of this whole. Recent evidence underscores the
complementary nature of social, cognitive, and biological
levels of analysis and how research integrating these levels
can foster more comprehensive theories of the mechanisms
underlying complex behavior and the mind. This research
underscores the unity of psychology and the importance of
retaining multilevel integrative research that spans molar
and molecular levels of analysis.
Neuroscientists and cognitive scientists have collaborated
for more than a decade, with the common goal of under-
standing how the mind works. These collaborations have
helped unravel puzzles of the mind including aspects of
perception, imagery, attention, and memory (see, e.g., Kan-
del, 2001; Kosslyn & Andersen, 1992; LeDoux, 1995; Pos-
ner & Raichle, 1997). Many aspects of the mind, however,
require a more comprehensive approach to elucidate the
mystery of mind–brain connections. Attraction, altruism,
speech recognition, affiliation, attachment, attitudes, identi-
fication, kin recognition, cooperation, competition, empa-
thy, sexuality, communication, dominance, persuasion, obe-
dience, morality, contagion, nurturance, violence, and
person memory are just a few.
The notion that 100 billion neurons can give rise to the
human mind can be daunting, especially when trying to say
anything more specific about this feat. To simplify the
study of the mind, many scientists have ignored the social
aspects. The architects of development and behavior were
initially conceived in molecular biology as the forces of
evolution operating over millennia; the builders were cast
as encapsulated within each living cell far from the reach
of personal ties, social influences, or society; and the brain
was treated simply as an information-processing machine
(Crick, 1970). The additional information that might be
attributable to the social world was conceived as best con-
sidered later, if the need arose (cf. Allport, 1947). Social
factors, it was further reasoned, might have minimal impli-
cations for basic deve