NATURE – NURTURE DEBATE:
o Extent to which aspects of behaviour are due to inherited or acquired characteristics and the
contribution of each of these influences.
When writing answers, only say debate if you refer to both sides but if only 1 say nature or nurture
approach/perspective.
NATURE: NURTURE:
o Those who study this are nativists. o Those who study this are empiricists.
o Nativists like Descartes (1596-1650) argues o John Locke (1632-1704) argued the mind is
human characteristics (and some aspects a blank slate (Tabula Rasa) that learning,
of knowledge) are innate. and experiences write on
o This is due to heredity (nature) o This is due to the environment (nurture)
HEREIDTY AND THE ENVIRONMENT:
o Heredity: genetic transmission of mental and physical characteristics from one generation to
another
o Environment: influences on human behaviour that aren’t genetic, from pre-natal influence on
cultural/historical influences at a societal level.
o Relative importance of heredity and the environment: Lerner suggests environmental influences
begin as soon as we’re born (or even earlier) so it’s impossible to answer the nature-nurture
question. Both are so intertwined that it makes no sense to separate them but it’s better to study
the extent to which they influence our thoughts/behaviours. Known as interactionist approach.
INTERACTIONIST APPROACH:
o Idea nature and nurture are linked so we don’t study both separately but study how they interact
and influence each other.
o For example: attachment patterns between infants and parents. A child’s innate temperament
influences the way a parent responds wo will in turn affect the Childs behaviour, so nature
creates nurture. Heredity and the environment interact.
HERITABILITY CO-EFFICIENT:
o Contribution of nature can be measured by a heritability co-efficient.
o A No from 0-1 indicates the extent to which a characteristic is genetic (1= genetic)
o For example, IQ = 0.5 so suggests that genetics and environment are important in the
development of intelligence
EVALUATION:
IMPLICATION: DEVELOPMENT OF ARGUMENT 1:
o Extreme deterministic views by o Nurture affects nature.
nativists and empiricist have led to o Further evidence of genotype – environment
controversial research. interaction has been provided by Maguire et al
o Nativists - anatomy is destiny which (2000) where the hippocampi (spatial navigation) of
led to socially sensitive research linking taxi drivers grew in volume due to inc use, compared
race, genetics, and intelligence. E.g., to controls proving that the environment affects what
Jenson found avg IQ scores of black we’re born with
Americans were significantly lower o Epigenetics – aspects of our lifestyle like smoking
than white, arguing genetic factors and diet that leave ‘marks’ on our DNA that
were mainly responsible for IQ so led to influences our offspring genetics. This adds a 3 rd
discrimination and stereotyping in dimension to the debate. e.g., Dias conditioned rats
society. Failed to consider nurture to fear the smell of chemicals in perfume by
affecting IQ. electrocuting them as they smelled it, so the kids
o Empiricists criticised for advocating and grandkids had the same fear.
behaviour shaping techniques that o Further evidence that we can’t separate nature and
could be used to control people and nurture
society. E.g., aversion therapy where
gays were given electric shocks while
watching gay imagery to cure
, homosexuality thru association. Could
be carried to an extreme, leading to
complete control by the state for the
‘good of everyone.’
o Both positions of the debate are taken
to extremes so have negative
consequences for society, so an
interactionist approach is favoured.
DEVELOPMENT OR ARGUMENT 2: WAY TO MOVE FORWARD:
o Nature affects nurture. o Instead of defending extremist views, psychological
o Interaction between genes and researchers are interested in how both affect each
environment is elaborated by other.
constructivism. o For e.g., psychopathology – stress diathesis model -
o People create own ‘nurture’ by genetic predisposition and environmental triggers
actively selecting environments play a part in the development of mental disorders.
appropriate for their ‘nature.’ o Tienari found in a grp of Finnish adoptees, those
o For e.g., a naturally aggressive child more likely to develop schizophrenia had bio
choosing to socialise with other relatives with a history of it and dysfunctional
aggressive children. Environment relationships with their adoptive family.
affects their development. o Therefore, makes sense to say the difference
o Plomin (1994) calls this niche between
picking/building. people’s behaviour is mostly due to nature or due to
nurture, not 1
TOPIC LINKS: (Can be exp by both)
TOPIC 1: TOPIC 2: TOPIC 3:
o Mental health – OCD + o Crime o Gender
depression Nature – genes or testosterone levels Nature – results of
Nature – low serotonin = aggression chromosomes or hormonal
Nurture – life events Nurture – SLT, observation and influence
(Or phobias) imitation inc vicarious reinforcement Nurture – SLT, observation
and imitation
FREE WILL V DETERMINISM:
FREE DETERMINISM:
WILL:
o Notion o View an individual’s behaviour shaped/controlled by internal or external forces
that rather than their will to do something.
humans Hard determinism: free will not possible as behaviours due to external/internal
can make forces beyond our control (compatible with science)
choices Biological determinism: Behaviours due to biological factors e.g., genes, hormones,
that evolution that we can’t control.
aren’t Modern biopsychologists recognise mediating influence on environment on
determine biological structures – doubly determined.
d by Environmental determinism: Belief behaviours due to features of the environment
biological e.g., systems of reward/punishment we can’t control. Skinner – free will’s an illusion
or Psychic determinism: Behaviours due to unconscious conflicts and childhood
external repression we can’t control. Freud – nothing’s an accident.
forces. Soft determinism: All events, human behaviour, have causes but behaviour can also
be determined our conscious choices in the absence of coercion. There’s a
distinction between behaviour highly constrained by a situation (hard, involuntary
behaviour) and modestly constrained (soft, voluntary behaviour). For e.g., child
apologises for swearing because they’ll be punished if they dint (hard determinism)
or because they’re genuinely upset at being offensive (soft determinism). Behaviour
that’s highly constrained is easier to predict
Scientific emphasis on causal explanations:
o Science says every event has a cause that can be exp using general laws. This allows scientists to
predict/control future events.
o Use of lab experiments lets psychologists predict/control behaviour.
o Extent to which aspects of behaviour are due to inherited or acquired characteristics and the
contribution of each of these influences.
When writing answers, only say debate if you refer to both sides but if only 1 say nature or nurture
approach/perspective.
NATURE: NURTURE:
o Those who study this are nativists. o Those who study this are empiricists.
o Nativists like Descartes (1596-1650) argues o John Locke (1632-1704) argued the mind is
human characteristics (and some aspects a blank slate (Tabula Rasa) that learning,
of knowledge) are innate. and experiences write on
o This is due to heredity (nature) o This is due to the environment (nurture)
HEREIDTY AND THE ENVIRONMENT:
o Heredity: genetic transmission of mental and physical characteristics from one generation to
another
o Environment: influences on human behaviour that aren’t genetic, from pre-natal influence on
cultural/historical influences at a societal level.
o Relative importance of heredity and the environment: Lerner suggests environmental influences
begin as soon as we’re born (or even earlier) so it’s impossible to answer the nature-nurture
question. Both are so intertwined that it makes no sense to separate them but it’s better to study
the extent to which they influence our thoughts/behaviours. Known as interactionist approach.
INTERACTIONIST APPROACH:
o Idea nature and nurture are linked so we don’t study both separately but study how they interact
and influence each other.
o For example: attachment patterns between infants and parents. A child’s innate temperament
influences the way a parent responds wo will in turn affect the Childs behaviour, so nature
creates nurture. Heredity and the environment interact.
