Nature vs nurture debate
Firstly, the interactionist approach suggests that it is not really a debate because all
characteristics combine nature and nurture (even eye colour is only .80 heritable). For
example attachment can be explained in terms of quality of parental love or child’s
temperament which is to do with the interaction of environment and heredity.
According to the diathesis-stress model behaviour is caused by a biological/environmental
vulnerability (diathesis) which is only expressed when coupled with a
biological/environmental trigger (stressor). For example, a person who inherits a genetic
vulnerability for may not develop the disorder. But, combined with a psychological trigger
(e.g. a traumatic experience) this may result in the disorder appearing.
Furthermore, epigenetic is a change in genetic activity without changing the genetic code.
For example, lifestyle events and choices that we make such as smoking, diet, trauma, and
war leave ‘marks’ on our DNA (genes) – switching genes on or off. This has a lifelong
influence and can be passed on to future generations.
The key concepts of the debate are to do with the fact that early nativists argued that
human characteristics are innate – the result of our genes. Psychological characteristics (e.g.
intelligence or personality are determined by biological factors, just like eye colour height
(in favour of nature). However, empiricists argued the mind is bank slate at birth and is
shaped by interaction with the environment e.g. the behaviourist approach. Lerner
identified different levels of the environment such as prenatal terms, e.g. a mothers life
choices like smoking or hearing music and postnatal experiences, e.g. the social conditions
and the environment that a child grows up in.
Another important factor of the nature vs nurture debate is measuring nature and nurture.
The definition of concordance is the degree to which two people are similar on a particular
trait. And heritability is to do with the proportion of differences between individuals in a
population, with regards to a particular trait, due to genes 0.01 (1%) is very little contribute,
1.0 (100%) means genes are the only reason. The figure for heritability in IQ is about 0.5.
One strength in nature-nurture research is adoption studies. If adoption children are more
similar to their adoptive parents, suggest environmental influence, if more similar to
biological parents, suggests genetic influence. Rhee and Waldman found in a meta-analysis
of adoption studies that genetic influences accounted for 41% of variance in aggression. This
shows how research can separate nature and nurture influences.
Another strength of the nature-nurture debate is support for epigenetics. In 1944, the Nazis
blocked the distribution of food to the Dutch people and 22,000 died of starvation (the
Dutch Hunger Winter). Susser and Lin found that women who became pregnant during the
famine had low birth weight babies who were twice as likely to develop schizophrenia. This
suggest that the life experiences of previous generations can leave epigenetic ‘markers’ that
influence the health of their offspring.
Firstly, the interactionist approach suggests that it is not really a debate because all
characteristics combine nature and nurture (even eye colour is only .80 heritable). For
example attachment can be explained in terms of quality of parental love or child’s
temperament which is to do with the interaction of environment and heredity.
According to the diathesis-stress model behaviour is caused by a biological/environmental
vulnerability (diathesis) which is only expressed when coupled with a
biological/environmental trigger (stressor). For example, a person who inherits a genetic
vulnerability for may not develop the disorder. But, combined with a psychological trigger
(e.g. a traumatic experience) this may result in the disorder appearing.
Furthermore, epigenetic is a change in genetic activity without changing the genetic code.
For example, lifestyle events and choices that we make such as smoking, diet, trauma, and
war leave ‘marks’ on our DNA (genes) – switching genes on or off. This has a lifelong
influence and can be passed on to future generations.
The key concepts of the debate are to do with the fact that early nativists argued that
human characteristics are innate – the result of our genes. Psychological characteristics (e.g.
intelligence or personality are determined by biological factors, just like eye colour height
(in favour of nature). However, empiricists argued the mind is bank slate at birth and is
shaped by interaction with the environment e.g. the behaviourist approach. Lerner
identified different levels of the environment such as prenatal terms, e.g. a mothers life
choices like smoking or hearing music and postnatal experiences, e.g. the social conditions
and the environment that a child grows up in.
Another important factor of the nature vs nurture debate is measuring nature and nurture.
The definition of concordance is the degree to which two people are similar on a particular
trait. And heritability is to do with the proportion of differences between individuals in a
population, with regards to a particular trait, due to genes 0.01 (1%) is very little contribute,
1.0 (100%) means genes are the only reason. The figure for heritability in IQ is about 0.5.
One strength in nature-nurture research is adoption studies. If adoption children are more
similar to their adoptive parents, suggest environmental influence, if more similar to
biological parents, suggests genetic influence. Rhee and Waldman found in a meta-analysis
of adoption studies that genetic influences accounted for 41% of variance in aggression. This
shows how research can separate nature and nurture influences.
Another strength of the nature-nurture debate is support for epigenetics. In 1944, the Nazis
blocked the distribution of food to the Dutch people and 22,000 died of starvation (the
Dutch Hunger Winter). Susser and Lin found that women who became pregnant during the
famine had low birth weight babies who were twice as likely to develop schizophrenia. This
suggest that the life experiences of previous generations can leave epigenetic ‘markers’ that
influence the health of their offspring.
