Is Adlerian psychology dubious? A thorough examination using modern science to determine the extent of its scientific basis.

In short, Adlerian psychology can be described as "a psychology that fosters the ability to live in cooperation with others (community feeling) by choosing one's own life (self-determination), acting in accordance with one's purpose (teleology), and letting go of unnecessary control over others (separation of tasks)."

However, his psychology is buried among many self-help books, and many people may find it somewhat dubious. In fact, it tends to get lost in later generations, and even when he says the same things, it is rarely cited.

Indeed, Adler's ideas are based more on a synthesization of his own clinical experience than on a series of scientific verifications. Furthermore, they address not only facts but also themes beyond the realm of science, such as "how should one live?", and thus have aspects that are closer to philosophy. In that sense, some argue that it is not science.

This article will examine the extent to which Adlerian fundamental factual concepts are accepted in evolutionary biology, psychology, behavioral economics, neuroscience, and brain science. It is based on Miller & Dillman (2016), with additional papers added. Citations of papers mentioned in Miller & Dillman (2016) will be omitted.

In conclusion, the general direction is the same, but there are some differences in our views on conflict and free will.

This article presents an academic analysis, but if you want to systematically learn Adlerian psychology from the basics and apply it to your daily life and work, please refer to the [Official] Adlerian Psychology Certification Level 1 Course. Online curricula such as these are also recommended as options.

Why did Adlerian psychology come into existence in the first place?

Reasons why you might feel "life is somehow difficult": The limitations of "causal reasoning" that traps you in the past and trauma.

Alfred Adler was a psychologist born in 1870 and died in 1937. The mainstream of psychology during his time was based on the idea that "human behavior is determined by past causes (such as childhood experiences, traumas, and physiological factors)."

For example, Freud emphasized "unconscious desires" and "sexual impulses" as causes. Psychiatry, too, followed a style of "recording symptoms and classifying cause and effect," essentially relying on "accumulating facts." As Adler interacted with patients as a physician, he began to have serious doubts about this "causal explanationism." This is what is called "causal theory."

A way of thinking to reclaim your life: A shift to a "teleological" approach that allows you to choose your own destiny.

Adler began to question this. In his youth, he started as an ophthalmologist and internist, treating many patients with lung diseases and tuberculosis. One day, he noticed that even with the same disease, the degree of recovery varied greatly from patient to patient. "Why is it that only those with a 'will to live' recover, even though they have the same disease?" The realization that this could not be explained by mere "physical differences" became Adler's first turning point. In other words, the idea began to take root in him that "people are not passive beings, but rather choose their own way of life." This is what is called "teleology."

After becoming a psychiatrist, Adler developed the idea that the same principles apply to emotions and behavior, parted ways with Freud, and founded what is now known as Adlerian psychology, or "individual psychology."

Letting go of extreme thinking: "Harmony between the individual and society," a concept also found in early Buddhism and Stoic philosophy.

Adlerian psychology is highly progressive in that it emphasizes one's own life and individuality, and advocates using those abilities to explore connections with society. It is a very important way of thinking in letting go of the Western notion that pursues only individual happiness, and the extreme Japanese notion that "the nail that sticks out gets hammered down."

I believe it is a very important branch of psychology and philosophy, alongside the early Buddhism of Gautama Siddhartha (Buddha/Shakyamuni) in northern India in the 6th century BC, and Stoic philosophy (Stoicism), which began with Zeno in ancient Greece in the early 3rd century BC and spread throughout ancient Greece and Rome.

Is it true that "contributing to others brings happiness"? The scientific basis of community feeling

The cause of feeling "lonely and struggling to live": A lack of "community feeling"

One of the core beliefs in Adlerian psychology is the idea that individuals have an innate capacity for social concern.

In Adlerian psychology, this is called "social interest," and it represents the feeling of being a part of society—whether family, community, or workplace—and the desire to connect with others and contribute. This can range from a family-centered perspective to a global one.

