Nature Vs Nurture

Nature & Nurture debate – and the Interactionist approach

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 individuals biology e.g. genetics. Whereas the nurture stance argues that environment and experiences determine behaviour

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.

NUture has a U in it, which stands for Upbringing – this will hopefully remind you that it is an environmental explanation.

Nature:

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 approach is reductionist because it explains complex behaviours through biological factors such as genes and neurotransmitters. This can be seen as a strength because it allows researchers to scientifically investigate specific causes of behaviour and establish cause-and-effect relationships.
Deterministic: The nature approach is biologically deterministic because it suggests behaviour is determined by inherited genes and biological processes. This encourages scientific research through objective measurements such as brain scans and genetic analysis, increasing reliability and helping establish cause-and-effect relationships.
Practical/useful applications: Understanding biological influences on behaviour has led to useful practical applications, including genetic counselling and early identification of risk factors (this allows individuals to understand their risk of inheriting or passing on genetic disorders and gain support and advice from professionals e.g. family-planning decisions.) and the development of treatments such as antidepressants and antipsychotic medication.
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: Nature explanations can be criticised for being reductionist because they may oversimplify complex behaviours by focusing solely on biological causes. Human behaviour is likely to result from an interaction of biological, psychological, and environmental influences, meaning purely biological explanations may be incomplete.
Free will: Biological determinism may be criticised for ignoring free will. If behaviour is determined by genetic factors, individuals may have limited personal responsibility for their actions. This creates ethical and legal issues when assigning blame and punishment for behaviour.

Nurture:

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.

Evaluation of Nurture debate:

Practical applications: A strength of the nurture approach is that it has useful practical applications. If behaviour is learned from the environment, it can also be modified through environmental changes. This has led to treatments such as behavioural therapies, educational interventions and rehabilitation programmes. For example, offenders may be rehabilitated through therapy and social support rather than simply punished. The success of such interventions supports the idea that behaviour can be shaped by environmental influences.
Underestimates Nature: A weakness of the nurture approach is that it may underestimate biological influences on behaviour. Research on genetics, twin studies and evolutionary psychology suggests that inherited factors contribute to many behaviours. Therefore, explanations focusing solely on environmental influences may be incomplete.
Deterministic: Nurture explanations are environmentally deterministic because they suggest behaviour is shaped by experiences and environmental influences beyond the individual’s control. This reduces the role of personal choice and responsibility. If criminal behaviour is entirely learned, are offenders responsible for their actions?
Holistic: The nurture approach is often more holistic because it considers the influence of social context, experiences and environmental factors on behaviour. This may produce a more complete understanding of human behaviour than explanations that focus solely on biological processes.

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: One limitation of the nature perspective is that it underestimates the influence that environmental experiences can have on biological structures. Evidence: Maguire et al. (2000) found that London taxi drivers had larger posterior hippocampi than a matched control group, which appeared to result from years of navigating London’s streets. Explain: This finding demonstrates brain plasticity because the environmental experience of navigation produced physical changes in the brain. Therefore, nurture can directly influence nature, suggesting biological explanations alone are incomplete. Consequence: Consequently, this weakens extreme nature explanations because behaviour cannot always be explained solely by inherited characteristics. Environmental experiences also contribute to biological development.

AO3: Point: There is research evidence supporting the nature side of the debate. Evidence:
Hilker et al. (2018) analysed data from over 30,000 twin pairs and found a concordance rate of approximately 33% for schizophrenia in monozygotic (MZ) twins, compared to around 7% for dizygotic (DZ) twins. Explain: This supports the nature side of the debate because MZ twins share 100% of their genes, whereas DZ twins share only around 50%. The substantially higher concordance rate among MZ twins suggests that genetic factors contribute significantly to the development of schizophrenia. Furthermore, the large sample size increases confidence in the reliability of the findings. Consequence: Consequently, the findings provide strong scientific support for the view that genetic inheritance influences behaviour and mental disorders. This has practical applications because it may help psychologists develop biological treatments that target underlying genetic or neurological causes. Challenge:

AO3: Point: Evidence suggests that nature and nurture are closely intertwined because genetic factors can influence environmental experiences. Evidence: Plomin identified passive and reactive gene-environment correlations, while Scarr and McCartney proposed active niche-picking, where individuals seek environments that match their genetic predispositions. Explain: These findings suggest that people do not simply experience environments passively. Instead, genetic characteristics may influence the environments people experience or choose. This demonstrates that nurture is often shaped by nature. Consequence: Consequently, nurture cannot be viewed as an entirely independent explanation of behaviour because environmental experiences are often influenced by genetic factors.

AO3: Point: Many psychologists argue that the nature-nurture debate is no longer useful because contemporary psychology adopts an interactionist approach. Evidence: Tienari et al. found that individuals with a genetic predisposition for schizophrenia were more likely to develop the disorder if they were raised in disturbed family environments. Explain: This supports the interactionist approach because neither genes nor environmental factors alone were sufficient to explain schizophrenia. Instead, behaviour resulted from the interaction of biological vulnerability and environmental stress. Consequence: Consequently, this suggests that the traditional debate presents a false dichotomy. Understanding behaviour requires consideration of both biological and environmental influences. Challenge:

AO3: Point: A potential issue with adopting an extreme nature position is that it may reduce perceptions of personal responsibility. Evidence: Brunner et al. identified a mutation of the MAOA gene, sometimes referred to as the “warrior gene”, in a family with a history of aggressive and violent behaviour. Explain: If behaviour is viewed as being determined primarily by genetic factors, individuals may be perceived as having little control over their actions. This could lead people to argue that criminal behaviour resulted from biological predispositions rather than conscious choices. Consequence: Consequently, a purely nature-based explanation could create ethical and legal difficulties concerning responsibility, blame and punishment. Challenge:

AO3: Point: One advantage of adopting an interactionist approach is that it can lead to more effective treatments. Evidence: Tarrier et al. (2000) found that individuals with schizophrenia who received CBT alongside antipsychotic medication showed greater symptom reduction than those who received medication alone. Explain: This supports the interactionist approach because the treatment targeted both biological and environmental factors. Medication addressed underlying neurochemical abnormalities, while CBT helped individuals challenge maladaptive thought patterns. Consequence: Consequently, interactionist explanations have high practical value because they can inform treatments that address multiple causes of a disorder rather than focusing on a single factor. Challenge: