Issues and Debates
Discuss the nature-nurture debate in psychology
The debate is about the relative importance of hereditary (nature) and environment (nurture) in determining
behaviour
Nature assumes humans are born with predispositions as a result of our biological and genetic make-up – all
behaviour is innate and inherited, e.g. Bowlby’s monotropic theory states infants have an innate ability to
make an initial attachment to one attachment figure (nativist theory)
Nurture assumes humans are born without any innate mechanisms (a tabula rasa) meaning all behaviour is a
result of learning through experiences and environment, e.g. classical conditioning states we make
associations between two things which influence our later decisions and behaviour (empiricist theory)
AO3:
There is considerable support for the idea that behaviour is innate due to concordance rates, e.g. Grottesman
and Shields found concordance rates of between 75% and 91% for identical twins with severe forms of
schizophrenia – however, there’s never 100% concordance rates, suggesting that because twins share the
same environment this also plays a part in determining behaviour – e.g. the double bind theory explains
schizophrenia from a nurture perspective – says that schizophrenics receive contradictory statements in
childhood leading them to develop schizophrenia in adulthood – this explanation suggests it’s environment
that causes schizophrenia, rather than genetics
However, it can be argued that nature affects nurture, Plomin et al identified passive influence which is when a
parent’s genes determine the infant’s environment, e.g. a parent with depression may cause the infants home
environment to be sad, making it difficult to say whether the environment or genes caused the disorder –
diathesis-stress model – child has a genetic vulnerability for e.g. depression but is only triggered because of
the sad home environment
It can also be argued that nurture affects nature e.g. Maguire et al conducted research into neural plasticity
and found that time spent as a taxi driver was positively correlated with the volume of their hippocampus –
therefore this shows that individuals environments can cause changes to their biological make up – shows two
sides of the debate can’t be separated easily
Overall the best approach is to take an interactionist stance – it’s likely that genetics give us a predisposition to
certain behaviours, but it’s moderated by the environment
Discuss free will and determinism in psychology
Debate considers whether we have control over what we do, or if all behaviour is pre-determined
Free will is the ability to behave in the way we want – our actions are voluntary and we have freedom of
choice, the humanistic approach takes the free will argument
Determinism is the idea that there is no control or choice on our actions
Biological determinism – behaviour is determined by internal influences on the body, e.g. genetics, brain
physiology and biochemistry
Environmental determinism – behaviour is determined by external influences, e.g. through classical/operant
conditioning or SLT
Psychic determinism – behaviour is determined by unconscious thought e.g. psychodynamic approach
Hard determinism – behaviour is caused entirely by predictable factors and out of your control
Soft determinism – behaviour is determined but humans also have the opportunity to exercise free will and
choose in some circumstances
AO3:
Strength of the deterministic approach is that it strengthens psychology’s claim to be a science as it establishes
cause and effect, this has led to successful treatments of mental health disorders, e.g. if we know
schizophrenia is caused by high levels of dopamine in the brain then we can assume the antipsychotic drugs
will treat all patients – however, there’s never 100% success rates for drug therapies meaning it doesn’t work
for everyone – suggests the biological explanations for schizophrenia can’t be applied to everyone – hence
criticising biological determinism as other factors must influence other schizophrenics
Criticism of the hard-deterministic approach is it gives individuals an ‘excuse’ for their behaviour – e.g. Stephen
Mobley killed a pizza shop manager and argued at his trial that he was ‘born to kill’ as evidenced by his family
history of violence – the argument was rejected – therefore a hard-deterministic stance is undesirable in
society
Discuss the nature-nurture debate in psychology
The debate is about the relative importance of hereditary (nature) and environment (nurture) in determining
behaviour
Nature assumes humans are born with predispositions as a result of our biological and genetic make-up – all
behaviour is innate and inherited, e.g. Bowlby’s monotropic theory states infants have an innate ability to
make an initial attachment to one attachment figure (nativist theory)
Nurture assumes humans are born without any innate mechanisms (a tabula rasa) meaning all behaviour is a
result of learning through experiences and environment, e.g. classical conditioning states we make
associations between two things which influence our later decisions and behaviour (empiricist theory)
AO3:
There is considerable support for the idea that behaviour is innate due to concordance rates, e.g. Grottesman
and Shields found concordance rates of between 75% and 91% for identical twins with severe forms of
schizophrenia – however, there’s never 100% concordance rates, suggesting that because twins share the
same environment this also plays a part in determining behaviour – e.g. the double bind theory explains
schizophrenia from a nurture perspective – says that schizophrenics receive contradictory statements in
childhood leading them to develop schizophrenia in adulthood – this explanation suggests it’s environment
that causes schizophrenia, rather than genetics
However, it can be argued that nature affects nurture, Plomin et al identified passive influence which is when a
parent’s genes determine the infant’s environment, e.g. a parent with depression may cause the infants home
environment to be sad, making it difficult to say whether the environment or genes caused the disorder –
diathesis-stress model – child has a genetic vulnerability for e.g. depression but is only triggered because of
the sad home environment
It can also be argued that nurture affects nature e.g. Maguire et al conducted research into neural plasticity
and found that time spent as a taxi driver was positively correlated with the volume of their hippocampus –
therefore this shows that individuals environments can cause changes to their biological make up – shows two
sides of the debate can’t be separated easily
Overall the best approach is to take an interactionist stance – it’s likely that genetics give us a predisposition to
certain behaviours, but it’s moderated by the environment
Discuss free will and determinism in psychology
Debate considers whether we have control over what we do, or if all behaviour is pre-determined
Free will is the ability to behave in the way we want – our actions are voluntary and we have freedom of
choice, the humanistic approach takes the free will argument
Determinism is the idea that there is no control or choice on our actions
Biological determinism – behaviour is determined by internal influences on the body, e.g. genetics, brain
physiology and biochemistry
Environmental determinism – behaviour is determined by external influences, e.g. through classical/operant
conditioning or SLT
Psychic determinism – behaviour is determined by unconscious thought e.g. psychodynamic approach
Hard determinism – behaviour is caused entirely by predictable factors and out of your control
Soft determinism – behaviour is determined but humans also have the opportunity to exercise free will and
choose in some circumstances
AO3:
Strength of the deterministic approach is that it strengthens psychology’s claim to be a science as it establishes
cause and effect, this has led to successful treatments of mental health disorders, e.g. if we know
schizophrenia is caused by high levels of dopamine in the brain then we can assume the antipsychotic drugs
will treat all patients – however, there’s never 100% success rates for drug therapies meaning it doesn’t work
for everyone – suggests the biological explanations for schizophrenia can’t be applied to everyone – hence
criticising biological determinism as other factors must influence other schizophrenics
Criticism of the hard-deterministic approach is it gives individuals an ‘excuse’ for their behaviour – e.g. Stephen
Mobley killed a pizza shop manager and argued at his trial that he was ‘born to kill’ as evidenced by his family
history of violence – the argument was rejected – therefore a hard-deterministic stance is undesirable in
society