In short, Adlerian psychology argues that this lack of a sense of community—that is, the lack of the feeling that "I am contributing to communities on various scales"—is largely related to feelings of anxiety, unhappiness, isolation, inferiority complexes, and self-centered behavior.

Does being kind to others improve your health? The science of oxytocin and stress reduction.

Has research in neuroscience also shown that a sense of community is important?

This view aligns with many neurobiological perspectives on happiness, as stated in the textbook "A Counselor's Introduction to Neuroscience" (McHenry et al., 2014), and several studies suggest that expressing compassion and kindness may enhance relationships and mental and physical health (Fredrickson et al., 2013; Poulin & Holman, 2013).

Oxytocin is a hormone synthesized in the hypothalamus and secreted from the posterior pituitary gland. It is also known as the "love hormone" and is released when we feel social connection or when we care for someone.

Oxytocin is thought to be the source of feelings of happiness that come from having a sense of community, but it has also been found that the secretion of oxytocin does more than that; it also repairs physiological damage induced by stress.

A study by Poulin & Holman (2013) found that people who engaged in prosocial behavior had higher levels of endogenous oxytocin and fewer negative symptoms of stress. The authors suggest that prosocial behavior may be a way for people to stimulate the release of oxytocin and mitigate the negative effects of stress, demonstrating that oxytocin mitigates the adverse health effects of stress.

"Fulfillment through contribution" extends life more than short-term pleasure.

Another study by Fredrickson et al. (2013) reported that individuals who reported having a higher purpose, being connected to their community, and serving others had lower levels of inflammatory markers, while those who reported more hedonic experiences had elevated levels of pro-inflammatory genes and decreased levels of antiviral response.

Aristotle distinguished between "hedonia," which is happiness that pursues short-term pleasures such as enjoyment, satisfaction, and positive emotions, and "eudaimonia," which is happiness that comes from finding meaning and purpose in life and achieving long-term rather than short-term fulfillment. Here, however, it is interpreted that those who found eudaimonia in a social context were healthier.

These findings suggest, from a physiological and neurological perspective, that having a strong sense of community and contributing to the happiness of others has significant benefits for one's own mental stability and physical health.

Humankind survived through "cooperation with others": Human adaptive strategies as seen in the social brain hypothesis

Adler also referred to Darwin's theory of evolution, arguing that while other animals evolved physical strength, humans adapted to their environment by forming social groups, and that this is connected to the importance of having a sense of community (Adler & Iwai, 2024).

This idea is also proposed in the form of the social brain hypothesis from the perspective of current evolutionary biology, and can be said to be largely correct (Pedersen et al., 2014; Dunbar, 2024).

The social brain hypothesis posits that the large brains and advanced intelligence of primates evolved as adaptations to help them survive successfully within complex social groups.

This suggests that primates, including humans, have evolved to find happiness in social interaction itself.

Is the "Adlerian approach to interpersonal relationships," which claims to drastically reduce stress in interpersonal relationships, actually correct?

Adlerian interpersonal relationships emphasize the separation of tasks (clearly defining one's own responsibilities and those of others, focusing on one's own tasks, and refraining from interfering with others' tasks until requested), rejecting "vertical relationships" (hierarchical relationships) and emphasizing "horizontal relationships" (equal relationships). Encouragement (giving people facing difficulties the energy to overcome them and the confidence that they can do it) is also recommended.

This is somewhat similar to "assertiveness" (self-assertion that respects oneself and others), which originated in behavioral therapy in modern times.

Assertiveness is a communication method and attitude that respects oneself and others, and expresses one's opinions, requests, and feelings frankly, honestly, and on an equal footing. It is consistent with Adlerian interpersonal relationships in that it recommends direct language (a rejection of the "culture of unspoken understanding") and emphasizes equality.

While Adlerian interpersonal relationships themselves lack sufficient scientific validation, several studies have shown that assertiveness can reduce anxiety, stress, and depression (Cantero-Sánchez, 2021; ElBarazi et al., 2024).

