Nature Vs Nurture Flashcards
Outline nature vs nurture (6 marks)
The nature nurture debate is the discussion as to whether our behaviour is due to nature such as genes or nurture such as the environment. Researchers now discuss the relative contribution of nature and nurture in behaviour. Nature suggests that nativists argue for the role of heredity. This argues
that human behaviour and characteristics is due to innate factors through inheritance of genes. For example, Bowlby argues babies are biologically prepared to form attachment through social releasers. Nurture suggests that empiricists argue that we are born a a blank slate. Our behaviour is shaped by learning and experience from our environment. For example, attachment can be learnt through classical conditioning by associating the pleasure with food & the feeder. The interactionist approach takes a stance between the extreme nature and extreme nurture debate. It argues that both genetics and the environment play a part in human behaviour.
Outline the interactionist approach (4 marks)
The interactionist approach takes a stance between the extreme nature and extreme nurture debate. It argues that both genetics and the environment play a part in human behaviour. Interactionist argue that we can be born with a genetic predisposition to a behaviour but environment can influence this such as intelligence. We are born able to reach a certain level of intelligence but whether this is reached depends on environment such as diet and education quality.
Discuss nature vs nurture (3 X AO3)
The nature side of the debate cannot be a full explanation of human behaviour; this is because if genes were 100% the sole cause of a behaviour, MZ twins who share 100% of their genes should have 100% concordance rates. However, this is not the case for example in the biological explanation of schizophrenia concordance rates for MZ twins are only 48%. Therefore, there must be other factors that affect human behaviour such as the environment and our experiences.
A more appropriate view when explaining human behaviour may be the interactionist approach. This would argue that genetics give us a predisposition to certain behaviours and that our genetics are then influenced by our environment and experiences. For example, Tienari found that in a group of Finnish adoptees those most likely to develop schizophrenia (sz) had biological relatives with sz and had dysfunctional relationships with their adoptive families. Therefore, showing both sides of the debate, nature and nurture, impacted on the likelihood that an individual developed schizophrenia, supporting the idea of interactionism.
When looking at the topic of addiction, the idea of genetic vulnerability being a risk factor in addiction supports the nativist view point that our behaviours are inherited from our biological parents, however other risk factors in the development of addiction such as stress, peers and family influence are controlled by the environment supporting the nurture position of the debate. As all factors can be a risk it seems that an interactionist approach which takes into account nature and nurture would be more appropriate to explain addiction.
