Debates & Issues : Nature-Nurture Debate Flashcards
What is the nature-nature debate?
A debate over whether behaviours should be explained with reference to environmental factors or heredity.
What is an example of both sides of the nature-nature debate?
— Explanations for the development of language.
— The behaviourists described people as blank slates and therefore explained how behaviours like language are learnt through our environment.
— This was criticised by Chomsky who argued that the capacity for language is biologically determined.
What is Heredity?
— Refers to inherited characteristics or genes.
— It is better to reframe the nature-nurture debate as the relative importance of heredity and the environment as it acknowledges that both nature and nurture are involved.
How do researchers investigate the importance of nature-nurture?
The primary method to produce data was Twin Studies. The process of this consists of :
1. Recruitment
2. Measurement
3. Analysis
4. Interpretation
How does the interactionist approach challenge the simplistic assumptions of the nature-nurture debate?
According to the interactionist approach, psychological traits arise from an interaction between nature and nurture. An example of an interactionist explanation is the diathesis-stress model’s
explanation for OCD. According to the model, a person’s genetic inheritance creates an initial vulnerability (e.g., the person inherits the SERT and COMT gene from their parents) and this then interacts with stressors in the environment (e.g., a traumatic event) to trigger the onset of OCD. This presents a challenge to the nature-nurture debate as it challenged the simplistic assumption that a trait can be explained with reference to nature or nurture alone. If the interactionist approach is correct then the nature-nurture debate is pointless as nature and nurture always work together to create our psychological traits, meaning the debate is meaningless as its like trying to debate which is more important to the area of a rectangle : its width or its length. Variations of interactionist explanations provide additional illustration for the complexity of how nature and nurture interact, challenging the simplistic assumptions of the debate. In Plomin’s (1977) concept of active gene-environment
interaction, a person’s heredity influences their choice of environment, which in turn influences
their behaviour. For example, a child with an inherited aggressive temperament may seek out violent entertainment, which nurtures their aggressive personality. y. This shows how environmental
factors influencing behaviour can be shaped by genetics, demonstrating the inseparable influences
of nature and nurture. Thus, it is unreasonable to debate whether a trait is solely the result of nature or nurture.
How is the use of twin studies to investigate the relative importance of heredity and the environment debate problematic?
Twin studies depend on the assumption that environmental influences act upon monozygotic (MZ) and dizygotic (DZ) twins in same way. This assumption implies that because the only variable distinguishing MZ and DZ twins is their genetic similarity, any differences between them can be explained by heredity. But this assumption may be unrealistic. Critics have argued that because MZ twins look identical,
people in their environment will tend to treat them more alike than they would treat non-identical
dizygotic twins. Consequently, it may be difficult to say whether similarities in the behaviour of MZ
twins is due to their similar genetic profile or their similar upbringing. This means that it may not be
possible to use twin studies to conduct research into the relative importance of heredity and the
environment/nature-nurture debate. Despite this objection, twin studies do appear to be a valid way of studying the genetic basis of behaviour. There are rare cases where DZ twins do look identical. However, these “pseudo MZ twins” (meaning they look like MZ twins but aren’t actually MZ) do not tend to have higher concordance rates than typical DZ twins, indicating that being viewed as identical has little significant impact on concordance rates. Therefore, twin studies may still provide a valid way of investigating the nature-nurture debate/relative importance of heredity and the environment.
How the research that supports either side of the nature- nurture debate is socially sensitive?
According to Siber and Stanley, research is socially sensitive if it has the potential to cause
harmful social consequences. There is potential for such harm on both sides of the nature-nurture
debate. For example, Behaviorist claims that the need to attach is a learned response rather than an innate need
encouraged harmful parenting styles where children were raised without adequate
affection. Conversely, Bowlby’s assertions about the innate need for maternal bonding
contributed to the stigmatization of working mothers who were perceived as being unable to continuously meet this need. This example illustrate that claims on either side of the nature-nurture debate have the potential
for harmful social consequences. This might lead to the conclusion that researchers should therefore
avoiding engaging with this controversial debate. However, engaging in the controversial naturenurture debate can also bring social benefits as, for example, researchers might help inform
evidence based public policies or challenge the evidence base for harmful stereotypes. If researchers
do become involved in the nature-nurture debate, they should follow the advice of Sieber and
Stanley when approaching socially sensitive topics. For example, they might need to carefully
consider the framing of their research question (including whether the question should even be
asked), and also be mindful of potential misinterpretations of their findings.