Similar ideas are prominent in early Buddhism, Stoic philosophy, and early Christianity, emphasizing the importance of protecting oneself while also showing compassion and respect for others within the community (Bazzano, 2005; Goerger, 2017; Case, 2024).

Is it true that personality and thought patterns are formed in early childhood? Brain science reveals the secrets of "lifestyle."

Adlerian psychology considers early childhood experiences to be extremely important for the overall development of an individual's view of themselves, others, and the world (Adler, 1956).

The unconscious blueprint that determines your thought patterns: What is a "lifestyle"?

Adler (1956) argued that while individuals are born with certain tendencies, the manifestation of specific traits and talents is caused by the community (the surrounding environment).

In other words, this can be rephrased as the idea that "childhood experiences are qualitatively more important than adult experiences and are deeply involved in establishing one's 'lifestyle'."

In Adlerian psychology, "lifestyle" refers to an individual's unique "unconscious blueprint" for living their life, which is a fusion of childhood experiences and the need for belonging. It consists of three elements: self-concept (I am...), worldview (the world is...), and self-ideal (I want to be...).

Therefore, counselors in the Adlerian psychology school try to understand a person's inner world by deeply examining their family structure, including cultural and familial values, expectations of gender roles, the nature of relationships within their birth family, and their psychological birth order.

Neuroscience reveals: How early childhood environment determines adult emotional circuits.

What about from a neuroscience perspective?

Current brain development models suggest that early childhood experiences have a significant impact on an individual's awareness of themselves, others, and the world, and are thought to complement Adler's view on early childhood experiences (Andersen et al., 2008; McHenry et al., 2014; Perry, 2009; Siegel, 2012).

Brain development begins in the brainstem in the womb and progresses to the prefrontal cortex in early adulthood. Neurologists believe that the fundamental structures related to the brain's regulatory circuits, a key element in discussions of mental health, are primarily formed during the first five years of life (Andersen et al., 2008; Perry, 2009).

In this process, children often internalize the neural circuits of their closest caregivers during their early childhood. While individuals are born with certain genetic predispositions, environmental experiences significantly influence which genetic predispositions are expressed or suppressed through a process called "epigenetics" (Garrett, 2011; Siegel, 2012).

Epigenetics is a mechanism that controls gene function (expression) without changing the DNA base sequence itself. Beginners in biology or those who still hold onto outdated biological ideas tend to think that "behavior is rigidly determined by genes, although there are environmental constraints." However, current biology has proven that, through the action of epigenetics, "individuals have the potential to be either way, and specific genes can be expressed depending on the environment, leading to certain behaviors."

In other words, not only the directly inherited genes, but also the environment during childhood influences genetic expression, which can have positive or negative effects later in life.

For example, Fallon (2013) examined individuals who engaged in violent psychopathological behavior using brain scans. They found that the participants shared similar neural activity profiles and patterns, specifically "decreased brain function in certain parts of the frontal and temporal lobes, areas generally associated with self-control and empathy."

Up to this point, it could be said that the person has lost their sense of community due to a brain abnormality. In a sense, this is normal.

However, further investigation suggests that some individuals, due to poor upbringing environments, may exhibit neurological activity profiles similar to those of individuals with psychopathic tendencies, even without showing high levels of aggression or low levels of empathy.

In other words, as Adler hypothesized, this suggests the possibility that early childhood experiences influence genetic predispositions.

This is very close to the reality when you consider cases where children born in slums commit crimes or join gangs without realizing it, influenced by their parents and those around them, or cases where children of toxic parents become toxic parents themselves.

The roots of "social habits" as seen in attachment theory.

Furthermore, Adler's ideas closely align with another psychological concept, "attachment theory," to the point that it's almost a rephrasing of it.

Attachment theory, proposed by psychologist John Bowlby in his research from the 1960s to the 1970s, is a theory that states that the emotional bonds (attachment) that people form with others have a significant impact on their mental health and interpersonal relationships.

