Nature Vs Nurture

Nature & Nurture debate – and the Interactionist approach

Nature debate:

This side of the debate argues that behaviour, thoughts and emotions are determined by what we are born with i.e. it is genetically determined. Nature and Nurture tends to get easily mixed up therefore I have a memory strategy which is NAture has an A in it which stands for Anatomy – this will hopefully remind you that it is a genetic explanation.

Evolutionary explanations of human behaviour are also a key part of the nature debate. The main assumption underlying this approach is that any particular behaviour has evolved because of its survival value. For example Bowlby suggested that attachment behaviours are displayed because they ensure the survival of an infant and that the parents’ genes can be passed on. This survival value is further increased because attachment has implications for later relationship formation which will ultimately promote successful reproduction.

Evaluation of Nature Debate:

Reductionist: the nature debate is extremely reductionist because it reduces complex behaviour to simplistic explanations such as inheriting a gene. This is a strength because it makes easier to understand behaviour and it also helps us to determine causality and helps to identify the importance of individual factors.
Deterministic: It’s deterministic which means that it believes that our behaviour is effected by external factors which are out of our control – we have no conscious choice. This may sound negative, but actually it means that it uses more objective scientific measures as a consequence of this deterministic view point. This means that extraneous variables are highly controlled and cause and effect can be established, increasing validity. The high use of laboratory and scientific equipment makes the research more valid as it is objective and less chance of researcher bias.
Practical/useful applications: understanding and identifying certain behaviours that are inherited or specific to the individual can help us to intervene accordingly. So for example, even though we cannot change genetic information (well currently anyway) by highlighting certain genetic causes, can mean that certain insurance can be put in place and also it can help with family planning by understanding the risk of certain genetics. We also understand how genes impact neurons, and this has led to drug treatments.
Underestimates nurture: Many studies may appear to support nature e.g. genetic explanation of schizophrenia, but there is not a 100% concordance rate. Therefore, nurture influences must play a role.
Reductionist: It breaks down complex behaviour to simplistic components e.g. schizophrenia is caused by a gene. This may strip away the complexities of behaviour and therefore cannot fully explain behaviour.
Free will: Ignores free-will, this can have issues as it would be difficult to implement consequences to negative behaviours, if an individual did not choose to do it.

Nurture debate:

Nurture is the opposite view, that all behaviour is learnt and influenced by external factors such as the environment etc. Supports of the nurture view are ‘empiricists’ holding the view that all knowledge is gained through experience. The behaviourist approach is one example of the nurture position in psychology, which assumes that all behaviour is learned through the environment. I also have a memory strategy which is NUture has an U in it which stands for Upbringing – this will hopefully remind you that it is an environmental explanation.

Evaluation of Nurture debate:

Practical applications: Changing the situation is often possible compared to changing biology. This approach therefore encourages rehabilitation rather than punishment for negative behaviours – (think of the consequences of this, how does this further validate nurture perspectives?)
Research Methods: The use of deception in social studies means that they tend to have high ecological validity. In addition, due to using observations and focusing on real life social issues. It has key relevance to the majority and helps our understanding on how human behaviour can be changed in a positive way. – consequence? generalisability – higher external validity.
Underestimates Nature: It is very difficult to separate the effects of nurture/social influences from the individual. This is very similar to the nature/nurture debate, in the sense that it is impossible to study them separately as they will always influence together reducing validity of the approach/debate. As a consequence is ignores biological causes, this reduces the validity of the approach. There is never a 100% rate of a certain behaviour, therefore other factors must play a role.

Interactionist approach:

Instead of defending extreme nature or nurture views, most psychological researchers are now interested in investigating the ways in which nature and nurture interact. This is known as the Interactionist approach. It is limiting to describe behaviour solely in terms of either nature or nurture, and attempts to do this underestimate the complexity of human behaviour. For example, in psychopathology, this means that both a genetic predisposition and an appropriate environmental trigger are required for a mental disorder to develop. Therefore, it makes more sense to say that the difference between two people’s behaviour is mostly due to hereditary factors or mostly due to environmental factors.

Model answer: Your challenge is to add in the challenges!