HERITABILITY CO-EFFICIENT:
o Contribution of nature can be measured by a heritability co-efficient.
o A No from 0-1 indicates the extent to which a characteristic is genetic (1= genetic)
o For example, IQ = 0.5 so suggests that genetics and environment are important in the
development of intelligence
EVALUATION:
IMPLICATION: DEVELOPMENT OF ARGUMENT 1:
o Extreme deterministic views by o Nurture affects nature.
nativists and empiricist have led to o Further evidence of genotype – environment
controversial research. interaction has been provided by Maguire et al
o Nativists - anatomy is destiny which (2000) where the hippocampi (spatial navigation) of
led to socially sensitive research linking taxi drivers grew in volume due to inc use, compared
race, genetics, and intelligence. E.g., to controls proving that the environment affects what
Jenson found avg IQ scores of black we’re born with
Americans were significantly lower o Epigenetics – aspects of our lifestyle like smoking
than white, arguing genetic factors and diet that leave ‘marks’ on our DNA that
were mainly responsible for IQ so led to influences our offspring genetics. This adds a 3 rd
discrimination and stereotyping in dimension to the debate. e.g., Dias conditioned rats
society. Failed to consider nurture to fear the smell of chemicals in perfume by
affecting IQ. electrocuting them as they smelled it, so the kids
o Empiricists criticised for advocating and grandkids had the same fear.
behaviour shaping techniques that o Further evidence that we can’t separate nature and
could be used to control people and nurture
society. E.g., aversion therapy where
gays were given electric shocks while
watching gay imagery to cure
, homosexuality thru association. Could
be carried to an extreme, leading to
complete control by the state for the
‘good of everyone.’
o Both positions of the debate are taken
to extremes so have negative
consequences for society, so an
interactionist approach is favoured.
DEVELOPMENT OR ARGUMENT 2: WAY TO MOVE FORWARD:
o Nature affects nurture. o Instead of defending extremist views, psychological
o Interaction between genes and researchers are interested in how both affect each
environment is elaborated by other.
constructivism. o For e.g., psychopathology – stress diathesis model -
o People create own ‘nurture’ by genetic predisposition and environmental triggers
actively selecting environments play a part in the development of mental disorders.
appropriate for their ‘nature.’ o Tienari found in a grp of Finnish adoptees, those
o For e.g., a naturally aggressive child more likely to develop schizophrenia had bio
choosing to socialise with other relatives with a history of it and dysfunctional
aggressive children. Environment relationships with their adoptive family.
affects their development. o Therefore, makes sense to say the difference
o Plomin (1994) calls this niche between
picking/building. people’s behaviour is mostly due to nature or due to
nurture, not 1
TOPIC LINKS: (Can be exp by both)
TOPIC 1: TOPIC 2: TOPIC 3:
o Mental health – OCD + o Crime o Gender
depression Nature – genes or testosterone levels Nature – results of
Nature – low serotonin = aggression chromosomes or hormonal
Nurture – life events Nurture – SLT, observation and influence
(Or phobias) imitation inc vicarious reinforcement Nurture – SLT, observation
and imitation
FREE WILL V DETERMINISM:
FREE DETERMINISM:
WILL:
o Notion o View an individual’s behaviour shaped/controlled by internal or external forces
that rather than their will to do something.
humans Hard determinism: free will not possible as behaviours due to external/internal
can make forces beyond our control (compatible with science)
choices Biological determinism: Behaviours due to biological factors e.g., genes, hormones,
that evolution that we can’t control.
aren’t Modern biopsychologists recognise mediating influence on environment on
determine biological structures – doubly determined.
d by Environmental determinism: Belief behaviours due to features of the environment
biological e.g., systems of reward/punishment we can’t control. Skinner – free will’s an illusion
or Psychic determinism: Behaviours due to unconscious conflicts and childhood
external repression we can’t control. Freud – nothing’s an accident.
forces. Soft determinism: All events, human behaviour, have causes but behaviour can also
be determined our conscious choices in the absence of coercion. There’s a
distinction between behaviour highly constrained by a situation (hard, involuntary
behaviour) and modestly constrained (soft, voluntary behaviour). For e.g., child
apologises for swearing because they’ll be punished if they dint (hard determinism)
or because they’re genuinely upset at being offensive (soft determinism). Behaviour
that’s highly constrained is easier to predict
Scientific emphasis on causal explanations:
o Science says every event has a cause that can be exp using general laws. This allows scientists to
predict/control future events.
o Use of lab experiments lets psychologists predict/control behaviour.