Attachment theory was groundbreaking in that it demonstrated that the mother-child relationship, as explained by Freud, is not established through the child learning that "she is the one who breastfed me (satisfaction of need)," but rather through an instinctive and innate mechanism by which the child seeks out their parent, similar to other monkeys.

However, this theory was completed not by directly referencing Adler's earlier work, but by drawing on clinical observations, comparative studies, and references to animal behavior.

Although this attachment theory is old, it is still widely accepted today, and many neuroscientists have shown that attachment is internalized as tacit memory, and that secure attachment is associated with neural structures that promote emotion regulation, fear regulation, harmony, insight, self-understanding, empathy, and morality (Schore & Schore, 2008; Siegel, 2012), while insecure attachment is associated with decreased emotional and social intelligence, executive function, and stress regulation (Perry, 2009).

As described above, Adler's ideas, which emphasized childhood experiences, are still supported today, albeit with some changes in terminology.

Is it true that "lies in life" exist? The psychology and brain's defense mechanisms for creating excuses.

Why it's easier to blame the past: The truth about causal theory and teleology

Teleology, in contrast to causalism which states that "human behavior is determined by past causes (such as childhood experiences, trauma, or physiological factors)," is the idea that "people choose their actions and emotions in the present in order to achieve some purpose, and the past causes cited are merely conveniently brought into play to suit that purpose."

This is a point that is often misunderstood because it is only written to this extent in textbooks, but even so, Adler did not deny that genes and the past are the cause of the current situation (Adler and Iwai, 2024).

However, I'm saying that the choice of the cause is ultimately up to the individual.

The true nature of "wanting to do something but being unable to act": "Life lies" used to protect oneself.

We often hear people say, "I can't get married because I don't have money and I'm not good-looking," but considering the counterexample of many people around the world who are married despite not having money or good looks, it's clear that even if there is a tendency for this to be the sole cause, it's wrong to attribute it to that. Nevertheless, this kind of expression is often seen.

While abuse can be a cause of delinquency, some people who experience it go on to achieve great success without resorting to crime.

Adler argues that we can choose whether to move in a constructive or unconstructive direction. Adler called the act of not taking action by making plausible excuses a "life lie."

Why do people make excuses? The psychology of "self-deception"

I believe the validity of teleology and the concept of lies in life, that is, the error of causal theory itself, can be easily proven by simply providing exceptions.

So why does the brain make excuses and tell "lies about life" when it should actually be taking action?

In modern terms, this can be seen as "self-deception" (a psychological process in which one deceives oneself to justify or ignore one's own conscience or the truth, even though one knows it) in order to resolve "cognitive dissonance" (psychological discomfort arising from the simultaneous existence of contradictory thoughts or actions in one's mind) in response to "procrastination" behavior caused by "anxiety."

How the brain avoids "unpleasant" things: The neuroscience of excuses

While humans can certainly achieve happiness and survival by maintaining the status quo and avoiding harm or potential threats, maintaining the status quo can also lead to negative consequences (Yamamori et al., 2023).

For example, when going through a job interview, you need to weigh the benefit of getting a new job against the risk of failing or experiencing embarrassment during the interview. While turning down one interview may have little impact on your life, habitually avoiding all job interviews will clearly lead to problems in the long run.

Consistently avoiding long-term benefits for the sake of short-term risks is called "procrastination" in psychology and "present bias" in behavioral economics. As the total of the lost rewards that could have been obtained through diligent effort accumulates, it has an increasingly negative impact, ultimately leading to missing out on important things in life.

Evolutionary biology and behavioral economics have pointed out that this is because humans tend to underestimate future benefits of survival, which are uncertain in the course of evolution (time discounting), and overestimate the risks they may face in the present (Rogers, 1994; Tomono, 2006).

