Nature Vs. nurture
Nature = view that beh is product of innate biological / genetic factors
Heredity = genetic inheritance - process in which traits passed down from 1 generation to next
Nurture = view that beh product of environmental influences
Environment = everything outside body which includes ppl , events + physical world
Interactionist approach = view that both nature + nurture work tog to shape human beh
Nature
● Bowlby - children come into world biologically programmed to form a bc help survive - monotropy
● Suggest a behav naturally selected + passed on as result of genetic inheritance (heredity mechanisms)
● Behaviour = a
● Cause = innate / biological factors
Nurture
● Behavioural psych - expl a in classical conditioning, food (UCS) associ with mother (NS), repeated
pairings, mother becomes CS who elicits CR in child. Child forms a based on pleasure exp as result of
fed
● Behaviour = a
● Cause = classical conditioning (learning - enviro)
Interactionist approach
● Genetic disorder - PKU - caused: inheritance of 2 recessive genes. Ppl unable to break down amino
acid phenylalanine builds up in blood + brain causes mental retardation
● If child with PKU placed on low protein diet for 1st 12 yrs, avoid serious lifelong disorder
● Disorder PKU = nature - not expressed bc of altered enviro (low protein diet - nurture)
What is meant by ‘nature-nurture debate’ ? [2]
➔ Nature is the view that beh is product of innate biological / genetic factors and nurture is the view
that beh is product of environmental influences. The nature versus nurture debate centres on the
relative contributions of genetic inheritance (nature) and environmental factors (nurture) of human
beh.
Researchers used Maths GCSE results of identical + non-identical twins to assess Maths ability. If twins had
similar results, then said to be concordant. Results of experiment shown in graph. What can you conclude
from the graph in relation to the nature-nurture debate? [4]
➔ Results of graph partly support nature side of nature-nurture debate. This is because the concordance
rate of MZ twins (65%) is significantly higher than the DZ twins (18%) which suggest that beh is partly
attributed to nature bc MZ twins share 100% genetic relatedness + have significantly stronger
concordance rate. More genes share with someone, more likely ability the same.
➔ However, the results also highlight the role of nurture, as the concordance rate is not 100% (it’s only
65%), suggesting that other environmental factors also play role in Maths ability.
Nature = view that beh is product of innate biological / genetic factors
Heredity = genetic inheritance - process in which traits passed down from 1 generation to next
Nurture = view that beh product of environmental influences
Environment = everything outside body which includes ppl , events + physical world
Interactionist approach = view that both nature + nurture work tog to shape human beh
Nature
● Bowlby - children come into world biologically programmed to form a bc help survive - monotropy
● Suggest a behav naturally selected + passed on as result of genetic inheritance (heredity mechanisms)
● Behaviour = a
● Cause = innate / biological factors
Nurture
● Behavioural psych - expl a in classical conditioning, food (UCS) associ with mother (NS), repeated
pairings, mother becomes CS who elicits CR in child. Child forms a based on pleasure exp as result of
fed
● Behaviour = a
● Cause = classical conditioning (learning - enviro)
Interactionist approach
● Genetic disorder - PKU - caused: inheritance of 2 recessive genes. Ppl unable to break down amino
acid phenylalanine builds up in blood + brain causes mental retardation
● If child with PKU placed on low protein diet for 1st 12 yrs, avoid serious lifelong disorder
● Disorder PKU = nature - not expressed bc of altered enviro (low protein diet - nurture)
What is meant by ‘nature-nurture debate’ ? [2]
➔ Nature is the view that beh is product of innate biological / genetic factors and nurture is the view
that beh is product of environmental influences. The nature versus nurture debate centres on the
relative contributions of genetic inheritance (nature) and environmental factors (nurture) of human
beh.
Researchers used Maths GCSE results of identical + non-identical twins to assess Maths ability. If twins had
similar results, then said to be concordant. Results of experiment shown in graph. What can you conclude
from the graph in relation to the nature-nurture debate? [4]
➔ Results of graph partly support nature side of nature-nurture debate. This is because the concordance
rate of MZ twins (65%) is significantly higher than the DZ twins (18%) which suggest that beh is partly
attributed to nature bc MZ twins share 100% genetic relatedness + have significantly stronger
concordance rate. More genes share with someone, more likely ability the same.
➔ However, the results also highlight the role of nurture, as the concordance rate is not 100% (it’s only
65%), suggesting that other environmental factors also play role in Maths ability.
