Nature-Nurture Methods

11 Key excerpts on "Nature-Nurture Methods"

• 

  eBook - PDF

  21st Century Psychology: A Reference Handbook

  • Stephen F. Davis, William Buskist, Stephen F. Davis, William F. Buskist(Authors)
  • 2007(Publication Date)
  • SAGE Publications, Inc

    (Publisher)

  Furthermore, policy makers must remember that science (including psychology) is a field of study that attempts to provide more and more accurate knowledge over time. So, current conclusions regarding the influence of nature and nurture will change over time as our knowledge gets better. This means that applications should also be changed as scientific knowledge improves; hence, policy makers need to remain knowledgeable concerning the constantly changing conclusions in the nature versus nurture debate. 78 • DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY SUMMARY The nature versus nurture debate has a long history in Western philosophy and modern psychology. The debate is relevant to many different areas of study in psychol-ogy, including intelligence, giftedness, sexual orientation, personality, and mental illness. Today, most psychologists take an interactionist approach that views both nature and nurture as being important in development. However, some researchers still emphasize either nature or nurture as being the key component that determines a psychological trait. Many psychological researchers will continue to use tried-and-true research methods such as twin and adoption studies to examine the nature/nurture issue; however, future genetic research will identify more genes that influence behavioral and psychological phenomena. Future research on environ-mental factors will focus on the importance of nonshared environments and how different children in the same family might experience the same environmental stimulus in dif-ferent ways, thus having a very different influence on their development. Research findings regarding nature and nur-ture will continue to be among the most applicable aspects of psychological studies, but they will likely also remain among the most politically volatile issues in the field. REFERENCES AND FURTHER READINGS Burdon, R. H. (1999). Genes and environment . Philadelphia: Taylor and Francis.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Nature and Nurture

  The Complex Interplay of Genetic and Environmental Influences on Human Behavior and Development

  • Cynthia Garcia Coll, Elaine L. Bearer, Richard M. Lerner, Cynthia Garcia Coll, Elaine L. Bearer, Richard M. Lerner(Authors)
  • 2014(Publication Date)
  • Taylor & Francis

    (Publisher)

  Few areas of inquiry have captivated the entire realm of social sciences like the nature versus nurture debate. Investigating the impact of genetic and environmental influences on human development, and the processes involved in mediating these influences, poses perhaps the most fundamental question we can ask about human nature. The nature–nurture question continues to gamer attention, and with the swift progress of the Human Genome Project, interest in this issue will only grow.

  Historically, the intellectual battleground between hereditarians and environmentalists spanned a variety of academic disciplines, including psychology, sociology, and anthropology, along with professional realms such as education and medicine. The primary debate, in the eyes of the public, was whether nature or nurture was responsible for a given outcome. In later years, the focus shifted from contention to cooperation; rather than asking whether genetic or environmental factors determine a given outcome, researchers recognized the importance of both (Plomin, 1996). Although still often misunderstood by the public, the realization that both heredity and environment play a role in practically all human behavior superseded myopic notions such as genetic determinism or strict environmentalism. Thus, through methods such as twin and adoption studies, behavioral geneticists began to study the relative impact of heredity and environment on human behavior (see Plomin, DeFries, McClearn, & McGuffin, 2001).

  Social scientists have also recognized, however, that the calculation of heritabilities for traits and the partitioning of variance into genetic and environmental components—the traditional domain of behavioral genetics—is of limited value (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994; Turkheimer, 1998). While it may be useful to know, the determination of how much variance is accounted for by genetic and environmental factors does not reveal how the two interact to yield developmental outcomes. The ultimate nature–nurture question, as originally posed by Anastasi (1958) and restated by Bronfenbrenner and Ceci (1993), is not, “How much?”— but rather, “How?”

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Early Childhood and Neuroscience

  Theory, Research and Implications for Practice

  • Mine Conkbayir(Author)
  • 2017(Publication Date)
  • Bloomsbury Academic

    (Publisher)

  Beyond Nature versus Nurture 99 What is the nature versus nurture debate? The answers to the mystery of human development in relation to the nature versus nurture debate vary enormously and depend on a range of influ -ences. Nativists (supporters of the nature side of the argument) believe that aspects of human development such as intelligence and personality are determined by genetic make-up. Empiricists (supporters of the nurture side of the argument), however, believe that these are acquired (i.e. learned). Empiricists such as John Locke popularized the Latin phrase tabula rasa (meaning ‘blank slate’), conveying the idea that the child’s mind is a blank canvas on which the adult can inscribe knowledge and experience. Noam Chomsky’s Language Acquisition Device (1965) is just one example of the nativist perspective of human development. He believed that the ability to understand and reproduce language was innate in all humans due to an existing mental capacity and the requisite vocal mechanisms. Theoretically, this of course makes perfect sense: a baby observes her parent and upon babbling or cooing back, they praise her and engage with her to further encourage her communication, and so the proto-conversations develop. Pause for thought 1 Why do you think the nature versus nurture debate is part of the early childhood discourse? 2 Some people believe that the prenatal environment is nature, while others view it as nurture. What do you think and why? 3a Do you think that characteristics are mainly determined by nature or nurture? 3b Do you think it is possible to answer this question definitively? Explain the reason for your answer. 4 Do you think it is important to distinguish whether characteristics are determined by nature or nurture? Please explain your answer. Some people put pre-natal environment in nature but others count that as nurture.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Discovering Psychology

  The Science of Mind

  • John Cacioppo, Laura Freberg(Authors)
  • 2015(Publication Date)
  • Cengage Learning EMEA

    (Publisher)

  Credit for describing the contrast between heredity and environment as “na-ture versus nurture” usually goes to scholar Francis Galton (1869), who was Charles Darwin’s cousin. Galton believed that intelligence was largely the result of inheritance, a topic we tackle in Chapter 10. Over the next 150 years or so, many thinkers engaged in a highly spirited debate on this question. As we will see in Chapter 10, contemporary psychologists view intelligence as another example of an outcome shaped by both genetic inheritance and environment. We can say with some certainty that the either–or approach to human behavior has pro-duced some of the most contentious discussions in the history of psychology. Our motive for arguing in favor of the intertwined approach to nature and nurture is intended not to sidestep difficult questions but rather to support good science. By zooming out to integrate a number of perspectives, both biological and experiential, we reach a more accurate understanding of these questions. Ridley (2003) summarizes the need for an integrated nature–nurture approach as follows: Genes are not puppet masters or blueprints. Nor are they just the carriers of heredity. They are active during life; they switch each other on and off; they respond to the envi-ronment. They may direct the construction of the body and brain in the womb, but then they set about dismantling and rebuilding what they have made almost at once—in re-sponse to experience. They are both cause and consequence of our actions. (p. 6) What Are the Building Blocks of Behavior? Before we explore the interactions between nature and nurture that contribute to psychologi-cal phenomena, like a person’s reactions to being bullied, let’s look at the genetic mechanisms that help shape the mind.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Concepts and Theories of Human Development

  • Richard M. Lerner(Author)
  • 2018(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  This issue pertains to the source of human behavior and development. Simply, a question is raised about where behavior and development come from. In its most extreme form the issue pertains to whether behavior and development derive from nature (or in modern terms, heredity, maturation, or genes) or, at the other extreme, whether behavior and development derive from nurture (or in more modern terms, environment, experience, or learning). However, whatever terms are used, the issue raises questions about how inborn, intrinsic, native, or in short, nature characteristics (for example, genes) may contribute to development and/or, in turn, how acquired, socialized, environmental, experienced, or in short, nurture characteristics (for example, stimulus–response connections, education, or socialization) may play a role in development. Table 3.1 lists some terms used in regard to nature and nurture contributions, respectively. The separation, or split, between nature and nurture illustrated in the table reflects a key distinction made by philosophers and scientists about the bases of human development. The separation between nature and nurture is an exemplar of the tendency in modern thought about human development to approach the study of people with concepts that reflect conceptual “splits.” That is, realities about development are discussed or debated in either-or terms. I noted in Chapters 1 and 2 that such bifurcation of concepts of development can be traced in modern philosophy at least to the ideas of the seventeenth-century philosopher, René Descartes. The study of human development has been a field wherein fundamental conceptual issues have been framed traditionally as Cartesian splits (Overton, 2015a)

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Human Development in the Twenty-First Century

  Visionary Ideas from Systems Scientists

  • Alan Fogel, Barbara J. King, Stuart G. Shanker(Authors)
  • 2007(Publication Date)
  • Cambridge University Press

    (Publisher)

  It is regrettable that many people continue to receive the message that various psychological and biological traits are genetic, as we now know that traits or characters cannot possibly be predicted by factors solely within the genes (or within the environment for that matter). Under- standing the fallacy of the nature vs. nurture dichotomy can con- structively redirect our thoughts about such basic human issues as reproduction, parenting, and education. While it is still common to hear about the genetic basis of sexual orientation, personality, intelligence, or learning disabilities, there is growing consensus within the biological and psychological sciences that genetic and environmental factors always coact to contribute to any trait development. So, while specific genes and their products certainly contributed to James’s blond hair, blue eyes, and tall stature, as well as his athletic ability and tempera- ment, so did a wealth of non-genetic factors. These include cellular, hormonal, dietary, and social factors, to name but a few. Appreciating that genetic factors are necessary but not sufficient to explain the var- ieties of human development and behavior helps to expand our per- spective and points to the importance of identifying the essential resources of normal, healthy development. Defining and providing these resources should be an essential priority for all families, com- munities, and societies. S U G G E S T E D R E A D I N G S Coen, E. (1999). The art of genes: how organisms make themselves. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gilbert, S. F. (2000). Developmental biology (6th edn.). Sunderland, MA: Sinauer. Gottlieb, G., D. Wahlsten, and R. Lickliter (2006). The significance of biology for human development: a developmental psychobiological systems view. In W. Damon (series ed.) and R. Lerner (vol. ed.), Handbook of child psychology, vol. 1: theoretical models of human development (6th edn., pp. 210–257).