Furthermore, neuroscientifically speaking, mouse experiments have shown that this anxiety process involves excessive strengthening of the connections between the hippocampus/amygdala and the prefrontal cortex (excessive theta wave synchronization), leading to overactivity of interneurons such as VIP ⁺ neurons, PV ⁺ neurons, and SST ⁺ neurons (Mack et al, 2023).

In other words, evolutionarily, the control system of the prefrontal cortex is overly active, making one more susceptible to anxiety. This leads to overestimating current failures and risks (punishments) over future rewards (things one wants to do), causing procrastination. However, because one also understands the downsides, cognitive dissonance occurs, and to resolve this, one resorts to self-deception by telling "lies about life."

In ancient times, when uncertainty was high and death was imminent, this could be considered a highly adaptive evolutionary trait, as it encouraged cautious behavior and promoted the maintenance of the status quo. However, in modern times, where technology has advanced and the risks of action have decreased, it can no longer be considered adaptive (Rogers, 1994; Rasmussen & Dover, 2006; Villmoare et al., 2024).

Early Buddhism and Stoic philosophy also warn against overestimating risks due to "delusions" and "attachments" (Ding et al., 2023). The same is true for early Christianity.

Is Adler's approach to "having courage (the ability to take action)" correct? A verification by modern science.

Adler states that "courage" is necessary to overcome "life's lies."

In Adlerian psychology, "courage" refers to the very "vitality" and "motivation" to overcome difficulties and challenges and to take positive action when faced with them.

Adler didn't actually list methods for summoning courage, but based on his intent, the following methods can be considered:

1. Start with small actions
2. Reducing unnecessary anxiety by separating issues
3. Using feelings of inferiority as motivation for growth
4. Be mindful of contributing to others
5. Strengthening self-determination

No need for sheer willpower or determination! How to cultivate "true courage (the ability to take action)" starting with small wins.

Of these, the idea of "starting with small actions" is now called "Small Wins" and was rediscovered by Weick (1984).

Small wins are small, achievable successes accumulated day by day towards achieving a larger goal. Weick argues that by breaking down large, complex problems into "small, attainable parts" and accumulating small wins, momentum and support can be gained, making change more likely.

For example, if you're studying, it could be something like memorizing vocabulary for just 10 minutes a day.

This leads to a sense of self-efficacy through achievement, creating a positive cycle of hope, belief, optimism, and confidence, as well as providing feedback for better strategies through learning through practice (Termeer & Dewulf, 2019).

The importance of "trying something, even if it's just a little, rather than planning something big" is still strongly supported today. Agile development, a software development methodology, is one example of this.

Similarities between "separation of tasks" and Stoic philosophy

On the other hand, there is insufficient research on whether separating issues truly leads to anxiety reduction. Intuitively, it seems correct, but further verification is needed.

However, the idea of separating tasks is almost identical to the concept expressed in ancient Greek Stoic philosophy and is a traditional idea (Delaney, 2023).

In particular, the ancient Roman philosopher Epictetus, who was a slave, argued that much of our troubles stem from trying to change things we cannot control, or from becoming trapped by them.

Two Weaknesses of Adlerian Psychology: How It Differs from Modern Science

I think there are two main differences between Adlerian psychology and modern thinking.

No inner conflict? A neuroscience perspective on "holism"

First, let's consider the concept of conflict. Adlerian psychology does not recognize conflict between consciousness and the unconscious. This is called holism.

This rejects the idea of "fighting against one's inner self," instead positing that internal conflict exists to achieve one's goals.

This interpretation is not very common in modern times; for example, in evolutionary psychology, the mind is often explained not as a unified entity but as being composed of separate parts (modules) divided according to their purpose. This is also recently referred to as domain specificity (Oda & Otsubo, 2023).

Another example is the "elephant and mahout" metaphor, proposed by Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist famous for his work in positive psychology (Haidt, 2006). The "elephant and mahout" metaphor is also used in the early Buddhist scripture , the Dhammapada.

