Nature vs Nurture in Psychology (Issues and Debates)
The Nature-Nurture Debate
THE NATURE-NURTURE DEBATE is concerned with the extent to which aspects of behaviour are a product of inherited or acquired characteristics.
NATURE:
Nativists argued that human characteristics – and even some aspects of knowledge – are innate: the result of heredity.
Nativists argued that human characteristics – and even some aspects of knowledge – are innate: the result of heredity.
NURTURE:
Empiricists argued that the mind is a ‘blank slate’ at birth upon which learning and experience writes: the result of the environment.
Empiricists argued that the mind is a ‘blank slate’ at birth upon which learning and experience writes: the result of the environment.
THE HERITABILITY COEFFICIENT is used to assess heredity. It
is a numerical figure ranging from 0 to 1 which indicates the extent to which a
characteristic has a genetic basis (1 = entirely genetically determined). The
general figure for heritability in IQ is around 0.5 suggesting that both genetics
and the environment are important factors in intelligence.
HEREDITY is the genetic transmission of mental and physical
characteristics from one generations to another.
“The relative
importance of heredity and environment…”
THE INTERACTIONIST APPROACH
This is the idea that nature and nurture are linked to such an extent that it does not make sense to separate the two. Instead, researchers study how they interact and influence each other.
DIATHESIS STRESS MODEL
This model suggests that psychopathology is caused by a biological/genetic vulnerability which is only expressed when coupled with an environmental ‘trigger’.
Tiernari et al (2014) found that adopted children from
families with SZ had more chance of developing the illness than children from
“normal” families: this supports a genetic link.
However, those children from families with SZ were less likely to develop the illness if placed in a ‘good’ family with kind relationships, empathy, security ect, suggesting that environment does play a part in triggering the illness.
However, those children from families with SZ were less likely to develop the illness if placed in a ‘good’ family with kind relationships, empathy, security ect, suggesting that environment does play a part in triggering the illness.
LINKS TO OTHER TOPICS
Cognition and Development:
Piaget argued that the stages of development a child goes through are innate.
This supports the nativist argument. However, he did acknowledge the role of
the environment and that the child needed to interact with its surroundings to
develop properly. This would make Piaget’s viewpoint interactionist. Vygotsky,
because of his emphasis on cultural influence and social interactions, takes a
more empiricist (nurture) stance.
Schizophrenia:
Genetic influences on Schizophrenia support the nativists’ argument as it
supports the view that SZ is part of an individual’s genetic make-up. Theories
such as the family dysfunction theory, however, provide evidence for the
nurture viewpoint as they stress the importance of the environment in the
development of SZ.
Forensic
Psychology: Genetic explanations for offending behaviour are nativist
arguments whereas the psychological theories (such as hostile attribution bias
and cognitive distortions) all suggest environmental influences.
EVALUATION
P: Implications of empiricism
E: Empiricists would suggest that behaviour can be changed by altering environmental conditions. This has lead to the development of therapies – eg. Behavioural Shaping (desirable behaviours are selectively reinforced and undesirable behaviours are punished or ignored).
E: This means that the nurture stance has led to useful practical applications and therefore provides support for the nurture outlook.
E: Empiricists would suggest that behaviour can be changed by altering environmental conditions. This has lead to the development of therapies – eg. Behavioural Shaping (desirable behaviours are selectively reinforced and undesirable behaviours are punished or ignored).
E: This means that the nurture stance has led to useful practical applications and therefore provides support for the nurture outlook.
P: The notion of interactionism is further elaborated by
constructivism.
E: They state that people create their own ‘nurture’ by actively selecting environments that are appropriate for their ‘nature’. For example, a naturally aggressive child will feel more comfortable around other children displaying similar behaviours and so they ‘choose’ their environment accordingly. This environment then affects their development.
E: Plomin (1994) refers to this as niche-picking and niche-building – which is further evidence to support the interactionist outlook, as it suggests that it is impossible and illogical to try and separate nature and nurture influences on the child’s behaviour.
E: They state that people create their own ‘nurture’ by actively selecting environments that are appropriate for their ‘nature’. For example, a naturally aggressive child will feel more comfortable around other children displaying similar behaviours and so they ‘choose’ their environment accordingly. This environment then affects their development.
E: Plomin (1994) refers to this as niche-picking and niche-building – which is further evidence to support the interactionist outlook, as it suggests that it is impossible and illogical to try and separate nature and nurture influences on the child’s behaviour.
P: A strong commitment to either a nature or nurture
position corresponds to a belief in hard determinism
E: The nativist perspective would suggest that “anatomy is destiny” (biological determinism), whereas empiricists would argue that interaction with the environment is determinant of behaviour (environmental determinism)
E: Hard determinism carries many weakness – specifically linking to our legal system: for example, nativists would suggest that our behaviour is completely innate and uncontrollable – how can we therefore hold someone morally responsible for their actions if it’s just the product of inherited genes?
E: The nativist perspective would suggest that “anatomy is destiny” (biological determinism), whereas empiricists would argue that interaction with the environment is determinant of behaviour (environmental determinism)
E: Hard determinism carries many weakness – specifically linking to our legal system: for example, nativists would suggest that our behaviour is completely innate and uncontrollable – how can we therefore hold someone morally responsible for their actions if it’s just the product of inherited genes?
Comments
Post a Comment