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Cognitive Gadgets

  The Cultural Evolution of Thinking

  • Cecilia Heyes(Author)
  • 2018(Publication Date)
  • Belknap Press

    (Publisher)

  Nonetheless, those who are skeptical about contrasting nature with nurture, and innate with acquired characteristics, have empha-sized two genuine and complementary dangers. On the one hand, ef-forts to explain development run the risk of being overwhelmed by the sheer multifactorial complexity of developmental systems. Unless we have good reasons to distinguish some contributors as more impor-tant than others, explanations of development, like Lewis Carroll’s fictional map with a scale of one mile to one mile, will be too unwieldy to provide insight or a basis for intervention. On the other hand, in our eforts to simplify, producing a map that selectively represents the important features of the developmental terrain, we must be careful not to privilege some factors over others arbitrarily. This happened often in the behavioral sciences of the twentieth century. As the pendulum swung from instinct theory (Kuo, 1922) to behaviorism (Watson, 1930), and back again to High Church evolutionary psy-chology, via classical ethology (Lorenz, 1965; Tinbergen, 1963) and sociobiology (Wilson, 1975), behavioral scientists first privileged in-herited factors, then focused on environmental influences, and finally put the genes back in the ascendant. These historical changes were not whimsical. For example, the rise of behaviorism was fostered by political pressure for educational reform in the United States, and its decline was accelerated by Chomsky’s critique of Skinner’s theory of language. But it would be hard to argue that these historical shifts 26 C O G N I T I V E G A D G E T S were wholly rational responses to new empirical discoveries, or to better ways of thinking about the interplay between inherited and en-vironmental factors in cognitive development. They were more like Gestalt switches, in which scientists looking at cognitive development sometimes saw a duck of inheritance, and sometimes a rabbit of en-vironmental control (Figure 2.1; Kuhn, 1962).

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  An Introduction to Genetics for Language Scientists

  Current Concepts, Methods, and Findings

  • Dan Dediu(Author)
  • 2015(Publication Date)
  • Cambridge University Press

    (Publisher)

  2 Nature, nurture, and heritability In this chapter we approach, at a fairly abstract level, the fundamental questions concerning the relationships between the phenotype (the observable properties of individuals), the genotype and the environment. We discuss the paramount impor- tance of variation in studying these relationships and we define, estimate and discuss the meanings and misinterpretations of heritability. Far from being a simple concept, heritability will turn out to have some non-intuitive properties that make the interpretation of heritability estimates quite a tricky exercise. Likewise, we will discover that, in fact, all the related concepts and distinctions, such as innate and acquired, or nature and nurture, are fuzzy and far from their apparent clarity in every- day discourse. We will end with a very brief survey of heritability studies in speech and language. This chapter also introduces several fundamental concepts of statistics that are necessary for a proper understanding of many topics covered in this book. 2.1 Phenotype, genotype and environment It is unquestionable that both “nature” and “nurture” are required for the development of a linguistic human being. Lacking “nature” will limit lan- guage development no matter how much “nurture” there might be, as many a pet owner can easily confirm. This is seemingly supported by studies of chimps (such as Nim Chimpsky and Washoe) reared in conditions similar to those experienced by human babies and infants, but which nevertheless fail to go beyond a rather limited level of language usage. On the other hand, having “nature” but lacking “nurture” is equally devastating, as shown by the cases of children who, for various reasons, have not been exposed to language during the so-called critical period for language acquisition (a well- known case being Genie) and who fail to develop full-blown language despite considerable efforts. 7

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Adult Development and Aging

  Biopsychosocial Perspectives

  • Susan K. Whitbourne, Stacey B. Whitbourne(Authors)
  • 2020(Publication Date)
  • Wiley

    (Publisher)

