroductions or restoration (7%), food or economics (for example, food security and economically important species 32 , 33 ; 5%), human health or safety (for example, disease vectors 34 ; 5%) and human–wildlife conflict or collisions (3%) (Extended Data Fig. 4 ). Exploratory, disturbance or habitat change, conservation and human health or safety studies had the widest global coverage at various spatial scales, with most studies in the United States, China, France, Italy and Iran (Extended Data Fig. 7 ).

Human predictor selection

We did not find any consistent patterns for the number of human predictors used in SDMs in relation to environmental (climate and/or habitat) predictors. Human predictors in SDMs ranged from as few as 1 to as many as 61, in contrast to 1–184 environmental predictors in these same studies (Fig. 3a and Supplementary Fig. 1 ). The mean and median number of human predictors used were three and two, respectively, compared with eleven and eight environmental predictors. Some articles exclusively used human predictors to model species distributions 35 or used more human predictors than environmental predictors 36 , 37 , 38 . In most cases, one to four human predictors were used with four to ten environmental predictors (Fig. 3a ).

a – c , There is a disproportionate use of environmental (habitat and climate) predictors compared with human predictors in SDMs ( a ), and wide variability in predictor selection across study focus and taxa ( b ), with most predictors (84%) being unique to only one article ( c ). A consistent ratio of human-to-environmental predictors for model training is not apparent from these studies. However, most studies use fewer human predictors than environmental predictors ( a ). Across taxa and areas of research focus ( b ), the majority of human predictors used pertained to food or agriculture, infrastructure, transportation or were ambiguous (that is, they could equally represent both environmental and human features). In c , we see a large variability in human predictor selection for SDMs. With a total of 2,307 unique human predictors used across 1,429 SDM articles, there were six different data types (centre pie, numeric labels are counts of predictors), covering 12 different categories of human activities (middle pie, numeric labels are counts of predictors within data types; numeric labels are excluded for categories with <10 predictors). The outer pie highlights that the most commonly used predictors related to food or agriculture and infrastructure as density or count data (the coloured bars are the sums of articles using each predictor within each category and data type, with the darkest bars being the most frequently used by articles). Only 371 predictors (16%) were used by more than one article (darker bars of the outer pie). See Extended Data Table 1 for a description of data types and categories, Extended Data Fig. 8 for a map of the spatial distribution of human predictors across spatial scales and Supplementary Table 4 for a descriptive list of all predictors.

The types of human predictors selected for SDM training were similarly variable. The 1,429 articles collectively used 2,307 unique human predictors, which is a surprisingly large number. Given the complexity of human–species interactions, we considered that human predictor selection could also depend on study context such as taxa and study focus. However, no real patterns were evident (Fig. 3b ). In terms of popularity, only 16% ( n  = 371) of these predictors were used in more than one instance; most predictors ( n  = 1,936) were unique to only one article (Fig. 3c ). The most common predictors were land use/land cover, distance from roads, human population density, percent agricultural areas, roads density and percent urban areas, used in 17%, 10%, 8%, 4%, 4% and 4% of articles, respectively (Supplementary Tables 4 and 6 ). Human footprint and human influence index were respectively used in only 74 and 36 articles (5% and 3%). Overall, human predictors ranged across many categories of human influence, with most relating to food and agriculture ( n  = 734; for example, crop area sizes, harvest intensity and commercial fishing effort), infrastructure ( n  = 617; for example, percent of buildings and intensity of development), transportation ( n  = 227; for example, distance from highways and boat traffic), energy or raw materials ( n  = 127; for example, density of powerlines and renewable energy sites) or disturbance ( n  = 115; for example, fragmentation, logging cut-block areas and human-induced extirpation risk). Ambiguous predictors ( n  = 115) are predictors that can either represent human influence or be equally interpreted as environmental predictors (for example, land use/land cover and open areas). They were used in the SDMs of 490 articles (34%), of which 197 (14%) solely used ambiguous predictors to represent human influence 24 , 39 , 40 . New human predictors have been consistently emerging each year (Fig. 4 ), and their cumulative numbers vary across countries, regions, and spatial scales (Extended Data Fig. 8 ). The categories with the most momentum and persistence in use after first being introduced by authors or made available related to food and agriculture ( n  = 125), infrastructure ( n  = 85) and transportation ( n  = 48). We list more predictor categories in Fig. 3c , provide descriptions of all data types and categories in Extended Data Table 1 and have a full descriptive list of predictors in Supplementary Table 4 .

There is a consistent emergence of new human predictors per year, but only 26% of human predictors have been used more than once over the past two decades. The persistence of a human predictor is determined by how far beyond the first published year of use a human predictor has been used in other SDM articles ( x and y axes) and the prevalence of a human predictor is determined by the total number of articles in which it is used (the size of a point). The points represent the 2,307 human predictors found among the 1,429 SDM articles published between 2000 and 2021, separated by category (for category descriptions, see Extended Data Table 1 ).

Potential for Sustainable Development Goal assessments

As both global biodiversity conservation initiatives and United Nations SDGs are set for multiple targets by the years 2030 and 2050 20 , 41 , trade-offs and synergies between species and human prosperity are inevitable 25 . We thus tested whether the human predictors used for modelling species distributions related to any of the 17 SDGs. A total of 682 (30%) of them related to 13 of the 17 SDGs, modelled in 924 of the 1,429 articles (65%). These human predictors most closely related to Sustainable Cities and Communities (SDG-11, n  = 282), Clean Water and Sanitation (SDG-6, n  = 253) and Life on Land (SDG-15, n  = 246). This was seen both for the number of predictors related to SDGs and the number of articles using them (Fig. 5 ). Other predictors found in substantially fewer articles related to Zero Hunger (SDG-2, n  = 65), No Poverty (SDG-1, n  = 41) and Life Below Water (SDG-14, n  = 35). There were no predictors related to Gender Equality (SDG-5), Reduced Inequality (SDG-10), Peace and Justice Strong Institutions (SDG-16) or Partnerships for the Goals (SDG-17).

Among the United Nations’ 17 SDGs, human predictors used in SDMs were most closely related to Sustainable Cities and Communities (SDG-11), Clean Water and Sanitation (SDG-6), Life on Land (SDG-15), Zero Hunger (SDG-2), No Poverty (SDG-1) and Life Below Water (SDG-14). A total of 682 human predictors relating to SDGs were used by 924 of the 1,429 articles. See Supplementary Fig. 2 for more details on article coverage and definitions for all the SDGs.

Human predictors for forecasting and hindcasting over time

It is common for SDM studies to project species distributions not only across geographic space but also across time. However, we found that nearly half of the multi-temporal studies (past–present, present–future, past–present–future and so on) kept human predictors constant, that is, unchanged from the predictors’ state at the study period (typically the present) for which the SDM was trained (136 out of 275 articles; Fig. 6 ). Human predictors were held constant (unchanged) for more forecasting studies ( n  = 122) than hindcasting studies ( n  = 24). The remaining articles focusing on projecting species distributions across time transformed human predictors to match the environmental predictors’ past or future time frames. Human predictors that were changed across time included distances from settlements and roads (calculated as hypothetical percent changes 42 ), human population sizes 24 , forest or non-forested areas 39 and simulated percent habitat loss 43 , among others (Supplementary Table 4 ). Some example human predictors that remained constant were land use or land cover 44 , 45 , 46 , agricultural areas 47 , numbers of agricultural workers 48 , built-up areas 31 and human footprint index 49 , 50 .

Most SDM articles using human predictors were both trained and projected within present time frames ( n  = 1,148), but for cases where species distributions were predicted across time (that is, hindcasting or forecasting), nearly half of the articles held human predictors constant (unchanged, n  = 136). This disparate modelling procedure could indicate that authors either assumed that most human activities and influence would indeed remain the same in future years as far as 2050 and 2100, or that accessible human predictor data or data preparation steps for future scenarios are lacking. In this figure, the base of an arrow represents the overall time frame of the SDM for both model training and projection ( n  = number of articles); the point of the arrow is the time frame of the human predictor used in the SDM. When an arrow folds back to its base, the overall SDM time frame (for example, present/future) matches the human predictor time frame (for example, present/future); when an arrow points away from its base and instead to another base, there is a mismatch between the study time frame (for example, present/future) and the human predictor time frame (for example, present).

Assessing SDM fit

Some articles tested and reported on the performance of using human predictors alongside environmental predictors compared with environmental predictors alone, but showed no real ‘rule of thumb’ for human predictor selection and evaluation. SDM performance can consist of model training accuracy metrics, predictor importance, comparing predicted ranges to expert knowledge or external sources, and/or a holistic evaluation. There were 127 articles that made such comparisons (Supplementary Table 3 ), of which 43 stated that SDMs holistically improved when human predictors were included, while 26 stated that performance was context dependent (for example, depending on the species, scale, seasonal behaviour or preferences, or the history of a landscape) 51 , 52 , 53 . Another 18 articles found little to no improvement in using human predictors alongside environmental predictors, while 10 articles stated that using human predictors made SDM predictions much worse 54 , 55 . The remaining 30 articles did not explicitly make statements about human predictor performance. Oddly, some of the studies that found improvement in using human predictors nevertheless chose environment-only SDMs as their best models 21 , while others found it essential to use human predictors in their final models—especially for future projections 24 .

New directions for SDMs in the Anthropocene

With abundant evidence of the effects of human influence on biodiversity, habitat and species abundance and distributions 18 , 56 , 57 , 58 , our synthesis sets the stage for a multitude of possible directions for future research focused on understanding and predicting species distributions and niches in the Anthropocene. We propose new questions for advancing ecological theory, restructuring SDM methods and enhancing the real-world applications of SDMs.

Advancing ecological theory

Incorporating human predictors in SDMs can further theory on how SDMs reflect ecological niches. As human predictors are increasingly made available and employed, researchers should begin to explore the following questions:

How will existing ecological theories and predictions on the niche, competition, disturbance and connectivity, among others, be revised when human predictors are incorporated?

What type of niche (fundamental, realized, Grinnellian, Hutchinsonian, Eltonian, contemporary and so on) is being modelled when human predictors are used in SDMs?

What are the theoretical roles of human influence on species distributions (scenopoetic/abiotic, interactive/biotic, disturbance, facilitation, mutualism, competition and so on), and will this depend on the human predictor being used or its data transformation type?

To what extent are human predictors correlated with environmental predictors, and when do they classify as Eltonian noise?

Various perspectives exist on the types of niches SDMs are modelling 5 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , and the general definition of the niche has changed through time and within ecological subdisciplines 67 . Incentives to use human predictors in SDMs would thus require re-evaluating the niche concept under these new circumstances. For example, Soberón and Nakamura 68 suggest that the type of predictor used determines whether a niche is Grinellian (SDMs using abiotic, non-interactive predictors) or Eltonian (SDMs using predictors relating to biotic interactions or resource consumption). Additionally, Moll et al. 69 propose that human interactions can be classified as super-predators, niche constructors, hyper-keystone species, risk responders and pseudo-mutualists. However, not all 2,307 human predictors used in these SDM articles may represent such Eltonian roles. Some human predictors may be interactive (for example, hunting areas, avian lead poisoning, pesticide application rates and percent protected area), while others may not (for example, artificial light intensity, human population density, settlements distance and gross domestic product). The interpretations, implications and limitations of these kinds of niches or a hybrid of them should be discussed. Methods to extract and categorize human Eltonian roles from SDMs would also need to be developed. It is also possible that if human predictors are correlated with environmental predictors due to indirect effects from human activities, the use of human predictors could be theoretically unnecessary, following the Eltonian noise hypothesis 68 . However, excluding them due to Eltonian noise could misguide the practical use of SDMs, where mechanisms could be revealed for policy and decision-making. Further investigations are needed.

Other ecological concepts also come under question with the incorporation of human influence. In connectivity analyses, for example, the inverse of SDM results are used to create resistance surfaces for informing on habitat fragmentation and important pathways or corridors for species 70 , 71 . When including human influence, some paradoxes may develop in connectivity concepts. For example, one study revealed that intermediate levels of habitat fragmentation could surprisingly benefit a habitat specialist 72 . Fragmentation from human influence is therefore not always a negative impact for sensitive species, but can also be positive or neutral 73 , 74 . These complex interactions may be difficult to generalize or anticipate, causing the need for such ecological concepts to be reinterpreted when human influence is included.

Restructuring SDM methods

The methodological advantages and disadvantages of incorporating human predictors in SDMs should be evaluated more broadly and for each specific study based on the questions of interest. As a starting point, future research should consider the following questions as SDM methods are re-examined in the context of human influence:

When should human predictors be included (spatial scale, taxa, functional traits, study aims, domain, accuracy and resolution) and when are they negligible?

When is it necessary to consider cross-scale, local (intracoupled), distant (telecoupled) and/or adjacent (pericoupled) human predictors in SDMs?

What are some of the universal challenges of using human predictors when projecting species distributions into novel areas (currently unoccupied by the species) or future time frames, and how can they be addressed?

Despite the complexities of coupled human and natural systems, can an ontology of human predictors and standard protocols for their use be made for SDM studies?

What are the appropriate selection measures and data transformation types for using human predictors in SDMs?

How can legacy or lag effects of human influence be modelled in SDMs?

Which methods are appropriate for preparing current or historical human predictors for future scenarios?

Besides improving model accuracy, human predictors can enrich understandings of how human activities affect species distributions via common SDM outputs such as percent rankings of predictor importance and predictor response curves. Compared with many other ecological assessments 75 , 76 , SDMs offer an invaluable, geographically unbiased pool of knowledge from which inferences on human activities’ effects on species distributions could be synthesized; they are one of the most widespread and accessible tools in ecology, covering even data-poor locations and species. If more studies incorporate human predictors and report predictor importance and response curves, key patterns could be aggregated and summarized across domains, taxa, spatial scales and even functional traits in future meta-analytic studies. Such findings would be especially helpful for conservation-, restoration- or economically focused studies.

Clarity on appropriate protocols for selecting human predictors could expand their use in SDMs and greatly enhance the use of model outputs. Currently, numerous human predictors are being used across many contexts (Fig. 3b and Supplementary Table 4 ), which can make it difficult to find meaning across studies. Recent literature has called for standardizing SDM methods 4 , 77 , 78 , but none specifically concerning human influence. Key human predictors need to be identified and approaches for summarizing and standardizing them are necessary for wider use. With respect to environmental predictors, a standardized suite of 30 bioclimatic predictors is already widely accepted and used by the SDM community 4 , 79 , 80 , as evidenced by their use by 33% of the articles that we evaluated (Supplementary Table 5 ). An ontology of human predictors could be selected for use based on general improvements to SDM fit, species’ responses or whether predictors correspond to human activities that are commonly considered in decision-making. To incentivize standardization, future research should focus on (1) determining the most influential human predictors on species distributions; (2) assessing whether a fixed proportion of human predictors compared to environmental predictors is appropriate, whether there is a spectrum of proportions depending on context or whether correlation with environmental predictors removes their necessity; (3) evaluating if human predictor selection is specific to taxa, domain, spatial scale, study context and/or functional traits, and how these conditions are affected in combination with environmental predictors; and (4) creating an accessible repository of selected predictors to facilitate widespread use. Existing methods for testing the utility, importance and performance of environmental predictors in SDMs 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 can be expanded to include human predictors. Additionally, open data efforts such as the ‘Essential Biodiversity Variables’ initiative 86 could include human predictors in their considerations.

An examination of the ambiguous predictors identified in our synthesis is also needed. We questioned the status of ambiguous predictors in relation to human activities because they can represent environmental-only or human influence-only circumstances, or both. Predictors such as land cover (the most commonly used predictor across articles) and the presence or absence of certain habitat types (for example, forested or non-forested areas) may falsely represent human influence in, for example, presence-only SDMs if species’ occurrences are only located in non-human-influenced areas.

Future investigations should examine the circumstances under which human predictors are necessary. Human predictors are being used in SDMs for a variety of contexts (Fig. 3b and Extended Data Fig. 4 ). While ample studies suggest that species’ responses to human influence are scale dependent 9 , 13 , most SDM studies used a single scale for predictor values as opposed to multiple scales, and none used human predictors that crossed scales (for example, local-scale occurrences and regional-scale predictors). Species distributions may also be affected by human activities adjacent to or distant from species’ occurrence locations (pericoupling and telecoupling, respectively 87 , 88 ), as opposed to directly within their occurrence locations (intracoupling) 89 . While we identified 393 human predictors as distance data types (for example, distance from roads or residential areas), and 409 predictors across data types were radial buffers (for example, percent agricultural areas within 4 km radius), further studies need to determine how species respond to such data compared with other data transformations. Temporal dynamics also matter where, for example, daytime and night-time distributions can vary in response to human activities 6 . Yet our synthesis revealed that few studies use temporal data types (for example, fire years and field activity periods; Fig. 3c ). SDMs using human predictors to model multiple species can also expand our understanding of how human influence affects community diversity, as biotic homogenization threatens many areas around the globe 57 , 90 . While modelling and mapping multi-scaled and/or multi-temporal predictors to single- or multi-species occurrences may be complex, tools exist to facilitate their integration 91 , 92 .

There is no clear trend in proper procedures for modelling human influence over time. Simply masking projections or maintaining human predictors constant through time adds a misleading weight to the impacts of climate change on species distributions and can risk misguiding managers and decision-makers concerned about human activities. Such misguidance is counterintuitive, given the multitude of studies demonstrating the magnitude of human effects on ecological communities at present 9 , 18 , 57 , 93 ; future effects are inevitable. Human activities may be more influential on species distributions than climate—especially in predictions at shorter timescales—and human impacts could become more evident over time due to lag effects, or have lasting effects due to permanent changes to habitats or ecosystems (that is, legacy effects 9 ). We thus suggest that multiple human predictor scenarios be used in projections of species distributions, similar to how climate scenarios are projected. Of course, we recognize that for some study areas, the data necessary to create human predictors for forecasting or hindcasting distributions may be limited, especially at multiple spatial scales. A lack of interdisciplinary expertise may also limit researchers in generating such predictors. One solution could be to simulate multiple potential percent increases or decreases of a predictor’s values or area coverage over time 94 , 95 or to use propensity score matching 96 if mechanistic predictors of human influence are unavailable. Open-access tools to simulate land-use change are also being developed 97 .

Enhancing real-world applications

Finally, considering human predictors is paramount for advancing the real-world applications of SDMs. We pose the following questions for applications-focused research:

How does the inclusion of human predictors in SDMs affect the way protected areas are defined and evaluated?

How can human predictors in SDMs affect evaluations of conservation or management progress?

Which human predictors are the most helpful for identifying ecological sinks or traps?

Which human predictors would best represent linkages between SDG progress and species distributions over time—especially beyond SDG-13 (Climate Action), SDG-14 (Life below Water) and SDG-15 (Life on Land)?

SDMs are commonly used to map the ranges of species of concern, define protected areas, highlight areas of potential human–wildlife conflict and enhance the genetic connectivity and diversity of populations, among others. SDMs are also used to track changes in species’ ranges over time, especially under climatic or anthropogenic pressures. These uses inform local, regional, national and even international incentives and policies regarding biodiversity protection. With human influence perforating most landscapes and seascapes either directly or indirectly 28 , 29 , 98 , current gaps in using human predictors in SDMs risk missing important opportunities for conservation and management practices. It is especially important to consider human predictors for future projections to avoid the misallocation of resources or missteps in climate mitigation. Evaluating SDM projections with and without human predictors can also assist in identifying and mapping ecological traps or sinks for critical species 99 .

Around the globe, protected areas have a range in human presence 22 , 100 , 101 —from complete absence to domination—but the current trend of SDMs (that is, using environmental predictors only) risks biasing how current and future protected areas are being defined. This is particularly important as the world is promoting the global ‘30 × 30 Initiative’ to triple the size of protected areas to 30% of Earth’s lands and oceans by 2030 41 , 102 while also trying to achieve major SDGs 20 . SDMs for defining protected areas can employ human predictors to assess potential spectra of human influence to find balances between conservation, development and sustainability. While SDG indicators directly relating to species distributions have already been identified under SDG-14 (Life below Water) and SDG-15 (Life on Land), studies are continually emerging that show that species within protected areas are linked to other SDGs, such as Decent Work and Economic Growth (SDG-8, tourism increasing the income around protected areas), Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure (SDG-9, building roads around protected areas for access) and even Partnerships for the Goals (SDG-17, international conservation breeding programmes introducing individuals to new locations) 25 . Beyond protected areas, even human predictors pertaining to Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions (SDG-16) could correlate with species distributions, as issues such as systemic racism in urban areas can impact biodiversity at national scales 103 . An assessment of species distribution changes over time in relation to the United Nations’ 231 SDG indicators and across multiple taxa may reveal the relevance of species to all sectors of global policy and human flourishing.

Incorporating human predictors in SDMs may also change how conservation and management progress is traditionally evaluated. For example, supplementary tools for SDMs, such as multivariate similarity surfaces and limiting factor mapping, can highlight locations where habitat suitability is compromised and which predictors compromised them 23 , 104 . Accessible protocols for interpreting human predictor importance or responses should be developed for managers and decision-makers, as well.

Conclusions

As ecosystems continue to transform from natural systems to increasingly coupled human–natural systems 9 , 105 , and species distributions continue to shift in response to changing climate and increasing human activities, methodological advances offer promise for developing new and revising existing ecological theories. A species’ niche is generically defined by biotic and abiotic interactions, but our current era, the Anthropocene, adds further complexities due to human influence. As SDMs are powerful, easily accessible tools used for a variety of study aims across domains, taxa and spatial scales, they can provide much-needed information to ensure species persistence under impending climate change and rising human populations and activities worldwide. Further research to advance the incorporation of human predictors in SDMs is needed to enhance their applications and ensure ecological sustainability.

Literature search

We used the Web of Science to search its Core Collection for all SDM articles published through 31 December 2021, using search terms that were general and synonymous to SDMs, as described in Franklin 1 (search string: TS   =   ((‘SDM*’ OR ‘environmental niche model*’ OR ‘species niche model*’ OR ‘bioclimatic niche model*’ OR ‘habitat suitability model*’ OR ‘ecological niche model*’ OR ‘habitat model*’)) AND DT   =   (Article) AND PY   =   (1900–2021) , where TS is ‘Topic’, DT is ‘Document Type’, and PY is ‘Year Published’). This yielded 12,854 articles. While we acknowledge that more articles could have been captured using additional search terms (for example, listing SDM algorithms), a test using terms such as ‘occupancy model’, ‘resource selection function*’ or ‘niche model*’ showed that our choice of general search terms and their resulting articles were sufficient to capture the current state of modelling human influence on species distributions. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) framework 106 (Extended Data Fig. 1 ), we screened 12,683 of these articles’ abstracts to identify articles acknowledging or describing human influence on species distributions, using the ‘revtools’ package 107 in R 108 . Given the large number of articles, we ensured transparency and replicability of the abstract screening process by developing a dictionary of terms related to human influence (that is, a list of words or phrases used by authors that caused us to accept papers, along with synonyms based on those terms; Supplementary Table 1 ). This abstract screening approach is similar to Pham et al. 109 , except we did not use machine learning. We manually reviewed ~300 abstracts at a time, added terms to this dictionary and then searched along the entire pool of abstracts to accept articles based on the updated terms. We repeated this for 28 iterations, allowing us to manually screen all rejected article abstracts ( n  = 7,506), manually accept 551 article abstracts, automatically accept 4,626 article abstracts from the 477 terms added to the search and manually review a total of 5,177 full articles and their supplementary materials (Extended Data Fig. 1 ).

In the full-article screening, eligible articles were those that used traditional, correlative SDMs to model species distributions (as opposed to expert-opinion-based or deductive habitat suitability models) and included human predictors in SDM training. Human predictors, also known as anthropogenic predictors, are those that include an indicator of human activities, presence or pressures. These include predictors that directly allude to human influence (for example, human population size, human footprint, distance from residential areas) or indirectly allude to human influence (for example, protected versus unprotected areas and land use/land cover). We also noted articles using human predictors outside SDMs (for example, by masking predictions or highlighting areas of concern) but did not use them in the rest of our study. Any rejected articles were marked for one of three of the following reasons: (1) the article did not use a traditional, correlative SDM for modelling species distributions (for example, species abundance or density models or deductive, expert opinion models are rejected; for lists of typical SDM algorithms that are accepted, see Supplementary Table 3 and Extended Data Fig. 9 ); (2) no human predictors were used in SDM model training (that is, no human predictors in the paper, or human predictors were used as masks, detection probability estimates or in a post-analysis of an SDM); or (3) it was not a research article on modelling species distributions (for example, a book chapter, literature review or a model of disease, fire, cover or virtual species) or the authors used SDMs from another source. To better align our analysis with the start of global data initiatives 110 , 111 , 112 , we later chose to remove articles before the year 2000 ( n  = 74). Of the full articles, we accepted 1,429 (13 were unavailable) and reviewed their full text and supplementary materials for synthesis.

Systematic review and synthesis

We catalogued information from each of the 1,429 full articles identified as relevant in the full-text screening (for full reference list, see Supplementary Information ). This information included the general focus (or aim) of the study (as stated by the authors in the abstract or introduction), spatial scale of the study area, study area countries, the study’s time frame (past, present and/or future SDM training and projection), the time frame represented by human predictors (including simulated scenarios across time), the taxa studied, study domain (terrestrial, marine or freshwater habitat type) and SDM algorithms. For each article, we also listed the human predictors’ names and the total numbers of environmental predictors used in the SDMs. We provide a description of these data in Supplementary Table 2 , corresponding to Supplementary Table 5 .

We synthesized the catalogued data entries using R v.4.3.0 (ref. 108 ). To determine the distribution of studies compared with human influence, we mapped the numbers of studies in each country against a gridded 2020 Human Footprint Index 28 . We summed the numbers of articles covering various domains, taxa and a range of general study aims, and mapped their global coverage as well. The maps were made using the ‘tmap’ R package 113 and ArcPro v.3.1 (ref. 114 ). We compared the numbers of human predictors with environmental predictors used in SDMs by creating a density plot of the frequency of articles modelling each human-to-environmental predictor ratio.

We simplified our list of predictors, as named by authors, to synthesize similar predictor names across articles. We identified transformations of predictor data (for example, percent or distance data types or various units) as unique predictors to simulate their treatment by the SDM articles’ authors (for example, cropland areas and cropland percent may be used in the same SDM of a study). We then sorted the predictors by first assessing their data type (Extended Data Table 1 ). We defined data types as (1) density/count, for predictors relating to sums or frequencies of human activities (for example, road density and household income); (2) descriptive, for predictors that are typically categorical (factors; for example, presence/absence of barriers and land cover types); (3) distance, for predictors measuring distance from, for example, human infrastructure or locations of human activities; (4) index, for predictors calculated from a combination of other predictors (for example, human footprint); (5) size, for predictors describing the length, width, height or area of an object of human influence (for example, building height and road length); and (6) time, for predictors relating to the temporal occurrence of a human activity (for example, period of field activities 115 or prescribed fire years 116 ).

We then assigned the synthesized human predictors to 1 of 12 categories of human influence (Extended Data Table 1 ): (1) barriers/access, for predictors describing the facilitation or deterrence of movement (for example, fence presence/absence and passable/impassable stream barriers); (2) disturbance, for predictors describing, for example, habitat fragmentation, deforestation, degradation, change in naturalness, or indices of disturbance or avoidance (for example, human perturbation index and marine human impact); (3) energy/raw materials, for predictors relating to energy infrastructure (for example, wind farm distance, dams density and renewable energy lease sites) or extractions of fuels or other materials (for example, oil well pads, seismic lines, dredging and disposal areas, historic mines and mine distance); (4) food/agriculture, for predictors describing the cultivation or harvest of food products (for example, percent farmlands or their distance, livestock or cultivated product density or abundance, livestock encounter rates, harvest intensity and fishing); (5) human presence, for predictors that are derived from multiple features related to humans, and that are typically synthesized into indices or intensities (for example, anthropogenic biome, high/low human activity, human footprint, human influence index and human features distance); (6) infrastructure, for predictors describing developed areas (for example, urban or residential areas, building types, housing, land ownership and military training areas); (7) management/interventions, for predictors relating to protection, conservation or management actions or locations (for example, protected area distance, non-hunting area distance and reintroduction site nuclei); (8) pollution, for predictors describing chemical, noise or light pollution or intensity (for example, night or artificial light intensity) or effects from pollutants (for example, count of poisoning incidents); (9) recreation/tourism, for predictors relating to, for example, trails, hunting pressure, or scenic locations; (10) socio-economics, for predictors describing human population sizes or densities, demographic and social structures (for example, human poverty, education, types of water access), jurisdiction (for example, state names), illegal activities (for example, opium eradication areas) and finances (for example, gross domestic product and household income); (11) transportation, for predictors typically relating to human movement or the movement of goods (for example, roads density or distance and shipping intensity); and (12) ambiguous, for predictors that can equally represent environmental predictors (for example, land use/land cover or forested/unforested areas).

We extracted the first and last (most recent) years of human predictor use to examine the persistence and prevalence of human predictors being used in SDMs over the years. We used years of publication as a proxy for the years when each predictor was used. We plotted these sets of years per predictor as scatter plots, faceted by the 12 predictor categories. We mapped the first years of human predictor use in each study area across local, regional, national, multi-national, continental and global scales. We also mapped the total number of unique human predictors used across these spatial scales.

From this list of predictors, we used the ‘text2sdg’ R package 117 to mine the predictor names and assign SDGs to them, where appropriate. We calculated the sum of SDGs per predictor and plotted them using code adapted from the ‘SDGDetector’ package 118 .