Discuss the nature-nurture debate in psychology. [16 marks]

AO1: The nature nurture debate has influenced psychology greatly over the last century. The nature vs nurture debate is about the relative importance of heredity and environment in determining behaviour. Nature argues for the possibility that behaviour is governed by an individual’s biology e.g. genetics. Whereas the nurture stance argues that environment and experiences determine behaviour. Within psychology there are certain approaches which side with each side of the debate. For example, the biological approach firmly sides with nature. Whereas approaches such as social learning theory and behaviourism, are very much on the side of the nurture debate.

AO3: Point: There is research to support the nature side of the debate. Evidence: Gottesman and Shields, found a concordance rate of 42% for MZ (identical twins) and 9% for DZ (non-identical twins). Explain: This supports the nature side of the debate because if monozygotic MZ twins (100% identical genes) are more concordant than DZ twins (share only 50% of their genes), then this suggests that the greater similarity is due to genetic factors. Consequence: By having research to support the nature side, this could lead to useful applications such as drug treatments that target the biological issue. Challenge:

AO3: Point: However, in reality, the debate is not that simple. One limitation of the ‘nature’ stance is that it underestimates the impact that nurture can have on nature. Evidence: For example, Maguire (2000) showed that London taxi drivers had larger posterior hippocampi than a control group, due to their increased use of spatial navigation. This supports the role of plasticity in brain functioning, which suggests that experience (nurture) creates physical changes in the brain (nature). Explain: Therefore, genetic, neural and evolutionary explanations are incomplete if we disregard the role of nurture. Consequence: Consequently, this limits the accuracy of the nature approach because it cannot fully explain behaviour on its own. Challenge:

AO3: Point: In addition, nature can affect nurture. Evidence & Explain: Plomin (1977) identified the reactive influence of genes (genetics control a child’s micro environment, thereby influencing environmental experience) and the passive influence of genes (your parents’ genes for example, can affect your upbringing and therefore the ‘nurture’ component of your development). Furthermore, Scarr and McCartney (1983) identified an active influence of genes – that they called niche picking. This occurs when children choose environments that suit their genetic traits, and this influence has been shown to increase with age. Consequence: Therefore, nurture is also an incomplete explanation of human behaviour when considering the argument on its own. Challenge:

AO3: Point: Nowadays, this debate is no longer relevant in modern psychology as most researchers tend to take an interactionist approach which encompasses the influence of BOTH nature and nurture. Evidence: This can be seen in our knowledge in our understanding of the diathesis – stress model, which is fundamental to understanding mental disorders such as schizophrenia. Tienari found that people may have a genetic vulnerability for schizophrenia, but this vulnerability is triggered by a disturbed family environment. Explain: This is interactionist because it suggests that people can have a genetic vulnerability to a disorder (nature), but the disorder will only be expressed under certain conditions (nurture). Consequence: Therefore, nature and nurture are inextricably linked – neither is a complete explanation of human behaviour, however when both are considered, we can reach an in – depth understanding. Challenge:

AO3: Point: One of the implications in accepting that nature is the primary driver of behaviour is that it could remove a sense of responsibility of an individual’s behaviour. Evidence: Brunner found that a warrior gene was present in a group of brothers who had committed crimes Explain: If a nature stance was taken, this implies that the individual was determined to commit the crime and did not make a conscious choice in the murder, which would provide an “excuse’, allowing people to mitigate their own liability. Consequence: Consequently, this could lead to vexing legal issues regarding the nature of responsibility and intent, which could create problems when determining sentences, and create a sense of unfairness towards victims who have been wronged. Challenge:

AO3: Point: It is argued that siding with one side of the nature nurture debate is a limited approach. One benefit in taking an interactionist stance, is that it may provide more effective treatments. Evidence: Tarrier et al. (2000) found that people with schizophrenia receiving 20 sessions of CBT in 10 weeks, coupled with drug therapy, followed by four booster sessions during the next year, had a better reduction in symptoms than sufferers receiving drug therapy alone. Explain: This uses an interactionist approach, as the CBT uses the environmental experience of the therapy to target faulty thought processes, in order to reduce the impact of delusions. Whereas the anti-psychotics work to treat the hallucinations by targeting the imbalance of neurotransmitters. Consequence: Consequently, by taking an interactionist approach, the treatments provided may be more successful as it is able to target and treat the multiple issues within the illness. Challenge: