nature vs nature 16 marker

Question 1

Implications of the debate

Answer 1

Nativists suggest that ‘anatomy is destiny’ in that our genetic makeup determines our characteristics and behaviour, with little environmental input. This extreme determinist stance has led to controversy, such as linking ethnicity, genetics and intelligence and the application of eugenics policies (see evaluation point on ethnic stereotyping on page 97). This was the approach used by Hitler and the Nazis: the application of the Darwinian principle of selective breeding to create a so-called ‘master race’ and remove those regarded as inferior from the gene pool.

In contrast – but also controversially – empiricists suggest that any behaviour can be changed by altering environmental conditions. Behaviour shaping, a behaviourist concept, has had practical application in therapy. Desirable behaviours are selectively reinforced, and undesirable behaviours are punished or ignored (see ‘Aversion therapy’ on page 370). In extreme terms, this may lead one to advocate a model of society that controls and manipulates its citizens using these techniques. This is similar to the kind of dystopia that George Orwell was writing about in his influential novel ‘1984’ where a malevolent authoritarian government exerts systematic control of our behaviour, movements and thoughts (the ‘thought police’).

This suggests that both positions, taken to extremes, may have negative consequences for society so a moderate, interactionist position is preferred

Question 2

Evaluation
Adoption studies

Answer 2

One strength of research into the nature-nurture debate is the use of adoption studies.
Adoption studies are useful because they separate the competing influences of nature and nurture. If adopted children are found to be more similar to their adoptive parents, this suggests the environment is the bigger influence. Whereas, if adopted children are more similar to their biological parents (no influence on their environment), then genetic factors are presumed to dominate. A meta-analysis of adoption studies by Soo Rhee and Irwin Waldman (2002) found that genetic influences accounted for 41% of the variance in aggression (see page 294).
This shows how research can separate the influences of nature and nurture.

Question 3

Counterpoint

Answer 3

However, research suggests that this approach may be misguided, that nature and nurture are not two entities that can simply be pulled apart. According to Robert Plomin (1994) people create their own ‘nurture’ by actively selecting environments that are appropriate for their nature. Thus, a naturally aggressive child is likely to feel more comfortable with children who ‘show similar behaviours and will choose their environment accordingly. Then, their chosen companions further influence their development. Plomin refers to this as niche-picking.
This suggests that it does not make sense to look at evidence of either nature or nurture

Question 4

Finenetics

Answer 4

Another strength of the debate is support for epigenetics.
One example of how environmental effects can span generations presumably through epigenetic effects comes from events of the Second World War. In 1944, the Nazis blocked the distribution of food to the Dutch people and 22,000 died of starvation, in what becamame the Dutch Hunger Winter. Ezra Susser and Shang Lin
(1992) report that women who became pregnant during the famine went on to have low birth weight babies. Whilst this may be unsurprising, what is more interesting is that these babies were twice as likely to develop schizophrenia when they grew up compared to more typical population rates.
This supports the view that the life experiences of previous generations can leave epigenetic ‘markers” that influence the health of their offspring.

Question 5

Real-world application

Answer 5

A further strength of the nature-nurture debate is that it has real-world application.
Research suggests that OCD is a highly heritable mental disorder. For example
Gerald Nestadt et al. (2010) put the heritability rate at .76. Such understanding can inform genetic counselling because it is important to understand that high heritability does not mean it is inevitable that the individual will go on to develop the disorder.
This means that people who have a high genetic risk of OCD because of their family background can receive advice about the likelihood of developing the disorder and how they might prevent this (e.g. learn to manage stress).
This shows that the debate is not just a theoretical one but that it is important, at a practical level, to understand the interaction between nature and nurture.