After renaming and categorization, this list of predictors was exported as a table, with data types, data categories, predictor names, study time frames, modelled taxa, study focus, number of articles, SDGs, number of SDGs and corresponding article identification numbers for each predictor. This dataset is provided here as Supplementary Table 6 . From it, we calculated the sum of unique predictors used across each study focus and taxonomic group, and the frequency of predictors across articles, data types and categories.

Finally, among these articles, we also looked for author statements that holistically (both quantitatively and/or qualitatively) evaluated the performance of SDMs with human predictors compared with SDMs using only environmental (habitat and/or climate) predictors. These statements were found in the results and/or discussion sections of the articles that used both model schemes. The authors’ evaluations could be based on SDM performance measures (for example, accuracy, predictor importance or statistical significance), model selection procedures (for example, step selection), differences in predictions (for example, ranges and extents) and/or support from literature or expert knowledge. We used a vote counting method, simply recording the number of such articles stating that SDMs performed (1) better when including human predictors, (2) worse or (3) no difference was found, or that (4) performance depended on multiple other factors (for example, differences depending on scale, resolution or modelled species), so it could not be strictly determined, or (5) comparable model schemes were done, but the authors did not discuss performance. We summed these five types of conclusions to determine overall trends in SDM performance.

Reporting summary

Further information on research design is available in the Nature Portfolio Reporting Summary linked to this article.

Data availability

The datasets developed from this study are available as Supplementary Tables 5 and 6 . They are also available on the Figshare repository ( https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.24225316 ) 119 . Source data are provided with this paper.

Code availability

The code used for this study were made using R version 4.3.0 and is available on the Figshare repository ( https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.24225316 ) 119 and GitHub ( https://github.com/vffrans/Human_influence_SDMs ).

Franklin, J. Mapping Species Distributions: Spatial Inference and Prediction (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2010).

Elith, J. & Leathwick, J. R. Species distribution models: ecological explanation and prediction across space and time. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 40 , 677–697 (2009).

Article   Google Scholar  

Blonder, B. Hypervolume concepts in niche- and trait-based ecology. Ecography 41 , 1441–1455 (2018).

Tang, Y. et al. Uncertainty of future projections of species distributions in mountainous regions. PLoS ONE 13 , e0189496 (2018).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Austin, M. Spatial prediction of species distribution: an interface between ecological theory and statistical modelling. Ecol. Model. 157 , 101–118 (2002).

Carter, N. H., Shrestha, B. K., Karki, J. B., Pradhan, N. M. B. & Liu, J. Coexistence between wildlife and humans at fine spatial scales. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109 , 15360–15365 (2012).

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Gallardo, B., Zieritz, A. & Aldridge, D. C. The importance of the human footprint in shaping the global distribution of terrestrial, freshwater and marine invaders. PLoS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0125801 (2015).

Alberti, M. et al. Integrating humans into ecology: opportunities and challenges for studying urban ecosystems. BioScience 53 , 1169 (2003).

Liu, J. et al. Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Science 317 , 1513–1516 (2007).

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Crutzen, P. J. in Earth System Science in the Anthropocene (eds Ehlers, E. & Krafft, T.) 13–18 (Springer, 2006).

Gallardo, B. & Aldridge, D. C. The ‘dirty dozen’: socio-economic factors amplify the invasion potential of 12 high-risk aquatic invasive species in Great Britain and Ireland. J. Appl. Ecol. 50 , 757–766 (2013).

Gallardo, B. et al. Protected areas offer refuge from invasive species spreading under climate change. Glob. Change Biol. 23 , 5331–5343 (2017).

Moll, R. J. et al. At what spatial scale(s) do mammals respond to urbanization? Ecography 43 , 171–183 (2020).

Linderman, M. A. et al. Modeling the spatio-temporal dynamics and interactions of households, landscapes, and giant panda habitat. Ecol. Model. 183 , 47–65 (2005).

Viña, A. et al. Range-wide analysis of wildlife habitat: implications for conservation. Biol. Conserv. 143 , 1960–1969 (2010).

Liu, J. et al. Pandas and People: Coupling Human and Natural Systems for Sustainability (Oxford Univ. Press, 2016).

Zeng, Y. et al. Environmental destruction not avoided with the Sustainable Development Goals. Nat. Sustain. 3 , 795–798 (2020).

Díaz, S. et al. Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative change. Science https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax3100 (2019).

Díaz, S. M. et al. The global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services: summary for policy makers. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (2019). https://www.ipbes.net/global-assessment

United Nations General Assembly. Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development . Report No. A/RES/70/1, https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_70_1_E.pdf (United Nations, 2015).

Bucklin, D. N. et al. Comparing species distribution models constructed with different subsets of environmental predictors. Divers. Distrib. 21 , 23–35 (2015).

Liu, J. et al. Ecological degradation in protected areas: the case of Wolong Nature Reserve for giant pandas. Science 292 , 98–101 (2001).

Frans, V. F. et al. Integrated SDM database: enhancing the relevance and utility of species distribution models in conservation management. Methods Ecol. Evol . https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13736 (2021).

Heubes, J. et al. Modelling biome shifts and tree cover change for 2050 in West Africa. J. Biogeogr. 38 , 2248–2258 (2011).

Zhao, Z. et al. Synergies and tradeoffs among Sustainable Development Goals across boundaries in a metacoupled world. Sci. Total Environ. 751 , 141749 (2021).

Manchego, C. E. et al. Climate change versus deforestation: implications for tree species distribution in the dry forests of southern Ecuador. PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0190092 (2017).

Last of the Wild Project, Version 2, 2005 (LWP-2): Global Human Influence Index (HII) Dataset (Geographic). SEDAC (2005). https://doi.org/10.7927/H4BP00QC

Mu, H. et al. A global record of annual terrestrial Human Footprint dataset from 2000 to 2018. Sci. Data 9 , 176 (2022).

Halpern, B. S. et al. Spatial and temporal changes in cumulative human impacts on the world’s ocean. Nat. Commun. 6 , 7615 (2015).

Methorst, J., Boehning-Gaese, K., Khaliq, I. & Hof, C. A framework integrating physiology, dispersal and land-use to project species ranges under climate change. J. Avian Biol. 48 , 1532–1548 (2017).

Ohashi, H. et al. Land abandonment and changes in snow cover period accelerate range expansions of sika deer. Ecol. Evol. 6 , 7763–7775 (2016).

Kodis, M., Galante, P., Sterling, E. J. & Blair, M. E. Ecological niche modeling for a cultivated plant species: a case study on taro ( Colocasia esculenta ) in Hawaii. Ecol. Appl. 28 , 967–977 (2018).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Vedel-Sorensen, M., Tovaranonte, J., Bocher, P. K., Balslev, H. & Barfod, A. S. Spatial distribution and environmental preferences of 10 economically important forest palms in western South America. Ecol. Manag. 307 , 284–292 (2013).

Thanapongtharm, W. et al. Spatial characterization of colonies of the flying fox bat, a carrier of Nipah Virus in Thailand. BMC Vet. Res . https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-015-0390-0 (2015).

Le Louarn, M., Clergeau, P., Strubbe, D. & Deschamps-Cottin, M. Dynamic species distribution models reveal spatiotemporal habitat shifts in native range-expanding versus non-native invasive birds in an urban area. J. Avian Biol . https://doi.org/10.1111/jav.01527 (2018).

Oppel, S. et al. Landscape factors affecting territory occupancy and breeding success of Egyptian vultures on the Balkan Peninsula. J. Ornithol. 158 , 443–457 (2017).

Cassinello, J., Acevedo, P. & Hortal, J. Prospects for population expansion of the exotic aoudad (Ammotragus lervia; Bovidae) in the Iberian Peninsula: clues from habitat suitability modelling. Divers. Distrib. 12 , 666–678 (2006).

Suarez-Seoane, S. & Garcia-Roves, P. Do disturbances in surrounding areas affect a core population of Cantabrian Capercaillie Tetrao urogallus cantabricus ? The case of the Natural Reserve of Muniellos (Asturias, NW Spain). Ardeola 51 , 395–409 (2004).

Google Scholar  

Alimi, T. O. et al. Predicting potential ranges of primary malaria vectors and malaria in northern South America based on projected changes in climate, land cover and human population. Parasit. Vectors https://doi.org/10.1186/s13071-015-1033-9 (2015).

Trisurat, Y., Kanchanasaka, B. & Kreft, H. Assessing potential effects of land use and climate change on mammal distributions in northern Thailand. Wildl. Res. 41 , 522–536 (2014).

Post-2020 global biodiversity framework. IUCN https://www.iucn.org/resources/issues-briefs/post-2020-global-biodiversity-framework (2021).

Simpson, M. & Prots, B. Predicting the distribution of invasive plants in the Ukrainian Carpathians under climatic change and intensification of anthropogenic disturbances: implications for biodiversity conservation. Environ. Conserv. 40 , 167–181 (2013).

Pickett, E. J. et al. Cryptic and cumulative impacts on the wintering habitat of the endangered black-faced spoonbill ( Platalea minor ) risk its long-term viability. Environ. Conserv. 45 , 147–154 (2018).

Kelly, R., Leach, K., Cameron, A., Maggs, C. A. & Reid, N. Combining global climate and regional landscape models to improve prediction of invasion risk. Divers. Distrib. 20 , 884–894 (2014).

Mudereri, B. T. et al. Analysis of potentially suitable habitat within migration connections of an intra-African migrant—the blue swallow ( Hirundo atrocaerulea ). Ecol. Inform. 57 , 101082 (2020).

Wang, B. et al. Australian wheat production expected to decrease by the late 21st century. Glob. Change Biol. 24 , 2403–2415 (2018).

Pound, K. L., Larson, C. A. & Passy, S. I. Current distributions and future climate‐driven changes in diatoms, insects and fish in US streams. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 30 , 63–78 (2021).

Caetano, J. M. et al. Geographical patterns in climate and agricultural technology drive soybean productivity in Brazil. PLoS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191273 (2018).

Fang, Y. et al. Predicting the invasive trend of exotic plants in China based on the ensemble model under climate change: a case for three invasive plants of Asteraceae. Sci. Total Environ. 756 , 143841 (2021).

Li, X., Liu, X., Kraus, F., Tingley, R. & Li, Y. Risk of biological invasions is concentrated in biodiversity hotspots. Front. Ecol. Environ. 14 , 411–417 (2016).

Cardador, L., Diaz-Luque, J. A., Hiraldo, F., Gilardi, J. D. & Tella, J. L. The effects of spatial survey bias and habitat suitability on predicting the distribution of threatened species living in remote areas. Bird. Conserv. Int. 28 , 581–592 (2018).

Aguirre-Gutiérrez, J. et al. Historical changes in the importance of climate and land use as determinants of Dutch pollinator distributions. J. Biogeogr. 44 , 696–707 (2017).

Luoto, M., Virkkala, R. & Heikkinen, R. K. The role of land cover in bioclimatic models depends on spatial resolution. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 16 , 34–42 (2007).

Geest, E. A. & Baum, K. A. Environmental variables influencing five Speyeria (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) species’ potential distributions of suitable habitat in the eastern United States. Environ. Entomol. 50 , 633–648 (2021).

Razgour, O., Kasso, M., Santos, H. & Juste, J. Up in the air: threats to Afromontane biodiversity from climate change and habitat loss revealed by genetic monitoring of the Ethiopian Highlands bat. Evol. Appl. 14 , 794–806 (2021).

Ellis, E. C. Ecology in an anthropogenic biosphere. Ecol. Monogr. 85 , 287–331 (2015).

Eriksson, B. K. & Hillebrand, H. Rapid reorganization of global biodiversity. Science 366 , 308–309 (2019).

König, H. J. et al. Human–wildlife coexistence in a changing world. Conserv. Biol. 34 , 786–794 (2020).

McInerny, G. J. & Etienne, R. S. Ditch the niche—is the niche a useful concept in ecology or species distribution modelling? J. Biogeogr. 39 , 2096–2102 (2012).

McInerny, G. J. & Etienne, R. S. Pitch the niche—taking responsibility for the concepts we use in ecology and species distribution modelling. J. Biogeogr. 39 , 2112–2118 (2012).

McInerny, G. J. & Etienne, R. S. Stitch the niche—a practical philosophy and visual schematic for the niche concept. J. Biogeogr. 39 , 2103–2111 (2012).

Soberón, J. Commentary on ditch, stitch and pitch: the niche is here to stay. J. Biogeogr. 41 , 414–417 (2014).

Pearman, P. B., Guisan, A., Broennimann, O. & Randin, C. F. Niche dynamics in space and time. Trends Ecol. Evol. 23 , 149–158 (2008).

Jiménez-Valverde, A., Lobo, J. M. & Hortal, J. Not as good as they seem: the importance of concepts in species distribution modelling. Divers. Distrib. 14 , 885–890 (2008).

Pulliam, H. R. On the relationship between niche and distribution. Ecol. Lett. 3 , 349–361 (2000).

Araújo, M. B. & Guisan, A. Five (or so) challenges for species distribution modelling. J. Biogeogr. 33 , 1677–1688 (2006).

Sales, L. P., Hayward, M. W. & Loyola, R. What do you mean by ‘niche’? Modern ecological theories are not coherent on rhetoric about the niche concept. Acta Oecol. 110 , 103701 (2021).

Soberón, J. & Nakamura, M. Niches and distributional areas: concepts, methods, and assumptions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci USA 106 , 19644–19650 (2009).

Moll, R. J., Killion, A. K., Hayward, M. W. & Montgomery, R. A. A framework for the Eltonian niche of humans. BioScience 71 , 928–941 (2021).

Zeller, K. A. et al. Are all data types and connectivity models created equal? Validating common connectivity approaches with dispersal data. Divers. Distrib. 24 , 868–879 (2018).

Roedder, D., Nekum, S., Cord, A. F. & Engler, J. O. Coupling satellite data with species distribution and connectivity models as a tool for environmental management and planning in matrix-sensitive species. Environ. Manag. 58 , 130–143 (2016).

Connor, T. et al. Complex effects of habitat amount and fragmentation on functional connectivity and inbreeding in a giant panda population. Conserv. Biol . https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13828 (2021).

Fahrig, L. Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 34 , 487–515 (2003).

Fahrig, L. & Rytwinski, T. Effects of roads on animal abundance: an empirical review and synthesis. Ecol. Soc. 14 , 21 (2009).

Amano, T., Lamming, J. D. L. & Sutherland, W. J. Spatial gaps in global biodiversity information and the role of citizen science. BioScience 66 , 393–400 (2016).

Amano, T. & Sutherland, W. J. Four barriers to the global understanding of biodiversity conservation: wealth, language, geographical location and security. Proc. Biol. Sci. 280 , 20122649 (2013).

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Austin, M. P. & van Niel, K. P. Improving species distribution models for climate change studies: variable selection and scale. J. Biogeogr. 38 , 1–8 (2011).

Zurell, D. et al. A standard protocol for reporting species distribution models. Ecography 43 , 1261–1277 (2020).

Fick, S. E. & Hijmans, R. J. WorldClim 2: new 1‐km spatial resolution climate surfaces for global land areas. Int. J. Climatol. 37 , 4302–4315 (2017).

Karger, D. N. et al. Climatologies at high resolution for the earth’s land surface areas. Sci. Data 4 , 170122 (2017).

Petitpierre, B., Broennimann, O., Kueffer, C., Daehler, C. & Guisan, A. Selecting predictors to maximize the transferability of species distribution models: lessons from cross‐continental plant invasions. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 26 , 275–287 (2017).

Dormann, C. F. et al. Collinearity: a review of methods to deal with it and a simulation study evaluating their performance. Ecography 36 , 27–46 (2013).

Dormann, C. F. et al. Correlation and process in species distribution models: bridging a dichotomy. J. Biogeogr. 39 , 2119–2131 (2012).

Charlène, G., Bruno, D. & Thomas, S. Selecting environmental descriptors is critical for modelling the distribution of Antarctic benthic species. Polar Biol. 43 , 1363–1381 (2020).

Arenas‐Castro, S., Regos, A., Martins, I., Honrado, J. & Alonso, J. Effects of input data sources on species distribution model predictions across species with different distributional ranges. J. Biogeogr. 49 , 1299–1312 (2022).

Jetz, W. et al. Essential biodiversity variables for mapping and monitoring species populations. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3 , 539–551 (2019).

Liu, J. et al. Framing sustainability in a telecoupled world. Ecol. Soc . https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05873-180226 (2013).

Liu, J. Integration across a metacoupled world. Ecol. Soc . https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09830-220429 (2017).

Liu, J. Leveraging the metacoupling framework for sustainability science and global sustainable development. Natl Sci. Rev. 10 , nwad090 (2023).

Blowes, S. A. et al. The geography of biodiversity change in marine and terrestrial assemblages. Science 366 , 339–345 (2019).

Frans, V. F. et al. Quantifying apart what belongs together: a multi‐state species distribution modelling framework for species using distinct habitats. Methods Ecol. Evol. 9 , 98–108 (2018).

Thorson, J. T. et al. Joint dynamic species distribution models: a tool for community ordination and spatio-temporal monitoring. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 25 , 1144–1158 (2016).

van Klink, R. et al. Meta-analysis reveals declines in terrestrial but increases in freshwater insect abundances. Science 368 , 417–420 (2020).

Silva Angelieri, C. C., Adams-Hosking, C., Ferraz, K. M. P.M.B., de Souza, M. P. & McAlpine, C. A. Using species distribution models to predict potential landscape restoration effects on puma conservation. PLoS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0145232 (2016).

Osipova, L. & Sangermano, F. Surrogate species protection in Bolivia under climate and land cover change scenarios. J. Nat. Conserv 34 , 107–117 (2016).

Gaveau, D. L. A. et al. Reconciling forest conservation and logging in Indonesian Borneo. PLoS ONE 8 , e69887 (2013).

Kapitza, S., Golding, N. & Wintle, B. A. A fractional land use change model for ecological applications. Environ. Model. Softw. 147 , 105258 (2022).

Winkler, K., Fuchs, R., Rounsevell, M. & Herold, M. Global land use changes are four times greater than previously estimated. Nat. Commun. 12 , 2501 (2021).

Naves, J., Wiegand, T., Revilla, E. & Delibes, M. Endangered species constrained by natural and human factors: the case of brown bears in Northern Spain. Conserv. Biol. 17 , 1276–1289 (2003).

Geldmann, J., Manica, A., Burgess, N. D., Coad, L. & Balmford, A. A global-level assessment of the effectiveness of protected areas at resisting anthropogenic pressures. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116 , 23209–23215 (2019).

Jones, K. R. et al. One-third of global protected land is under intense human pressure. Science 360 , 788–791 (2018).

Dinerstein, E. et al. A global deal for nature: guiding principles, milestones, and targets. Sci. Adv. 5 , eaaw2869 (2019).

Schmidt, C. & Garroway, C. J. Systemic racism alters wildlife genetic diversity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119 , e2102860119 (2022).

Elith, J., Kearney, M. & Phillips, S. The art of modelling range-shifting species. Methods Ecol. Evol. 1 , 330–342 (2010).

Kapsar, K., Frans, V. F., Brigham, L. W. & Liu, J. The metacoupled Arctic: human–nature interactions across local to global scales as drivers of sustainability. Ambio 51 , 2061–2078 (2022).

Page, M. J. et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. PLoS Med. 18 , e1003583 (2021).

Westgate, M. J. revtools: an R package to support article screening for evidence synthesis. Res. Synth. Methods 10 , 606–614 (2019).

R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Core Team https://www.R-project.org/ (2023).

Pham, B. et al. Text mining to support abstract screening for knowledge syntheses: a semi-automated workflow. Syst. Rev. 10 , 156 (2021).

Kays, R. et al. The Movebank system for studying global animal movement and demography. Methods Ecol. Evol. 13 , 419–431 (2022).

GBIF: the global biodiversity information facility. What is GBIF? GBIF https://www.gbif.org/what-is-gbif (2024).

Sanderson, E. W. et al. The human footprint and the last of the wild. BioScience 52 , 891 (2002).

Tennekes, M. tmap: thematic maps in R. J. Stat. Softw. 84 , 1–39 (2018).

ArcPro (Esri, Inc., 2023).

Triolo, S., Campobello, D. & Sara, M. Diurnal habitat suitability for a Mediterranean steppeland bird, identified by ecological niche factor analysis. Wildl. Res. 38 , 152–162 (2011).

Wadley, J. J., Austin, J. J. & Fordham, D. A. Genetic inference as a method for modelling occurrence: a viable alternative to visual surveys. Austral Ecol. 39 , 952–962 (2014).

Wulff, D. U. & Meier, D. S. text2sdg: detecting UN Sustainable Development Goals in text. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=text2sdg (2023).

Li, Y. et al. SDGdetector: an R-based text mining tool for quantifying efforts toward Sustainable Development Goals. JOSS 8 , 5124 (2023).

Frans, V. & Liu, J. Data for ‘Gaps and opportunities in modeling human influence on species distributions in the Anthropocene’. Figshare https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.24225316 (2024).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank E. Zipkin, C. Klausmeier, T. Koffel, L. Schmitt Olabisi, M. Leibold and the Leibold Lab for comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. V.F.F. was supported by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship (fellow ID: 2018253044), Michigan State University Enrichment Fellowship, Harvey Fellowship and the National Science Foundation Long-term Ecological Research Program (DEB 2224712) at the Kellogg Biological Station (KBS contribution no. 2378). We are grateful for additional support from the National Science Foundation (grant nos. 1924111, 2033507 and 2118329) and Michigan AgBioResearch (received by J.L.).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Center for Systems Integration and Sustainability, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA

Veronica F. Frans & Jianguo Liu

Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior Program, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA

W. K. Kellogg Biological Station, Michigan State University, Hickory Corners, MI, USA

Veronica F. Frans

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

V.F.F. and J.L. conceived the ideas for this study. V.F.F. designed the methodology and collected, reviewed and analysed the literature and data. V.F.F. evaluated the results, with support from J.L. V.F.F. drafted the manuscript, with critical revisions by J.L. Both authors gave final approval for publication.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Veronica F. Frans .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information.

Nature Ecology & Evolution thanks Stephanie Kramer-Schadt and Canran Liu for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Peer reviewer reports are available.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended data fig. 1 prisma workflow for article search, screening, selection and inclusion in the literature review and synthesis on human predictor use in sdms..

Using Web of Science, we found 12,854 articles under the search string, TS  =  ((‘species distribution model*‘ OR ‘environmental niche model*‘ OR ‘species niche model*‘ OR ‘bioclimatic niche model*‘ OR ‘habitat suitability model*‘ OR ‘ecological niche model*‘ OR ‘habitat model*‘)) AND DT  =  (Article) AND PY  =  (1900–2021) . Of these articles, there were 8 duplicates and 163 articles published after 2021 that were removed using automation tools (R coding). 12,683 article abstracts were screened (see Table S1 for abstract screening procedure), of which 5,177 mentioned human influence on species distributions and were thus accepted. From those abstracts, 5,090 full articles were accessible and reviewed, assessing whether human predictors were used in SDM training. Of these articles, a total of 3,661 were rejected for the following reasons: Reason 1: a traditional, correlative SDM was not used for modelling species distributions (see list of typical algorithms in Table S2 and Extended Data Fig. 9 ); Reason 2: no human predictors were used in SDM model training (that is, no human predictors in the paper, or human predictors are used as masks or in a post-analysis of an SDM); and Reason 3: not a research article (for example, a book chapter, literature review), or the authors used SDMs from another source. This yielded a final total of 1,429 accepted articles for our synthesis. Note that the term ‘records’ under the PRISMA framework refers to ‘abstracts’ in our case, and ‘reports’ and ‘studies’ both refer to ‘full articles’.

Extended Data Fig. 2 Spatial distribution of articles using human predictors in SDMs, based on the spatial scale of each study.

These represent 1,429 SDM articles published from 2000 to 2021. Note that marine articles are appended to their respective countries.

Extended Data Fig. 3 Spatial distribution of articles using human predictors in SDMs.

These represent 1,429 SDM articles published from 2000 to 2021. Note that marine articles are appended to their respective countries, and continental and global-scale studies are excluded.

Extended Data Fig. 4 Range in the domains, taxa and focus (aims) of studies being conducted that include human predictors in SDMs.

Note that the total number of studies here exceeds the total number of full articles in the synthesis (n = 1,429), since some articles covered multiple domains and taxa. Maps showing the global distribution of articles across domain, taxa and study focus are located in Extended Data Figs. 5 – 7 .

Extended Data Fig. 5 Spatial distribution of articles using human predictors in SDMs in freshwater, marine and terrestrial domains.

Extended data fig. 6 spatial distribution of articles using human predictors in sdms for various taxa..

These represent 1,429 SDM articles published from 2000 to 2021. Note that marine articles are appended to their respective countries, and continental and global-scale studies are excluded. At local to multi-national spatial scales, these maps collectively represent over 44,000 species.

Extended Data Fig. 7 Spatial distribution of articles using human predictors in SDMs, based on the stated focus of the study, ranging from topics such as conservation and disturbance to economics and human health.

Extended data fig. 8 spatial distribution of the total number of human predictors used in sdms across various spatial scales..

These represent 2,307 human predictors used in 1,429 SDM articles published from 2000 to 2021. Note that marine articles are appended to their respective countries.

Extended Data Fig. 9 SDM algorithms used in modelling human influence on species distributions and the percent of articles that used them.

Most articles used Maxent, Generalized Linear Models, and Random Forest. For 299 of the 1,429 full articles (21%), multiple SDM algorithms were used, either separately or as an ensemble. *Abbreviations: ANN (artificial neural network); CTA (classification tree analysis, including classification and regression trees [CART]); Discriminant (discriminant analyses, including flexible and mixture [FDA; MDA]); DOMAIN (also known as Gower’s distance); ENFA (environmental niche factor analysis); Favorability (favorability function); GAM (generalized additive model); GARP (genetic algorithm for rule-set production); GBM (gradient boosting model, including TreeNet and boosted regression trees [BRT]); GLM (general/generalized linear model, including logistic regression and resource selection function [RSF]); Hierarchical (a hierarchical model; typically a customized learning method such as Bayesian inference or occupancy model); MARS (multivariate adaptive regression splines); Mahalanobis (Mahalanobis distance, including Penrose distance); Maxent (maximum entropy); RF (random forest); SRE (surface range envelope, also known as BIOCLIM); SVM (support vector machine).

Supplementary information

Supplementary information.

Supplementary Figs. 1 and 2 and Tables 1–4.

Reporting Summary

Peer review file, supplementary tables 5–7.

Supplementary Tables 5–7. Supplementary Table 5 is a data table from the systematic review, containing 5,177 accepted articles from the abstract screening step. Of these, 1,429 full articles were eligible for the synthesis. Supplementary Table 6 is a data table of the 2,307 unique human predictors used in the 1,429 full articles identified in the systematic review and synthesis. The predictors are sorted by category, data type and predictor name. Supplementary Table 7 contains the descriptions that correspond with the column names in Supplementary Tables 5 and 6.

Source Data Fig. 1

Statistical source data.

Source Data Fig. 2

Source data fig. 3, source data fig. 4, source data fig. 5, source data fig. 6, source data extended data fig. 1, source data extended data fig. 2, source data extended data fig. 3, source data extended data fig. 4, source data extended data fig. 5, source data extended data fig. 6, source data extended data fig. 7, source data extended data fig. 8, source data extended data fig. 9, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Frans, V.F., Liu, J. Gaps and opportunities in modelling human influence on species distributions in the Anthropocene. Nat Ecol Evol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-024-02435-3

Download citation

Received : 01 October 2023

Accepted : 25 April 2024

Published : 12 June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-024-02435-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

What is a scientific hypothesis?

It's the initial building block in the scientific method.

Hypothesis basics

What makes a hypothesis testable.

• Types of hypotheses
• Hypothesis versus theory

Additional resources

Bibliography.

A scientific hypothesis is a tentative, testable explanation for a phenomenon in the natural world. It's the initial building block in the scientific method . Many describe it as an "educated guess" based on prior knowledge and observation. While this is true, a hypothesis is more informed than a guess. While an "educated guess" suggests a random prediction based on a person's expertise, developing a hypothesis requires active observation and background research. 

The basic idea of a hypothesis is that there is no predetermined outcome. For a solution to be termed a scientific hypothesis, it has to be an idea that can be supported or refuted through carefully crafted experimentation or observation. This concept, called falsifiability and testability, was advanced in the mid-20th century by Austrian-British philosopher Karl Popper in his famous book "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" (Routledge, 1959).

A key function of a hypothesis is to derive predictions about the results of future experiments and then perform those experiments to see whether they support the predictions.

A hypothesis is usually written in the form of an if-then statement, which gives a possibility (if) and explains what may happen because of the possibility (then). The statement could also include "may," according to California State University, Bakersfield .

Here are some examples of hypothesis statements:

• If garlic repels fleas, then a dog that is given garlic every day will not get fleas.
• If sugar causes cavities, then people who eat a lot of candy may be more prone to cavities.
• If ultraviolet light can damage the eyes, then maybe this light can cause blindness.

A useful hypothesis should be testable and falsifiable. That means that it should be possible to prove it wrong. A theory that can't be proved wrong is nonscientific, according to Karl Popper's 1963 book " Conjectures and Refutations ."

An example of an untestable statement is, "Dogs are better than cats." That's because the definition of "better" is vague and subjective. However, an untestable statement can be reworded to make it testable. For example, the previous statement could be changed to this: "Owning a dog is associated with higher levels of physical fitness than owning a cat." With this statement, the researcher can take measures of physical fitness from dog and cat owners and compare the two.

Types of scientific hypotheses

In an experiment, researchers generally state their hypotheses in two ways. The null hypothesis predicts that there will be no relationship between the variables tested, or no difference between the experimental groups. The alternative hypothesis predicts the opposite: that there will be a difference between the experimental groups. This is usually the hypothesis scientists are most interested in, according to the University of Miami .

For example, a null hypothesis might state, "There will be no difference in the rate of muscle growth between people who take a protein supplement and people who don't." The alternative hypothesis would state, "There will be a difference in the rate of muscle growth between people who take a protein supplement and people who don't."

If the results of the experiment show a relationship between the variables, then the null hypothesis has been rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis, according to the book " Research Methods in Psychology " (​​BCcampus, 2015). 

There are other ways to describe an alternative hypothesis. The alternative hypothesis above does not specify a direction of the effect, only that there will be a difference between the two groups. That type of prediction is called a two-tailed hypothesis. If a hypothesis specifies a certain direction — for example, that people who take a protein supplement will gain more muscle than people who don't — it is called a one-tailed hypothesis, according to William M. K. Trochim , a professor of Policy Analysis and Management at Cornell University.

Sometimes, errors take place during an experiment. These errors can happen in one of two ways. A type I error is when the null hypothesis is rejected when it is true. This is also known as a false positive. A type II error occurs when the null hypothesis is not rejected when it is false. This is also known as a false negative, according to the University of California, Berkeley . 

A hypothesis can be rejected or modified, but it can never be proved correct 100% of the time. For example, a scientist can form a hypothesis stating that if a certain type of tomato has a gene for red pigment, that type of tomato will be red. During research, the scientist then finds that each tomato of this type is red. Though the findings confirm the hypothesis, there may be a tomato of that type somewhere in the world that isn't red. Thus, the hypothesis is true, but it may not be true 100% of the time.

Scientific theory vs. scientific hypothesis

The best hypotheses are simple. They deal with a relatively narrow set of phenomena. But theories are broader; they generally combine multiple hypotheses into a general explanation for a wide range of phenomena, according to the University of California, Berkeley . For example, a hypothesis might state, "If animals adapt to suit their environments, then birds that live on islands with lots of seeds to eat will have differently shaped beaks than birds that live on islands with lots of insects to eat." After testing many hypotheses like these, Charles Darwin formulated an overarching theory: the theory of evolution by natural selection.

"Theories are the ways that we make sense of what we observe in the natural world," Tanner said. "Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts." 

• Read more about writing a hypothesis, from the American Medical Writers Association.
• Find out why a hypothesis isn't always necessary in science, from The American Biology Teacher.
• Learn about null and alternative hypotheses, from Prof. Essa on YouTube .

Encyclopedia Britannica. Scientific Hypothesis. Jan. 13, 2022. https://www.britannica.com/science/scientific-hypothesis

Karl Popper, "The Logic of Scientific Discovery," Routledge, 1959.

California State University, Bakersfield, "Formatting a testable hypothesis." https://www.csub.edu/~ddodenhoff/Bio100/Bio100sp04/formattingahypothesis.htm  

Karl Popper, "Conjectures and Refutations," Routledge, 1963.

Price, P., Jhangiani, R., & Chiang, I., "Research Methods of Psychology — 2nd Canadian Edition," BCcampus, 2015.‌

University of Miami, "The Scientific Method" http://www.bio.miami.edu/dana/161/evolution/161app1_scimethod.pdf  

William M.K. Trochim, "Research Methods Knowledge Base," https://conjointly.com/kb/hypotheses-explained/  

University of California, Berkeley, "Multiple Hypothesis Testing and False Discovery Rate" https://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~hhuang/STAT141/Lecture-FDR.pdf  

University of California, Berkeley, "Science at multiple levels" https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_19

Sign up for the Live Science daily newsletter now

Get the world’s most fascinating discoveries delivered straight to your inbox.

Y chromosome is evolving faster than the X, primate study reveals

Earth from space: Trio of ringed ice caps look otherworldly on Russian Arctic islands

Strawberry Moon 2024: See summer's first full moon rise a day after solstice

Most Popular

• 2 Mysterious 4,000-year-old 'palace' with maze-like walls found on Greek island of Crete
• 3 NASA will put a 'new star' in the sky by the end of the decade in 1st-of-its-kind mission
• 4 How long would it take to reach Planet 9, if we ever find it?
• 5 Planet Nine: Is the search for this elusive world nearly over?
• 2 Scientists inserted a window in a man's skull to read his brain with ultrasound
• 3 Gilgamesh flood tablet: A 2,600-year-old text that's eerily similar to the story of Noah's Ark
• 4 Y chromosome is evolving faster than the X, primate study reveals
• 5 The sun's magnetic field is about to flip. Here's what to expect.

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

Maslow believed that physiological and psychological needs motivate our actions

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

• Hierarchy of Needs
• How It Works

Different Types of Needs

The expanded hierarchy of needs, take a pop quiz, frequently asked questions.

Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs is one of the best-known  theories of motivation . Maslow's theory states that our actions are motivated by certain physiological and psychological needs that progress from basic to complex.

Take the pop quiz at the end of the article to see how much you know about Maslow's hierarchy.

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs Theory

Abraham Maslow first introduced the concept of a hierarchy of needs in his 1943 paper, titled "A Theory of Human Motivation," and again in his subsequent book, "Motivation and Personality." This hierarchy suggests that people are motivated to fulfill basic needs before moving on to other, more advanced needs.

While some of the existing schools of thought at the time—such as  psychoanalysis  and  behaviorism —tended to focus on problematic behaviors, Maslow was more interested in learning about what makes people happy and what they do to achieve that aim.

As a  humanist , Maslow believed that people have an inborn desire to be self-actualized, that is, to be all they can be. To achieve this ultimate goal, however, a number of more basic needs must be met. This includes the need for food, safety, love, and self-esteem.

Maslow believed that these needs are similar to instincts and play a major role in motivating behavior . There are five different levels of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, starting at the lowest level known as physiological needs. 

Click Play to Learn More About Maslow’s Pyramid

This video has been medically reviewed by David Susman, PhD .

Physiological Needs

The physiological needs include those that are vital to survival. Some examples of physiological needs include:

• Homeostasis

In addition to the basic requirements of nutrition, air, and temperature regulation, physiological needs also include shelter and clothing. Maslow included sexual reproduction in this level of the hierarchy as well, since it is essential to the survival and propagation of the species.

Security and Safety Needs

At the second level of Maslow’s hierarchy, the needs start to become a bit more complex. At this level, the needs for security and safety become primary.

People want control and order in their lives. Some of the basic security and safety needs include:

• Financial security
• Health and wellness
• Safety against accidents and injury

Finding a job, obtaining health insurance and health care, contributing money to a savings account, and moving to a safer neighborhood are all examples of actions motivated by security and safety needs.

Together, the safety and physiological levels of Maslow's hierarchy of needs make up what is often referred to as "basic needs."

Love and Belonging

The social needs in Maslow’s hierarchy include love , acceptance, and belonging . At this level, the need for emotional relationships drives human behavior. Some of the things that satisfy this need include:

• Friendships
• Romantic attachments
• Family relationships
• Social groups
• Community groups
• Churches and religious organizations

In order to avoid  loneliness , depression , and anxiety, it is important for people to feel loved and accepted by others. Personal relationships with friends, family, and lovers play an important role, as does involvement in groups—such as religious groups, sports teams, book clubs, and other group activities.

Esteem Needs

At the fourth level in Maslow’s hierarchy is the need for appreciation and respect . Once the needs at the bottom three levels have been satisfied, the esteem needs begin to play a more prominent role in motivating behavior.

At this level, it becomes increasingly important to gain the respect and appreciation of others. People have a need to accomplish things, then have their efforts recognized. In addition to the need for feelings of accomplishment and prestige, esteem needs include such things as  self-esteem  and personal worth.

People need to sense that they are valued by others and feel that they are making a contribution to the world. Participation in professional activities, academic accomplishments, athletic or team participation, and personal hobbies can all play a role in fulfilling the esteem needs.

People who are able to satisfy esteem needs by achieving good self-esteem and the recognition of others tend to feel confident in their abilities. Conversely, those who lack self-esteem and the respect of others can develop feelings of inferiority .

Together, the esteem and social levels make up what is known as the "psychological needs" of the hierarchy.

Self-Actualization Needs

At the very peak of Maslow’s hierarchy are the self-actualization needs. Self-actualizing  people are self-aware, concerned with personal growth, less concerned with the opinions of others, and interested in fulfilling their potential.

"What a man can be, he must be," Maslow explained, referring to the need people have to achieve their full potential as human beings.

Maslow’s said of self-actualization: "It may be loosely described as the full use and exploitation of talents, capabilities, potentialities, etc. Such people seem to be fulfilling themselves and to be doing the best that they are capable of doing. They are people who have developed or are developing to the full stature of which they capable."

Progressing Through the Pyramid of Needs

Joshua Seong / Verywell

Maslow's hierarchy of needs is often displayed as a pyramid. The lowest levels of the pyramid of needs are made up of the most basic needs while the most complex needs are at the top.

Once lower-level needs have been met, people can move on to the next level of needs. As people progress up the pyramid, needs become increasingly psychological and social.

At the top of the pyramid, the need for personal esteem and feelings of accomplishment take priority. Like  Carl Rogers , Maslow emphasized the importance of self-actualization, which is a process of growing and developing as a person in order to achieve individual potential.

Maslow's hierarchy of needs can be separated into two types of needs: deficiency needs and growth needs.

• Deficiency needs : Physiological, security, social, and esteem needs are deficiency needs, which arise due to deprivation. Satisfying these lower-level needs is important to avoid unpleasant feelings or consequences.
• Growth needs : Maslow called the needs at the top of the pyramid growth needs. These needs don't stem from a lack of something, but rather from a desire to grow as a person.

While the theory is generally portrayed as a fairly rigid hierarchy, Maslow noted that the order in which these needs are fulfilled does not always follow this standard progression.

For example, he noted that for some individuals, the need for self-esteem is more important than the need for love. For others, the need for creative fulfillment may supersede even the most basic needs.

Criticisms of Maslow’s Theory

Maslow's theory has become wildly popular both in and out of psychology. The fields of education and business have been particularly influenced by the theory. But Maslow's concept has not been without criticism. Chief among the long-held objections are:

• Needs don't follow a hierarchy : While some research has shown support for Maslow's theories, most of the research has not been able to substantiate the idea of a needs hierarchy. Wahba and Bridwell (researchers from Baruch College) reported that there was little evidence for Maslow's ranking of these needs and even less evidence that these needs are in a hierarchical order.
• The theory is difficult to test : Other critics of Maslow's theory note that his definition of self-actualization is difficult to test scientifically. His research on self-actualization was also based on a very limited sample of individuals, including people he knew as well as biographies of famous individuals who Maslow believed to be self-actualized.

Some of the more recent critiques suggest that Maslow was inspired by the belief systems of the Blackfoot nation, but neglected to acknowledge this. Maslow's studied the Northern Blackfoot tribe as an anthropologist. However, this foundational basis disappeared over time, causing him to misuse the concepts he was originally there to assess.

Impact of Maslow's Hierarchy

Regardless of these criticisms, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs represented part of an important shift in psychology . Rather than focusing on abnormal behavior and development, Maslow's humanistic psychology was focused on the development of healthy individuals.

There has been relatively little research supporting Maslow's theory, yet the hierarchy of needs is well-known and popular both in and out of psychology. And in a study published in 2011, researchers from the University of Illinois set out to put this hierarchy to the test.

What they discovered is that, while the fulfillment of the needs was strongly correlated with happiness , people from cultures all over the world reported that self-actualization and social needs were important even when many of the most basic needs were unfulfilled.

Such results suggest that while these needs can be powerful motivators of human behavior, they do not necessarily take the hierarchical form that Maslow described.

In 1970, Maslow built upon his original hierarchy to include three additional needs at the top of his pyramid, for a total of eight:

• Cognitive needs . This centers on knowledge. People generally want to learn and know things about their world and their places in it.
• Aesthetic needs . This addresses the appreciation of beauty and form. People might fulfill this need through enjoying or creating music, art, literature, and other creative expressions.
• Transcendence needs . Maslow believed that humans are driven to look beyond the physical self in search of meaning. Helping others, practicing spirituality, and connecting with nature are a few ways we might meet this need.

Keep in Mind

Whether you accept Maslow's hierarchy of needs or not, his theory shines a light on the many needs we have as human beings. And even if we don't all place these needs in the same order, keeping them in mind when interacting with others can help make our interactions more caring and respectful.

The basis of Maslow's theory is that we are motivated by our needs as human beings. Additionally, if some of our most important needs are unmet, we may be unable to progress and meet our other needs. This can help explain why we might feel "stuck" or unmotivated. It's possible that our most critical needs aren't being met, preventing us from being the best version of ourselves possible. Changing this requires looking at what we need, then finding a way to get it.

Self-actualization is at the top of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. This need refers to the desire to reach our full potential. According to Maslow, this need can only be met once all of the other needs are satisfied. Thus, it comes after physiological needs, safety needs, the need for love and belonging, and esteem needs.

Some criticize Maslow's hierarchy of needs on the basis that our needs don't always exist in a pyramid format, or that one need is more important than another. There's also a concern that his idea of self-actualization cannot be tested. Others suggest that Maslow's theory is weak because it was based on research that was misattributed or lost the original concept being studied.

There are five levels in Maslow's pyramid. The bottom two levels are physiological needs and safety needs which, together, make up basic needs. Next are social and esteem needs—also referred to as psychological needs. Self-actualization needs are at the top level of Maslow's pyramid. Someone who is self-actualized is said to be at (or in the pursuit of) their full potential.

Lester D, Hvezda J, Sullivan S, Plourde R. Maslow's hierarchy of needs and psychological health . J Gen Psychol . 1983;109(1):83-85. doi:10.1080/00221309.1983.9711513

Taormina RJ, Gao JH. Maslow and the motivation hierarchy: Measuring satisfaction of the needs , Am J Psychol. 2013;126(2):155-77. doi:10.5406/amerjpsyc.126.2.0155

Wang JL, Zhang DJ, Jackson L. Influence of self-esteem, locus of control, and organizational climate on psychological empowerment in a sample of Chinese teachers . J App Soc Psychol . 2013;43(7):1428-1435. doi:10.1111/jasp.12099

Noltemeyer A, James A, Bush K, Bergen D, Barrios V, Patton J. The relationship between deficiency needs and growth needs: The continuing investigation of Maslow's theory . Child Youth Serv . 2021:42(1):24-42. doi:10.1080/0145935X.2020.1818558

Wahba MA, Bridwell LG. Maslow reconsidered: A review of research on the need hierarchy theory .  Organiz Behav Human Perform. 1976;15:212–240.

Agrawal KG, Sharma BR. Gratification, metamotivation, and Maslow . Vikalpa . 1977;2(4):265-72.

Feigenbaum KD, Smith RA. Historical narratives: Abraham Maslow and Blackfoot interpretations . Humanistic Psychol . 2020;48(3):232-43. doi:10.1037/hum0000145

Smith RA, Feigenbaum KD. Maslow's intellectual betrayal of Ruth Benedict? . J Humanistic Psychol . 2012;53(3):307-21. doi:10.1177/0022167812469832

Tay L, Diener E. Needs and subjective well-being around the world . J Pers Soc Psychol . 2011;101(2):354-65. doi:10.1037/a0023779

Maslow AH. A Theory of Human Motivation .

