nature versus nurture

• The interactionist approach provides a more comprehensive understanding of human behavior by emphasizing that nature and nurture are not mutually exclusive. For example, the diathesis-stress model explains mental health disorders as the result of genetic predispositions (nature) interacting with environmental stressors (nurture).
• Research by Tienari et al. (2004) supports this, showing that children with a genetic risk for schizophrenia were more likely to develop the disorder if they were raised in dysfunctional family environments. This demonstrates the importance of considering both genetic and environmental factors, as neither alone can fully account for complex human behaviors. Thus, the interactionist approach bridges the gap between the two sides of the debate and enhances the validity of psychological explanations.
• Support for the nature side of the debate comes from research in behavioral genetics, such as twin studies. gottsman et al. (1990) found that monozygotic twins showed a high concordance rate for schizophrenia suggesting a strong genetic influence. However, the fact that the concordance rate was not 100% indicates that environmental factors also play a role.
• Critics argue that such studies often fail to account for shared prenatal environments, which may confound the results. Furthermore, the reductionist focus on genetic influences risks oversimplifying complex behaviors, such as intelligence, which are likely influenced by multiple interacting factors. While nature undeniably plays a significant role, it is insufficient to explain behavior in isolation.
• On the nurture side, studies such as Bandura's (1961) research on social learning highlight the role of environmental influences. Bandura demonstrated that children exposed to aggressive role models were more likely to imitate aggressive behaviors, supporting the idea that behavior can be shaped by environmental factors.
• However, this research has been criticized for its artificial setting, which may limit ecological validity. Additionally, it does not account for individual differences, such as a child's temperament, which could influence their likelihood of imitating behavior. Despite these limitations, the study emphasizes how environmental factors, particularly social learning, can shape behavior, supporting the importance of nurture in the debate.
• The nature versus nurture debate also carries significant ethical implications. A strong emphasis on nature can lead to biological determinism, which risks promoting ideas of genetic inferiority and may justify discriminatory practices. For example, the historical misuse of genetic theories in eugenics demonstrates the dangers of overly deterministic views.
• Conversely, a nurture-only perspective might place undue blame on parents or caregivers for developmental issues, ignoring biological factors outside their control. A balanced approach, acknowledging the interplay of both influences, is ethically preferable as it avoids such extreme and potentially harmful conclusions.
• One strength of the nature vs nurture debate is that it acknowledges the complexity of human behavior by recognizing that nature and nurture often interact rather than operate in isolation. For example, the diathesis-stress model illustrates how genetic predispositions (nature) may be triggered by environmental stressors (nurture), leading to the development of psychological disorders like depression. This model shows that purely biological explanations are insufficient without considering environmental factors
• . Research into epigenetics provides further support for this interaction, revealing how environmental experiences can influence gene expression. For instance, Caspi et al. (2003) found that individuals with a particular variant of the MAOA gene were more likely to develop antisocial behavior, but only if they experienced childhood maltreatment. Therefore, this evidence highlights that simplistic nature vs nurture arguments are inadequate and that a more holistic approach is necessary when explaining human behavior.
• Another strength of the nature and nurture debate is its practical implications for treatment and intervention. Understanding the influence of both genetic and environmental factors can lead to more effective treatments tailored to individual needs.
• For example, if a psychological disorder like schizophrenia has a strong genetic component, early intervention programs can be developed for individuals with a family history of the disorder, potentially preventing the onset of symptoms. On the other hand, if environmental factors such as trauma are key, therapeutic interventions like cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) can be prioritized
• Furthermore, behavioral therapies grounded in the nurture side of the debate, such as systematic desensitization for phobias, demonstrate the value of learning-based interventions. Therefore, by integrating both biological and environmental approaches, psychologists can create more comprehensive treatment plans, benefitting individuals with a range of mental health conditions.
• nativists believe our behaviour is pre-determined by nature. Nativists believe our behaviour is explained by heredity – i.e. inherited biological characteristics such as genetics.
• , empiricists believe humans are born as blank slates with no innate nature. So, because humans don’t come with any pre-programmed traits or nature, any behaviour must be learned from the environment.
• The interactionist approach lies somewhere between the two: Our genetic nature predisposes us towards some behaviours more than others, but how these genes are expressed is often dependent on environment.
• epigenetics

  efers to how your behaviors and environment can cause changes that affect the way your genes work