"Elephant" refers to the part of the mind that is separate from consciousness and is involved in reactions to stimuli and the formation of motivations through pleasure and displeasure, while "elephant handler" refers to the part that deals with consciousness, language, and rational long-term judgment.

The idea is that the elephant's behavior is a result of the evolutionarily more primitive development of the medulla oblongata, cerebellum, midbrain, and diencephalon, and that these are the main players, while the elephant handler, represented by the cerebral cortex, plays a supporting role, only able to slightly control the direction. In reality, conflicts between different parts of the cerebral cortex are also possible.

However, this is a matter of interpretation. There is no doubt that the elephant and the mahout work together towards some direction (purpose), and I believe that taking a holistic view of life is beneficial in that it prevents unconstructive thinking such as "I suffered again today because of the elephant," and even if the mahout's role is small, it allows us to positively receive messages from different parts of the brain.

How free are humans? A scientific debate surrounding "free will."

Next, Adlerian psychology is based on the premise that free will exists. Therefore, it believes that individuals can choose better, more constructive actions for themselves.

On the other hand, in modern times, the prevailing view is the absence of free will (determinism), which holds that all human psychology and behavior are determined by a combination of environmental and genetic factors.

While it might be possible to have a deep philosophical discussion about this, it seems that Adler wasn't interested in such philosophical debates, but rather in assuming the existence of free will and encouraging efforts to change the future.

In psychology, several studies have shown that experimentally giving participants anti-free will messages leads to increased cheating, increased aggression, decreased willingness to help, decreased readiness for exercise, and decreased self-control. While recent meta-analyses have suggested that this has a low impact (Genschow et al., 2023), it may be possible in limited situations.

Fundamentally, accurate prediction of the future is impossible because its initial conditions are unknown, and since it is undetermined, the fact that the future can be changed through learning remains unchanged even if free will does not exist.

Finally, it's important to note that Adler's arguments are about 100 years old, and therefore lack a comprehensive model of early childhood development, meaning they cannot fully explain all aspects of life by modern standards (Miller & Dillman, 2016).

For those who want to delve deeper into and practice Adlerian psychology.

This article has examined Adler's theory from an academic and scientific perspective. Adlerian psychology is not merely a way of thinking, but a tool that, with proper understanding and practice, can greatly improve the quality of interpersonal relationships and self-determination.

• "I want to thoroughly relearn Adlerian psychology from the basics."
• "I want to apply this to my work, counseling, and everyday communication."
• "I want to prove my systematic knowledge through a qualification."

If that sounds like you, check out the official Adlerian Psychology Certification Level 1 course, which you can take and study from home.

References

Alfred Adler, translated by Toshinori Iwai. 2024. Adler's Words in a Superb Translation: Essential Edition. Discover Twenty-One, Tokyo. 229pp. ISBN: 9784799330104

Bazzano, M. 2005. To feel with the heart of another: Notes on Adler and Zen Buddhism. In P. Prina, A. Miller, C. Shelley, & K. John (Eds.), UK Adlerian Year Book 2005 (pp.42-54). The Adlerian Society UK Institute for Individual Psychology. https://manubazzano.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/adler-and-buddhism.pdf

Cantero-Sánchez, FJ, León-Rubio, JM, Vázquez-Morejón, R., & León-Pérez, JM 2021. Evaluation of an assertiveness training based on the social learning theory for occupational health, safety and environment occupational. Sustainability 13(20): 11504. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132011504

Case, B. 2024. Love's Limits in Paul of Tarsus and Seneca the Younger. Religions 15(10): 1169. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15101169

Delaney, B. 2023. Reasons not to worry: how to be Stoic in chaotic times. Harper, 304pp. ISBN: 9780063314825 [=2024. Philosophy for living peacefully: A way of thinking for living in stressful times, learned from Stoicism. Discover Twenty-One, Tokyo. 421pp. ISBN: 9784799330784]