Maslow AH. Motivation and Personality .

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

• Open access
• Published: 18 June 2024

What constitutes an employer of choice? A qualitative triangulation investigation

• Mohamed Mohiya   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6701-3071 1  

Human Resources for Health volume  22 , Article number:  41 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

Employer of choice (EOC) is a relatively new phenomenon, particularly in Human Resources Management. Existing employees and prospective talent have reasons and expectations to designate an employer as an EOC. While EOC has received extensive attention from both academics and practitioners over the past few years, the work has mostly focused on managerial and marketing perspectives, and thus far lacks a strong theoretical foundation. Drawing on Social Exchange Theory (SET), based on Human Resources and employees’ perceptions and experiences, this research aims to explore and investigate the factors that constitute/designate an employer as an Employer of Choice EOC. Two qualitative triangulated data sets were collected from existing full-time employees at a Saudi multinational corporation: open interviews and document analysis (cross-sectional and longitudinal). Thematic analysis (TA) was employed to analyze both methods. The findings reveal that company image, training, and development, satisfaction, involvement and commitment, fairness, work culture, reward, opportunities for growth, teamwork, motivation, and corporate social responsibility are the factors that lead employees to designate an employer as an EOC. This research contributes to knowledge conceptually, theoretically, and empirically, mainly in the area of Human Resources Management. This research represents one of the first studies to empirically identify and investigate employee-related factors and evaluate them all together in a multinational Saudi organization. Recognizing the findings of this empirical-based research assists HR managers in designating their organizations as an EOC for current employees and prospective talents.

Peer Review reports

Introduction and research background

One of the top priority goals that strategic HR focusing is to make their organizations designated as Employer of Choice (EOC) to attract and retain talents. In the past few years, companies around the globe have experienced some competition in attracting talented employees [ 58 ]. Companies, therefore, utilise their resources to become an employer of choice [ 47 ]. The war for talent has become one of the top issues for strategic human resources [ 67 ]. One strategy that is likely to become a winner in this talent competition is inducing employees to designate an employer as an Employer of Choice (EOC) [ 50 , 59 ].

The very existence of the concept of an EOC suggests that employees deliberately choose to work for an EOC instead of for other companies [ 20 ]. However, as a concept, Employer of Choice (EOC) is still a relatively new phenomenon, particularly in Human Resources. Based on an analysis of the literature, there are other similar concepts, such as employer branding. Ambler and Barrow [ 1 ], who coined the term “employer brand”, conceptualized it “as the package of functional, economic and psychological benefits provided by employment, and identified with the employing company” (p. xvi). Backhaus and Tikoo [ 4 ] defined employer branding as “a targeted, long-term strategy to manage awareness and perceptions of employees, potential employees, and related stakeholders with regards to a particular organization” (p. 2). Employer branding has further been conceptualized as “a targeted, long-term strategy to manage the awareness and perceptions of employees, potential employees, and related stakeholders with regards to the particular firm” (Sullivan, 2004: 1). In addition, employer branding has been conceptualized as “as building an image of an organization to distinct and desirable employers” ([ 24 ], 48). Nevertheless, like many others, these conceptions in the stream of research on the employer of choice have focused on organizational and managerial perspectives to achieve organizations’ strategic goals. Most importantly, the research has clearly neglected employees’ issues. The present research defines Employer of Choice as the needs and expectations that attract employees to designate an employer as an Employer of Choice.

From the employees’ perspective, it can be considered that an EOC is a place where they are interested in or enthusiastic about working while existing employees are interested in continuing in that workplace and are content with the facilities available. According to Armstrong [ 2 ], employer branding creates EOCs for individuals and instills in them the desire to continue with a given employer. In a different dimension, an employer of choice is summed up by the popular phrase “a great place to work”.

From organizations’ perspectives, there is increasing competitiveness in the job market and the race for talent has generated a requirement on the side of the employers to prove themselves worthy by engaging in different strategies to retain and attract potentially talented people. It has become necessary for employers to attract and retain competent and enthusiastic employees so that all stakeholders are satisfied and the organization is capable of contributing towards business success. Numerous mechanisms are adopted by employers to transform themselves into Employers of Choice (EOC). Nevertheless, even if a firm makes a great effort, no guarantee existing and future employees will consider that company to be their employer of choice. However, a small portion of job seekers consider the status or brand of the employer while deciding to choose or associate with an employer [ 26 ].

There are various attributes regarding EOCs where employees play a critical role in designating an employer as an EOC. Some of these include competitive pay and benefits, the provision of a reasonable degree of security, quality of work life, enhanced future employability, commitment, employer image, supportive leadership, participation of employees, psychological benefits, opportunities for growth, and learning and recognition [ 2 , 27 , 28 , 31 , 32 , 46 ] [ 52 , 70 ]. An EOC provides an incredible work atmosphere, culture, climate, and workplace environment to attract and retain a highly competent workforce. The characteristics of an EOC may aid both the workforce and customers in terms of holistic well-being. Large numbers of progressive organizations have set themselves the goal of becoming an EOC, where people are willing to work at any cost, not only for financial benefits but also for psychological and functional benefits. Thus, the assessment of an employer as an EOC involves working with an exceptional employer who recognizes the achievements of employees in the workplace. Noe [ 33 ] proposed that an employer can be successful through a rigorous evaluation process of determining the leadership qualities, best practices, and culture that would be assets to attract and manage the most talented employees in achieving their goals.

Theoretically, due to a lack or absence of a strong theoretical foundation in EOC research, mainly social theory, this research adopts Social Exchange Theory (SET) for several reasons. First, SET is one of the most influential theories in business and HR mainly found useful in explaining the relationship between employees and employers which is based on reciprocity conveying benefited resources [ 15 , 16 , 38 ]. The approach has the distinct advantage of recognizing employees’ interpersonal and social issues. Second, SET is relational to the context and aim of the present research. Third, this current research is a qualitative study driven by social theory that has been adapted in advance of the data collection. The role of theory is fundamental as a vehicle in the present research. However, qualitative scholars often use theory as something that emerges from the data collection and analysis [ 12 ]. Fourth, the theoretical lens of SET assists in serving the main aim of this research by offering a clearer explanation and better understanding to identify and investigate this new phenomenon, EOC, and factors that designate their EOC. SET sees the factors that contribute to EOC as resources. In general, the relationship between reciprocity and resources in SET is interdependent. Employers need to provide employees with resources that will oblige them to reciprocate in kind with engagement [ 38 ]. In other words, there is no reciprocity without resources. Ultimately, reciprocity within EOC contains and conveys resources. Employees will choose to produce in response to the resources they receive from their employer of choice [ 38 ]. According to Cropanzano and Mitchell [ 15 ], once employees receive socioemotional and economic resources from their employer, they, in return, feel obliged to respond in kind and repay the employer. Therefore, the resources/factors of SET assist in investigating the types of resources that employees expect to receive from employers.

Methodologically speaking, most existing business and HRM studies about EOC in relation to marketing only use wither single quantitative method which indicates there is a qualitative methodological gap, particularly triangulation methods in HR studies. Within the context of the current research, a qualitative approach is not only appropriate but also needed. The two qualitative methods help to uncover unknown antecedents that contribute to designating the employer as an Employer of Choice in a new and undiscovered context, Saudi Arabia organization. Based on the evaluation of relevant empirical studies, the researcher realizes that the approach drawn from the research questions and the overall strategy of the research required a need for qualitative triangulation research methods, compared to a quantitative method. The advantage of qualitative research is that it allows the researcher to gain a greater perspective into the insights of the participant because it provides the opportunity for the power of words to prevail. An example is a semi-structured interview. Instead of tick boxes and Likert scales (quantitative research), qualitative research asks for self-expression and an interpretation of how the subject feels and understands. A qualitative approach seeks answers to questions that stress what and how social experience is created and given meaning. In contrast, quantitative studies emphasize the measurement and analysis of causal relationships between variables, not processes.

The two triangulated qualitative methods that will be used in the present study are semi-structured interviews and a document analysis approach (combined longitudinal and cross-sectional designs). The two qualitative methods are ‘equally and parallel’ which can be viewed as exact equivalents to serve the purpose of the study by addressing the research question. Most importantly, these two triangulated methods will help improve objectivity on the limitations of qualitative methodology is low objectivity. Moreover, the two qualitative sources offer rich data to answer the research questions sufficiently. In addition, using triangulation methods will minimize the common method bias.

The two approaches tend to be available for data collection in research studies: longitudinal and cross-sectional research—this research uses both. The present research, through having data from the document that provides reactions accumulative of employees’ experiences about EOC covered 2 years long, typically fits the description of longitudinal research. For example, the document analysis covers 2 years and the semi-structured interview covers 3 months. For the present research, both cross-sectional and longitudinal provide rich accounts of the employees’ accumulative experience.

Contextually, the demands and needs for EOC differ from country to country due to business, social, and cultural differences. Based on the analysis of the relevant literature about EOC in the Middle East, particularly Saudi Arabia, it found limited empirical-based evidence studies.

Contextually, based on a review of the literature, it appears there is a lack of empirical knowledge concerning the factors that contribute to EOC designation, especially with regard to employees’ perspectives in the Middle East, particularly in Saudi Arabia. This present research seeks to address this contextual knowledge gap. This study aims to identify and investigate relevant employee-related factors. The study assumes significance since no such attempt has yet been made concerning EOCs in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The objective of the study is thus to identify the factors of an employer that contribute towards making it an EOC based on Social Exchange Theory (SET).

Social exchange theory (SET) and Employer of Choice (EOC)

Some EOC studies have adopted psychological contract theory and signalling theory (e.g., [ 37 ]). Even though Saini and Jawahar’s [ 37 ] study focused heavily on the managerial and psychological aspects, these theories did not consider social and employee perspectives.

This research adopts Social Exchange Theory (SET) as a theoretical lens mainly because it magnifies the importance of reciprocity, or two-way processes [ 15 , 16 , 38 ]. There are several reasons for the value of the social theoretical foundation in the present research. First, SET is one of the most significant conceptual approaches in human resources management and organisational behavior and is based on reciprocity between employees and employers in the workplace [ 15 , 16 , 38 ]. Second, SET is also useful in explaining the core conceptualization of the present research—the notion of the employer of choice. In theory, SET recognizes employees as a party that is reciprocally interdependent with employers. The SET mainly determines the relationship between parties involved, i.e., employer and employee, who always maintain a reciprocal interconnected affiliation. Third, and most importantly, SET’s resources are considered as factors that employees need or expect in order to reciprocate and designate an employer as an Employer of Choice. Fourth, Blau [ 6 ] suggests that social exchanges are voluntary actions that, in the context of the present research, align with the word “choice”. For example, in the context of the present study, if the employer provides resources to employees, in return, employees are expected to reciprocate that by choosing the employer.

Unlike psychological contract theory and signaling theory [ 37 ], SET is a social science theory that considers non-psychological or economic resources in social relationships based on voluntary interactions, not economic transactions. This viewpoint is aligned with other social exchange theorists who suggest, in comparison to economic exchange, that relationships depend on willful actions in contrast to formal actions [ 3 , 6 ]. Relationships based upon social exchange generally have more intangible resources and focus more on resources related to socio-emotional factors, e.g., cognizance, appreciation, or praise [ 36 ]. These intangible resources of SET offer a clearer explanation of how employees view their relationships with employers in the workplace, based on reciprocation and more than mere economic resources.

The present research is driven by SET to explore and identify employee-related factors/resources that designate an employer as an EOC. The role of theory is fundamental as a vehicle in the present research. However, qualitative scholars often use theory as it allows factors to emerge from the data analysis [ 12 ]. Conversely, Silverman [ 43 ] argued that most contemporary qualitative scholars have become increasingly interested in testing and exploring theories. Undoubtedly, there is no reason to prevent the use of qualitative triangulation research in the testing of theories that have been specified in advance of collecting the data [ 12 ]. Further, SET is an ideal theory that could assist in meeting the main aim of the present research of identifying and investigating the factors that make employees choose their employer. SET stipulates that the relationship between reciprocity and resources is interdependent. Employers need to provide employees with resources that will oblige them to reciprocate in kind with engagement [ 38 ]. In other words, there is no reciprocity without resources. Ultimately, reciprocity contains and conveys resources. Therefore, a certain amount of various resources is essential for the existence of an EOC. Employees will choose to engage themselves in response to the resources they receive from their employer [ 38 ]. According to Cropanzano and Mitchell [ 15 ], once employees receive resources associated with their socio-emotional and economic needs from their employer, they, in return, feel indebted and reciprocate with the employer in multiple ways. Therefore, the resources/factors identified in SET assist in investigating the types of resources that employees expect to receive from employers. The ongoing empirical examinations in organizational behavior and development were also taken into consideration to ascertain a fair idea of the concept of EOC and its related factors.

Relevant EOC empirical work

EOC can be best understood through employer branding, supportive leadership, fairness in recruitment processes, opportunities for growth and development, and retaining and attracting talented employees. Chhabra and Mishra [ 13 ] asserted that employer branding reflects the employer’s image and employer-of-choice status, and suggested that the best methods, tools, and techniques must be applied by the employer to motivate, influence, retain, and engage employees. Vinoth and Vasantha [ 46 ] conducted a study using a sample of 364 final-year students to examine the utility of employer branding in choosing an employer. They found that psychological benefits offered by a company are more important than other benefits such as financial or economic and functional benefits when choosing the right employer. Jobseekers are likely to be attracted to those firms that exhibit unlimited employer image value in contrast to those who show a low degree of employer value related to the image. However, other factors have not yet been identified, particularly in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), an issue that the present study seeks to address.

Saini and Jawahar [ 37 ] studied the influence of employment experience and employer rankings on employee recommendation as an EOC. They also probed whether these variables have an impact on employee characteristics. The study was conducted on 39,010 employees, which took 3-year employer rankings (2015–2017) and revealed that employee recommendations are influenced by employees’ experience in the workplace. Further, they (ibid.) observed that employee characteristics such as full-time vs. part-time, tenure, employment status, and employment experience also influenced employee recommendations pertaining to the company as an employer of choice. However, unlike the present research, Saini and Jawahar [ 37 ] focused mostly on managerial perspectives.

In addition, Mau [ 27 ] conducted a recent study focusing on determining the notion of branding the public sector as EOC to recruit and retain the leadership ability of people in the service. This study was undertaken to address a challenge encountered by the government in the recruitment of candidates with optimal capabilities for public services. The Canadian Federal Government undertook an initiative in 2007 to brand their public service. The findings suggested that it was very challenging to provide an exact concept of branding for the public sector, where a diversified workforce was employed [ 27 ]. Although branding was found to be one of the most popular concepts in the public sector as an EOC, it was found that these concepts had flipsides that required immediate attention. Though the Canadian Federal Government took great pains to develop the concept of branding in the public service, they failed to lead federal public services to be considered as an EOC.