  46 Models of Development: Nature and Nurture in Adulthood Finally, in looking at perspectives on the aging pro- cess that derive from the social sciences, it is important to keep in mind the central role of biological factors. These factors form the ‘‘nature’’ component to the com- plex ‘‘nature–nurture’’ interactions assumed to characterize development in the adult years. Clearly, all three models must be brought to bear in attempting to understand the complexities of nature and nurture. SUMMARY 1. The life-span perspective views development as contin- uous from childhood to old age and incorporates the effects of sex, race, ethnicity, social class, religion, and culture. The term ‘‘developmental science’’ is emerging to reflect the need to take a broad, interdisciplinary approach to the study of change over time, including the fields of biology, health, and sociology. 2. The three prominent models of developmental science offer differing emphasis on genetics, the environment, and the interaction of the two. The organismic model proposes that heredity drives the course of development throughout life and that changes occur in a series of stages over time because individuals are programmed to exhibit behaviors at certain ages. The mechanistic model proposes that people’s behavior changes grad- ually over time, shaped by the outside forces that cause them to adapt to their environments. Rather than clear-cut stages, development is viewed as a smooth, continuous set of gradations as the individual acquires new experiences. The interactionist model of devel- opment emphasizes processes such as niche-picking, in which there is a reciprocal interaction between the individual and the environment. The concepts of multi- dimensionality and multidirectionality are central, and plasticity is considered an important element of devel- opment. The biopsychosocial perspective fits within the interactionist model.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Psychology

  Modules for Active Learning

  • Dennis Coon, John Mitterer, Tanya Martini, , Dennis Coon, John Mitterer, Tanya Martini, (Authors)
  • 2021(Publication Date)
  • Cengage Learning EMEA

    (Publisher)

  Environment (“nurture”) refers to the sum of all external conditions that affect a person. Although the intrauterine (interior of the womb) environment is highly protected, environmental conditions can even affect the developing child. For example, Twins who share identical genes (identical twins) demonstrate the powerful influence of heredity. Even when they are reared apart, identical twins are strikingly alike in motor skills, physical development, and appearance. At the same time, identical twins are never completely identical and are less alike as adults than they were as children, showing that environmental influences are at work (Freberg, 2021; Larsson, Larsson, & Lichtenstein, 2004). Cultura Creative (RF)/Alamy Stock Photo Sugar -phosphate bac kbone Organic bases Nucleus Chromosome DNA Cell ➤ Figure 12.1 DNA. (Top left) Linked molecules (organic bases) make up the rungs on DNA’s twisted molecular ladder. The order of these molecules serves as a code for genetic information. The code provides a genetic blueprint that is unique for each individual (except identical twins). The drawing shows only a small section of a DNA strand. An entire strand of DNA is composed of billions of smaller molecules. (Bottom left) The nucleus of each cell in the body contains chromosomes made up of tightly wound coils of DNA. Father’s genes Brown-eyed mother Brown-eyed father Mother’s genes Brown-eyed child Brown-eyed child Brown-eyed child Blue-eyed child ➤ Figure 12.2 Expression of single gene characteristics. Gene patterns for children of brown-eyed parents, where each parent has one brown-eye gene and one blue-eye gene. Because the brown-eye gene is dominant, one child in four will be blue-eyed. Thus, there is a significant chance that two brown-eyed parents will have a blue-eyed child. Heredity (“nature”) The transmission of physical and psychological characteristics from parents to offspring through genes.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Models of Man

  Philosophical Thoughts on Social Action

  • Martin Hollis(Author)
  • 2015(Publication Date)
  • Cambridge University Press

    (Publisher)

  However, the question as to whether the nature of the causal bond excludes all chance is not thereby settled. (The Rules, Chapter 5.) We now have the makings of a standard debate. Homo sociologicus and homo psychologicus are both plastic creatures, in the sense that their behav- iour is the product of antecedent factors which operate in a law-like way. The point of debate is whether the key factors are social or psychological. In either case, there is no threat to freedom but it is for debate whether an assumption of determinism leaves the old teaser open or settles it by reconciliation. Science is agreed to be a search for causal laws but the nature of the causal bond is for debate. I shall take up these points here and in the next chapter. But, since they are familiar fare, I shall stress what I think crucial about them, that they beg the most basic questions of human nature and scientific explanation. Asked to choose between nature and nurture, we are no doubt inclined to have both. But the crucial point is that we are entitled to say, ‘Neither’. 20 nature and nurture To conduct a cosy dispute between nature and nurture, we set out for a compromise by driving the extremes together. How does homo psychologi- cus account for the different forms which an allegedly uniform human nature takes in different places and times? Variety and development surely depend on externals. Natural environment no doubt plays a part – life in a desert full of oil differs from life in a tundra full of bears. But there is surely a social factor too – ‘the actual behaviour of individuals towards one another is unintelligible unless one views their behaviour in terms of their status and roles, and the concepts of status and role are devoid of meaning unless one interprets them in terms of the organisation to which the individuals belong’.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book