Ding, X., Ma, Y., Yu, F., & Abadal, LM 2023. The therapy of desire in times of crisis: lessons learned from Buddhism and Stoicism. Religions 14(2): 237. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel14020237

Dunbar, RI 2024. The social brain hypothesis–thirty years on. Annals of Human Biology 51(1): 2359920. https://doi.org/10.1080/03014460.2024.2359920

ElBarazi, AS, Mohamed, F., Mabrok, M., Adel, A., Abouelkheir, A., Ayman, R., … & Mohamed, F. 2024. Efficiency of assertiveness training on the stress, anxiety, and depression levels of college students (Randomized control trial). Journal of Education and Health Promotion 13(1): 203. https://doi.org/10.4103/jehp.jehp_264_23

Genschow, O., Cracco, E., Schneider, J., Protzko, J., Wisniewski, D., Brass, M., & Schooler, JW 2023. Manipulating belief in free will and its downstream consequences: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review 27(1): 52-82. https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683221087527

Goerger, M. 2017. Moral Practice in Late Stoicism and Buddhist Meditation. Comparative Philosophy 8(1): 7. https://doi.org/10.31979/2151-6014(2017).080107

Haidt, J. 2006. The happiness hypothesis: finding modern truth in ancient wisdom. Basic Books, New York. 320pp. ISBN: 9780465028023 [=2011. The happiness hypothesis: ancient wisdom and modern scientific wisdom. Shin'yosha, Tokyo. 355pp. ISBN: 9784788512320]

Lavon, I., & Shifron, R. 2020. The use of early recollections in Adlerian psychotherapy: Evidence in neuroscience research. Psychology and Behavioral Science International Journal 15(2): 55590. http://dx.doi.org/10.19080/PBSIJ.2019.10.555908

Mack, NR, Deng, S., Yang, SS, Shu, Y., & Gao, WJ 2023. Prefrontal cortical control of anxiety: Recent advances. The Neuroscientist 29(4): 488-505. https://doi.org/10.1177/10738584211069071

Miller, R., & Dillman Taylor, D. 2016. Does Adlerian theory stand the test of time?: Examining individual psychology from a neuroscience perspective. The Journal of Humanistic Counseling 55(2): 111-128. https://doi.org/10.1002/johc.12028, https://scholarworks.boisestate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1173&context=cifs_facpubs

Oda, Ryo & Otsubo, Yosuke. 2023. Expanding! Evolutionary Psychology. Asakura Shoten, Tokyo. 183pp. ISBN: 9784254523065

Pedersen, CA, Chang, SW, & Williams, CL 2014. Evolutionary perspectives on the role of oxytocin in human social behavior, social cognition and psychopathology. Brain Research 1580: 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2014.07.033

Rasmussen, PR, & Dover, GJ 2006. The purposefulness of anxiety and depression: Adlerian and evolutionary views. The Journal of Individual Psychology 62(4): 366-396. ISSN: 1522-2527, https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2007-03417-003

Rogers, AR 1994. Evolution of time preference by natural selection. The American Economic Review 84(3): 460-481. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2118062

Termeer, CJ, & Dewulf, A. 2019. A small wins framework to overcome the evaluation paradox of governing wicked problems. Policy and Society 38(2): 298-314. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2018.1497933

Tomono, Norio. 2006. Behavioral Economics: The Economy is Driven by "Emotions". Kobunsha, Tokyo. 397pp. ISBN: 9784334033545

Weick, KE 1984. Small wins: Redefining the scale of social problems. American Psychologist 39(1): 40-49. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.1.40

Villmoare, B., Klein, D., Liénard, P., & McHale, TS 2024. Evolutionary origins of temporal discounting: Modeling how time and uncertainty constrain optimal decision-making strategies across taxa. PloS One 19(11): e0310658. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310658

Yamamori, Y., Robinson, OJ, & Roiser, JP 2023. Approach-avoidance reinforcement learning as a translational and computational model of anxiety-related avoidance. eLife 12: RP87720. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.87720.4