Recently, Tanwar and Kumar [ 45 ] conducted a study of college students to ascertain the association between brand dimensions of employers and EOC status. Factor analysis and structural equation modeling were used in the study. Tanwar and Kumar [ 45 ] found that person-organisation fit was perceived as a mediator for EOC and that the dimension related to employer brand required a link with person-organisation fit. It was also determined that social media plays a key moderating role in facilitating EOC. Unlike Tanwar and Kumar’s [ 45 ] research, the present study adopts qualitative and longitudinal methods that offer in-depth understanding in different ways based on employees’ experiences. Most importantly, unlike the present research, the pieces of research discussed appear are not based on theoretical foundations, which means they can be considered more as practical research rather than scholarly/academic work.

Based on the critical evaluation of the relevant literature, most works have been focused on managerial and organisational perspectives and have neglected employees’ perspectives. This research, grounded in employees’ experiences, addresses this significant gap in the literature. Unlike other managerial and organizational studies, this research, through the theoretical lens of Social Exchange Theory, identifies and explores employee-related factors that attract employees and encourage them to designate an employer as an Employer of Choice. Based on these points, the following exploratory research question was developed.

What factors attract employees to reciprocate their designation of an employer as an Employer of Choice (EOC)?

Qualitative triangulation methodology

The primary notion of qualitative research is to develop an understanding of a point rather than to verify it. Due to this, the outcomes of a qualitative investigation can be considered to be novel, reliable, genuine, and trustworthy, in contrast to quantitative research [ 19 , 25 ]. However, in qualitative methodology, subjectivity is a matter of concern [ 11 ].

With quantitative research, the findings have a higher validity as a result of the high degree of representation [ 51 ]—a concern for qualitative research. However, this research uses two triangulation methods, which provide rich data and a consequent increase in validity. For example, in the present study, document analysis, along with the open interviews, are utilized equally to shore up validity.

There is a qualitative methodological gap in the relevant literature about Employer of Choice (EOC). Reflecting on the research question above that emerged from these knowledge gaps, the answers to the research question could be obtained through both qualitative and/or quantitative methods. However, as mentioned in the review section, from the analysis of the relevant studies (e.g. [ 37 ]), it appears that a quantitative approach is favored. Therefore, this research addresses this methodological gap by using a qualitative approach. Within the context of the current research, a qualitative approach is not only appropriate but also needed.

To approach the research question, a mixed triangulation of the qualitative approach to uncover unknown factors that encourage employees to designate an employer as an Employer of Choice (EOC). The two triangulated qualitative methods used in the present study are open interviews and document analyses. The two qualitative methods are applied “equally and in parallel” and can be viewed as exact equivalents to serve the purpose of the study by addressing the research questions. To the researcher’s knowledge, this is the first study of EOC that adopts qualitative triangulation methods—in particular interviews and documentary analysis. The obtained document method is a complete set that draws upon first-hand employee comments spanning a 4-year period which is extracted from the internal organizations’ HR Blog system. The total number of comments is 104.

The second method is open interviews conducted with 22 employees. Triangulation methods assist in capturing different dimensions of the same phenomenon. For example, interviews and document analysis support the interrogation of the data to identify and/or explain factors, problems, or causes that affect employees’ decisions to choose an employer. Thus, the need to use triangulation of multiple data sources is crucial not only because it offers richer data, but also because it allows digging in-depth to obtain fine-grained results that capture what is happening in reality.

In general, triangulation is used as a means of cross-examining results from one form of data collection with those of another. For example, the document analyzed in this research contains 104 employee comments over 4 years, and interviews covering 3 months. For this research, the data triangulation helps create greater confidence in the overall results [ 53 ]. The two triangulated qualitative methods decrease researcher bias [ 56 ]. Multiple qualitative methods are employed in the collecting of data as a means of minimizing bias and limitations inherent in each method ([ 56 ]. For example, unlike with open interviews, the document analysis method used in the current research contains 104 comments written first-hand by employees with no involvement from the researcher, which decreases bias.

Two broad approaches are available for data collection in research studies: longitudinal and cross-sectional research. This research draws on both approaches. Because the data from the document provides cumulative employee reactions and employee perceptions over 4 years, this study most typically fits the description of longitudinal research.

The obtained document from the employer was as a complete set which was extracted from the internal HR Blog platform of a large multinational energy corporation. The obtained document contained interactions and discussions between employees about the Employer of Choice subject. This document contains first-hand, unadulterated comments made by employees on the platform. All documents were extracted from the HR Blog as it is without modifications or editing, as the organization stated. These texts, taken from the platform, are directly and purposively relevant to the aim of the present research.

In general, researchers need to analyze the significance of documents about study problems and aims [ 7 ]. The sampling characteristic for this research is a purposive sampling technique which is widespread in qualitative research. As this research aims to identify and investigate the factors that constitute/designate an employer as an Employer of Choice (EOC), purposive sampling was used for this study to only focus on full-time employees. For example, in interviews, the purposive sampling technique was used to focus on full-time employees. For the second method, document analysis, the received document contains employees' computerized first hand-typed written where employees responded to a question about “What designated employer of choice?” This topic document was rich and detailed information about employees’ cumulative experiences over 4 years.

For interviews, respondents were enrolled via an email sent by HR inviting them to participate. The email was purposefully sent to all employees working full-time in the organization to increase the chance of diversification of participants’ demographic characteristics. The email contains a brief invitation paragraph and several attachments, namely: a plain language statement (including the author’s contact details), and the interview guide. The researcher was copied in the email and at the end of the email, the HR asked prospective participants to contact the author directly for any questions about the research and, most importantly, to arrange the interview time and location, if they have an interest. The reason behind sending these information sheets all together in advance is to give employees time to read and understand and provide them with a clear idea about the project and interview, as well as give them time to read and decide if they would like to participate. In addition, the researcher also provided each participant with a hard copy of these sheets to explain it to them before starting the interviews.

The organization which the data was collected from is a large multinational energy Saudi corporation located in Saudi Arabia. The participants are full-time employees and the demographic characteristics are high (please see Table  1 ).

Three reasons for settling on only 22 interviews. First, from interview number fifteen and onwards, most of the interviewees’ answers started becoming repetitive. Second, the confirmation and validation between the two methods reached a satisfactory level. For example, as interviews and documents were used equally weighted and parallel, some factors that emerged from the preliminary analysis of the document required further questioning, clarification, or confirmation from interviewees during interviews (and vice versa). Third, the diversity of demographic characteristics of participants was high in genders, types of jobs (technical and administrative), years of experience, nationalities, levels of education background, and position levels (please see Table  1 ).

For the present research, thematic analysis was undertaken for both methods because it offers some flexibility when analyzing qualitative data. Thematic analysis should be seen as a foundational method for qualitative analysis [ 10 ]. Qualitative thematic analysis is a commonly used approach to analyze textual material obtained from a range of sources, including interviews and documents. As defined by Braun and Clarke [ 10 ] “ thematic analysis is a method for identifying, analyzing, and reporting patterns (themes) within data” (p.6) . However, for thematic analysis, there is no fixed universal method. While key themes/factors have already been identified as concepts from the analysis of literature, other themes are allowed to emerge and they are coded based on the theoretical lens of SET.

For the present research, the process of analyzing the qualitative data involved: preparation of data; familiarisation with data; generating initial codes; collating similar codes into pre-existing or emerging themes; re-reading and reviewing themes that related to the research questions; and refining themes. This process was done through creative engagement with the data and following intuition [ 10 ].

For the present research, the coding process was carried out manually. Unlike other electronic software, Wicks [ 71 ] suggests that manual coding provides the researcher with an opportunity to reflect on the analysis as they immerse themselves in the data. However, one of the disadvantages of using manual coding, in particular with large data sets, is that it is less efficient or manageable [ 40 ]. As a result, this may lead to missing important aspects of the data. However, for the present research, the author has spent a large amount of effort and time to organize, read, and understand the data ensuring there are no missing key information or relevant factors.

Manually, the analysis of interviews’ transcriptions and documents was completed through the use of thematic analysis by starting with coding key factors that were identified based on the frequencies (presented in the conceptual model). Through the identified themes, the data will be allowed to capture an explanation of possible reality through evidence, which ultimately helps address the research questions sufficiently, as suggested by Braun and Clarke [ 10 ]. In the second stage of coding, there were new factors started to emerge based on the data analysis of pre-determined factors. These new emergent factors were coded based on the frequency and relevance of patterns. Through the coding process of thematic analysis, the entire data set is used to explore meaningful, frequent, and relevant patterns that emerge [ 54 ].

The use of two different sources of qualitative data has significantly reduced any potential risks of common method variance (CMV) [ 8 ]. This present research uses two mixed qualitative methods. Two procedural actions were taken to reduce CMV. First, the data were collected from interviews and documents at two different and separate times. Second, during the coding and thematic analysis stage, some of the key factors emerged from the interviews’ transcriptions and others were allowed to emerge from document analysis, but further confirmation and validation were conducted with other sources/methods to avoid any risks of common method variance. Therefore, the results of the investigated factors revealed that the issue of common method variance was not a major issue in this study.

The use of two mixed methods has assisted in overcoming any risks of bias, e.g., social desirability bias (SDB). First, all participants' personal information in the HR Blog where the documents were extracted from was completely anonymous which reduced social desirability bias (SDB). Second, the document analysis method used in the current research contains 104 comments written first-hand by employees with no involvement by the researcher, which consequently, decreases the bias. Third, for the interviews, in the plain language sheet, I mentioned that all of their responses would be confidential their participation is voluntary and they could leave at any time during the interview. Therefore, the use of two mixed methods has not only helped to decrease SDB and increase the genuineness of responses but also significantly increased the results’ confirmation and validation.

Most importantly, as the present research is theory-driven, the SET lens played a fundamental role in the analysis of the data. The coding techniques of thematic analysis necessarily depend on whether or not the themes are “theory-driven” (Braun and Clarke 2006). In the present research, themes have been analyzed, identified and interpreted, and driven or guided by “resources”, as provided in SET.

Findings and discussion

The purpose of this discussion section is to theoretically and empirically analyze, interpret, and establish the significance of the findings in the relevant literature, in particular about the research problem being investigated.

The overall theoretical analysis and interpretation of the present study’s results confirm that designating an employer as an Employer of Choice is based on reciprocity between employee and employer in exchanging resources. This is in line with the SET [ 15 , 38 ] which postulates that employees are involved in a social exchange relationship when they act in favor of another party, with the expectation that this favor is reciprocated in the future. Saks [ 38 ] suggested that employees are more willing to reciprocate or exchange their engagement for resources provided by their employer. Moreover, this is consistent with other studies that have suggested that EOC factors in organizations’ context in the workplace depend on reciprocal interactions [ 9 , 20 , 35 ].

Based on the thematic analysis of findings in this study, several factors were identified as significantly affecting employees’ designation of an employer as an employer of choice. The results that emerged from the analysis are summarised in Table  2 below.

Each of the above factors (present in the table), as identified by the respondents is now discussed in detail.

Company image

It is evident from the table that company image and reputation were of great importance and were ranked first. The vast majority of employees believe that the company image is a fundamental factor for EOC. It can be considered an extremely important factor that could lead to an organization being designated an EOC. Company image can be understood in terms of employees’ desire to continue in the company for a longer period of time or as long as they can. This result substantiates earlier findings mentioned in the literature review (e.g., [ 4 , 18 , 21 , 45 ]).

In contrast to a positive image, a negative image might also lead to negative perceptions of the company’s image [ 21 , 44 ]. However, Lievens and Slaughter [ 24 ] reviewed various articles and pointed out both the positive and negative aspects of company image and emphasized that a positive image of a company influences behavior towards productivity. Applying SET, it can be inferred that employees are attracted to an employer not merely for economic benefits but also for a host of non-economic benefits. Therefore, based on the analysis, company image is a socioemotional factor that was found to contribute strongly towards EOC in this study.

The results about the significance of company image and reputation to designate EOC is broadly consistent with many studies (e.g., [ 55 , 60 , 64 ]. Vast majority of participants believe that the employer’s image and reputation in public through the quality of the products’ brand and services influence the public and, consequently, make employees feel proud of their employer.

Opportunities for training and development

The analysis of the results shows training and development is one of the most important factors that they need and ultimately influence their decision to designate EOC. Employees interested in acquiring new skills through training. In return, employers need to consider this to become EOC. In light of the relevant literature, this result is also in agreement few studies (e.g., [ 61 , 65 ]. However, these studies did not fully focus on EOC as a concept but focused on organizational performance. For example, Salah [ 39 ] suggests that training and development have an impact that leads to an increase in productivity, quality, and performance. These findings were also supported by Karim et al. [ 63 ]. Theoretically, Cropanzano et al. [ 16 ] and Cropanzano and Mitchell [ 15 ] suggest that the employer–employee relationship can be established through reciprocities. Unlike other studies, this study has thus identified an opportunity for drawing on training and development as a significant factor that is capable of contributing toward perceptions of an EOC.

Company’s ability to attract and retain employees

Being able to attract talents in the market and most importantly retain them is found one of the most critical factors for employees to designate any employer as an EOC. More specific to the context of the organization as an employer, organizational attractiveness refers to the extent to which potential employees view an organization as a desirable and positive place to work [ 57 , 69 ].

From the table, it can be observed that attracting and retaining talent is one of the vital components of EOC. This indicates that one of the important employer functions is to attract and retain fresh talent with appropriate competencies to achieve organizational success. Participants believe that the talents that the organization attracts will positively influence them. This factor supports other studies that have been highlighted by many researchers [ 24 , 48 , 52 , 68 ].

Satisfaction, involvement, and commitment

One of the key factors found influencing the designation of EOC is employees’ satisfaction, involvement in decision-making, and organizational commitment. Employees believe that these can be achieved via satisfactory compensation and benefits, other amenities, paid holidays, participation in decision-making and job security are factors that could facilitate perception as an EOC. One of the key attributes of SET is that relationships progress over some time with the help of mutual commitment and satisfaction [ 6 , 15 , 17 , 22 , 29 , 38 ]. The findings from this study in this respect align with several earlier studies which suggest that job satisfaction, commitment, and involvement play a key role in making employees feel loyal to the employer [ 4 , 57 ].

The other significant factor was found to be of importance to employees in developing a positive attitude towards an EOC. Employees perceive that fairness exists in organizations if there are vertical promotions, proper resource allocations, equity, equal treatment, and justice. The current findings from this study are in alignment with previous research by Baldwin [ 5 ] and Polayni and Tompa [ 66 ]. Molm [ 30 ] suggests that fairness is one of the attributes that helps in establishing a good rapport between the employer and employees. Fairness is also found to mitigate conflicts and would be helpful in an employer becoming an EOC. This finding also has its moorings in SET. Treating employees fairly in the workplace mainly in promotion and incentives significantly affects employees’ decision to designate any employer as an EOC.

Work culture and environment

Considerable evidence exists to support the claim that HR practice and supportive behaviors in the company could create a positive work culture and an outstanding work environment in which employees are interested in working with and continuing to work with the employer. According to SET, employee engagement depends on the nature of the environment and culture provided by the employer to their employees [ 38 ]. This is also in line with the findings of Allam [ 49 ], according to whom HRM practices help in establishing good working atmospheres or an appropriate culture so that employees consider continuing with the employer.

The analysis of the findings suggests that organizational culture plays a significant role in making an employer an EOC. Outside of EOC’s context, this result is broadly in agreement with several studies (e.g., [ 62 ]). It seems that organizational culture is not a minor issue for employees. The analysis and interpretation of the data confirm that the organization's culture becomes a pivotal factor for employees to designate any employer as an EOC.

Employers provide appropriate rewards to their employees in return for their commendable performance, which encourages employees to perform further. Rewards refers to offering incentives to employees. Looking at it from the perspective of the SET, as recognized in the literature and the conceptual model, rewards are socioemotional and economic resources that employees may expect to receive from employers. This reciprocity and pattern of exchange is also highlighted in SET [ 6 , 13 , 23 , 41 ]. The findings about rewards are supported by the work of Kucherov and Zavyalova [ 65 ] and Clark and Oswald [ 14 ], who explained that rewards lead to better performances, which could, in turn, lead to the organization being considered an EOC. However, unlike Kucherov and Zavyalova [ 65 ] and other managerialists who associate rewards with job performance, the present research focuses on this as a repayment resource for employees to designate an employer as EOC.

Opportunities for growth, teamwork, and motivation

Career development and growth are found one of the factors that heavily influence the designation of EOC for employees. In the documents, employees pointed out that, at their present company, career prospects are good, employees are part of the growing company worldwide, there is good team conduct, and employees feel motivated when their performance is valued. SET stipulates that decisions made by individuals would be based on expectation of certain outcomes. The factors generated in this study are in alignment with this aspect of SET and alignment with the findings of Cropanzano and Mitchell [ 15 ].

Concern for society

It was found that employees valued their organization’s concern for society. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives aimed at uplifting society have been considered part of leading an employer to be evaluated as an EOC. The interpretation of this finding shows that not just society is affected by CSR, but also employees. It was surprising that employees take the CSR factor to designate an employer's EOC. This found to be significant This finding is consistent with several studies (e.g., [ 34 ]). According to Norbit et al. [ 34 ], employees tend to have a positive attitude towards the companies that are involved in CSR as it enhances the reputation of the organization among stakeholders. Theoretically speaking, CSR is seen as one of the resources that employees expect from employers to make, in return, an employer as EOC.

Based on analysis and interpretations of the findings, through the theoretical lens of Social Exchange Theory, the below figure (Fig.  1 ) proposes a complex theoretical/conceptual model about the antecedents/factors that encourage employees to designate an employer as an EOC.

Conceptual model (created by the author)

Research contributions and limitations

The analysis of findings from the document analysis and interviews has revealed several factors relating to and a deeper understanding of EOC. These findings contribute to theoretical knowledge, particularly SET, and empirical knowledge, specifically with respect to Saudi Arabia. Company image, opportunity for training and development, attracting and retaining, satisfaction, involvement and commitment, fairness, work culture and environment, reward, opportunities for growth, teamwork and motivation, and concern for society emerged as the most important components of EOC in this study. Many of the researchers who have studied SET have observed that the employee–employer relationship depends on exchange, reciprocity, and a relationship that satisfies both parties. It can be considered that an EOC is also dependent on relationships and reciprocity. In the event of this association having longevity, it would be beneficial to both parties and employees would then consider the organization as an EOC.

Many employers implement practices to attract and retain talented employees. EOC involves the inculcation of holistic satisfaction, having a conducive to encouraging work culture and environment, and the overall well-being of employees. Though the majority of employees in this study held a favorable opinion about EOCs, a few lamented the lack of well-being, motivation, promotion criteria, and rigid HR practices. They considered these factors to force employees to change jobs. Management needs to consider such “flipsides” of the organization to retain talent. Researchers argue that reciprocities lead to minimization of employee turnover, maximization of commitment, satisfaction, overcoming of role stress, and creating a pleasing image of the employer in the market [ 28 , 42 ].

The present study is not devoid of limitations. The first limitation of the present research relates to the external factors that might affect employees’ designation of an employer as EOC, such as cultural issues. Hence, it might be argued that the results may be unique to the Saudi context, or may not be applicable to other cultures and countries. Cultural issues can be linked to organizational culture or outside culture, depending on the country and background. For example, future studies may consider investigating the impact of employees’ cultural backgrounds on EOC. There is much room for further progress in determining how cultural factors affect EOC. As a result, further work is required to uncover new knowledge in this area.

The second limitation related to the use of a purposive sampling method to gather the information from the participants, which may influence the generalisability of the findings. However, there are multiple avenues for future research. Standardized tools and mechanisms of data analysis with different variables can be used in future research to acquire further knowledge that will spark new information assimilation about the concept of EOC in more than one organization or Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs).

The third limitation of the present research is that the empirical result cannot be generalized because it used a single case study based on one single organization. However, the theoretical results of SET can be generalized mainly because it recognises employees who are in reciprocal interdependent relations with the employer. The results can be different from organization to organization depending on several factors, such as the type of the industry, and the size of the company.

Availability of data

Data are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Ambler T, Barrow S. The employer brand. J Brand Manage. 1996;4(3):185–206.

Article   Google Scholar  

Armstrong M. Performance management. 3rd ed. London: Kogan Page; 2006.

Google Scholar  

Aryee S, Budhwar PS, Chen ZX. Trust as a mediator of the relationship between organisational justice and work outcomes: test of a social exchange model. J Organ Behav. 2002;23:267–86.

Backhaus K, Tikoo S. Conceptualizing and researching employer branding. Career Dev Int. 2004;9(5):501–17.

Baldwin S. Organisational justice. Brighton: Institute for Employment Studies; 2006.

Blau PM. Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley; 1964.

Bowen GA. Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qual Res J. 2009;9(2):27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027 .

Bozionelos N, Simmering MJ. Methodological threat or myth? Evaluating the current state of evidence on common method variance in human resource management research. Hum Resour Manag J. 2022;32(1):194–215.

Branham L. Planning to become an employer of choice. J Organ Excell. 2005;24(3):57–68.

Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.

Bryman A, Bell E. Business research methods. USA: Oxford University Press; 2007.

Bryman A. Social research methods. USA: Oxford University Press; 2015.

Chiaburu D, Harrison DA. Do peers make the place? Conceptual synthesis and meta-analysis of lateral social influences on perceptions, attitudes, OCBs, and performance. J Appl Psychol. 2008;93:1082–103.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Clark AE, Oswald AJ. A simple statistical method for measuring how life events affect happiness. Int J Epidemiol. 2002;31:1139–44.

Cropanzano R, Mitchell MS. Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review. J Manag. 2005;31:874–900.

Cropanzano R, Anthony E, Daniels S, Hall A. Social exchange theory: a critical review with theoretical remedies. Acad Manag Ann. 2017;11:479–516.

Farrell D, Rusbult CE. Exchange variables as predictors of job satisfaction, job commitment, and turnover: the impact of rewards, costs, alternatives, and investments. Organ Behav Human Perform. 1981;28(1):78–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(81)90016-7 .

Gatewood RD, Gowan MA, Lautenschlager GJ. Corporate image, recruitment image, and initial job choice decisions. Acad Manag J. 1993;36:414–27.

Guba EG, Lincoln YS. Competing paradigms in qualitative research. Handb Qual Res. 1994;2:105.

Herman RE, Gioia JL. Helping your organization become an employer of choice. Employ Relat Today. 2001;28(2):63.

Highhouse S, Brooks ME, Greguras G. An organisational impression management perspective on the formation of corporate reputations. J Manage. 2009;35(6):1481–93.

Kelley HH. Interpersonal accommodation. Am Psychol. 1968;23:399–410.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Lee F, Edmondson AC, Thomke S, Worline M. The mixed effects of inconsistency in organizations. Organ Sci. 2004;15:310–26.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Lievens F, Slaughter J. Employer image and employer branding: what we know and what we need to know. Annu Rev Organ Psychol Organ Behav. 2016;3:4.1-4.34.

Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Naturalistic inquiry. USA: Sage; 1985.

Book   Google Scholar  

Macleod C. Workplace barometer, employer of choice: a reality cheque. p4. 2007. Available from www.workplacebarometer.com.au .

Mau T. “Enhancing leadership capacity in the public sector: branding as an employer of choice. Int J Public Leadership. 2019;15(3):155–69. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPL-05-2019-0019 .

Miles SJ, Mangold G. A conceptualization of the employee branding process. J Relationship Market. 2004;3(2–3):65–87.

Molm LD. Dependence and risk: transforming the structure of social exchange. Soc Psychol Quart. 1994;57:163–76.

Molm LD. The social exchange framework. In: Burke P, editor. Contemporary social psychological theories. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press; 2006. p. 24–44.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Moriatry J. Participation in the workplace: are employees special. J Bus Ethics. 2010;29:373–84.

Mosley RW. Customer experience, organisational culture and the employer brand. J Brand Manage. 2007;15(2):123–32.

Noe RA. Employee training and development. 5th ed. USA: Mc Graw Hill; 2010.

Norbit N, Nawawi A, Salin ASAP. Corporate social responsibility practices among the SMEs in Malaysia—a preliminary analysis. Manage Account Rev. 2017;16(2):17–40.

Rampl LV. How to become an employer of choice: transforming employer brand associations into employer first-choice brands. J Mark Manage. 2014;30(13–14):1486–504.

Rupp DE, Cropanzano R. The mediating effects of social exchange relationships in predicting workplace outcomes from multifoci organisational justice. Organ Behav Human Decis Process. 2002;89:925–46.

Saini G, Jawahar I. The influence of employer rankings, employment experience, and employee characteristics on employer branding as an employer of choice. Career Dev Int. 2019;24(7):636–57. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-11-2018-0290 .

Saks A. Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. J Manage Psychol. 2006;21(7):600–19.

Salah MRA. The impact of training and development on employees performance and productivity. Int J Manage Sci Bus Res. 2016;5(7):36–70.

Saldana J. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. USA: Sage; 2015.

Schneider B. The climate for service: an application of the climate construct. In: Schneider B, editor. Organisational climate and culture. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1990. p. 383–412.

Sharma R, Jain V, Singh SP. The impact of employer branding on organisational commitment in Indian IT Sector. IOSR J Bus Manage. 2018;20(1):49–54.

Silverman D. Interpreting qualitative data. USA: Sage; 2015.

Sutton RI, Callahan AI. The stigma of bankruptcy: spoiled organisational image and its management. Acad Manage J. 1987;30:405–36.

Tanwar K, Kumar A. Employer brand, person-organisation fit and employer of choice. Personnel Rev. 2019;48(3):799–823. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-10-2017-0299 .

Vinoth K, Vasantha S. The influence of employer brand in deciding the workplace, perception of prospective employees. Int J Sci Eng Res. 2014;5(10):1401–10.

Ahmad A, Khan MN, Haque MA. Employer branding aids in enhancing employee attraction and retention. J Asia Pacific Bus. 2020;21(1):27–38.

Albinger HS, Freeman SJ. Corporate social performance and attractiveness as an employer to different job seeking populations. J Bus Ethics. 2000;28:243–53.

Allam Z. Exploring ambient discriminatory HRM practices: An insight from Kingdom Telecom Company. J Soc Sci Res. 2019;5(3):646–54.

Baker T. Attracting and retaining talent: becoming an employer of choice. Springer; 2014.

Berg B (2007) Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. pp. 148–157

Berthon P, Ewing M, Hah LL. Captivating company: dimensions of attractiveness in employer branding. Int J Advertising. 2005;24(2):151–72.

Bogdan R, Biklen SK. Qualitative research for education. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon; 1997.

Boyatzis RE. Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Sage; 1998.

Cable DM, Turban DB. Establishing the dimensions, sources and value of job seekers' employer knowledge during recruitment. In: Research in personnel and human resources management. Emerald Group Publishing Limited; 2001. pp. 115-163

Denzin NK. Triangulation: A case for methodological evaluation and combination. Soc Methods 1978;339–357.

Ehrhart KH, Ziegert JC. Why are individuals attracted to organizations? J Manage. 2005;31(6):901–19.

Francis D, Bessant J. Targeting innovation and implications for capability development. Technovation. 2005;25(3):171–83.

Hult GTM. Toward a theory of the boundary-spanning marketing organization and insights from 31 organization theories. J Acad Market Sci 39(4), 509–536. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-011-0253-6

Hetrick S, Martin G (2006) Corporate reputations, branding and people management. Routledge.

Jain N, Bhatt P. Employment preferences of job applicants: unfolding employer branding determinants. J Manage Dev. 2015;34(6):634–52.

Judge TA, Bono JE, Locke EA. Personality and job satisfaction: the mediating role of job characteristics. J Appl Psychol. 2000;85(2):237.

Karim MM, Choudhury MM, Latif WB. The impact of training and development on employees’ performance: An analysis of quantitative data. Noble Int J Bus Manage Res. 2019;3(2):25–33.

Knox S, Freeman C. Measuring and managing employer brand image in the service industry. J Market Manage. 2006;22(7–8):695–716.

Kucherov D, Zavyalova E. HRD practices and talent management in the companies with the employer brand. Euro J Train Dev. 2012;36(1):86–104.

Polanyi M, Tompa E. Rethinking work-health models for the new global economy: A qualitative analysis of emerging dimensions of work. Work. 2004;23(1):3–18.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Price C, Turnbull D (2007) The organizational challenges of global trends: A McKinsey global survey, McKinsey Quarterly

Robertson SJ (2011) The merit of intensive leadership development programs on building-level administrators' sustainability. The University of Southern Mississippi.

Rynes SL, Bretz RD Jr, Gerhart B. The importance of recruitment in job choice: A different way of looking. Pers Psychol. 1991;44(3):487–521.

Sokro E. Impact of employer branding on employee attraction and retention. Euro J Bus Manage. 2012;4(18):164–73.

Wicks D. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Qual Res Organ Manage Int J. 2017;12:169–70.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author extends their appreciation to King Khalid University.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Human Resources Management Department, College of Business, King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia

Mohamed Mohiya

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

The author made his contributions in conceptualization, designing methodology, investigation, supervision, visualization, writing the original draft, analyzing the data, and project administration.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohamed Mohiya .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable. Authors' contributions  

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Mohiya, M. What constitutes an employer of choice? A qualitative triangulation investigation. Hum Resour Health 22 , 41 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12960-024-00928-7

Download citation

Received : 12 October 2023

Accepted : 07 June 2024

Published : 18 June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12960-024-00928-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Employer of choice
• Social exchange theory
• Thematic analysis
• Triangulation
• Saudi Arabia
• Qualitative

Human Resources for Health

ISSN: 1478-4491

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]