THE NATURE/NURTURE DEBATE
ARE WE "BORN THIS WAY"?

Nature and Nurture are key concepts in the social sciences.
  • Nature (with an A) looks at things that are AUTOMATIC
  • Nurture (with a U) often looks at UPBRINGING
'Nature' refers to the causes of behaviour coming from within. These internal factors are often referred to as innate and usually thought of as present from birth and unchangeable
Nativists (supporters of Nature-explanations) are prepared to admit that maturation plays a role: some natural characteristics may only appear after a person has matured, such as sexual behaviour after puberty.

​However, Nativists argue that the basis for behaviour must be present internally for it to emerge after maturation.
Most babies are born with blue eyes. Their genes cause the eyes to change colour when exposed to light.
'Nurture' refers to the causes of behaviour coming from the environment. These external factors include upbringing, education and social pressure as well as culture and conditioning
Nurturists (supporters of Nurture-explanations) argue there has to be some sort of external stimulation to create behaviour.

In the past, Nurturists presented a view that human beings were "tabula rasa", a 'blank slate' onto which experiences were drawn.
A blank slate - you can write on it with a piece of chalk
The social psychology of this century reveals a major lesson: often it is not so much the kind of person a human is as the kind of situation in which he/she finds themselves that determines how they will act - Stanley Milgram (1974)
Nature and Nurture are both SCIENTIFIC approaches, but the connection between the Nature perspective and Biological Psychology strengthens its claim to be based on "scientific facts"
"Feral children" grow up without human company - either through neglect or because they are raised by animals. They illustrate just how important NURTURE is for us to be fully human
Nature and Nurture are often combined together in the concept of predispositions. A predisposition is a built-in tendency, such as a predisposition to get angry or trust strangers.

Because predispositions are built-in they come from Nature, but they don't make any difference until a person is put in an appropriate environment (Nurture) and even then they can be 'overwritten' by habit, education or experience - you can learn to control your anger, bad experiences might make you fearful of strangers.

This is sometimes called an INTERACTIONIST perspective because Nature and Nurture seem to interact, affecting each other.
Max McDowell discusses both sides of the debate

APPLYING THE NATURE/NURTURE DEBATE (AO2)
NATURE & NURTURE IN THE REAL WORLD

These two views have implications.
Both are tied in with the idea of DETERMINISM - the belief that there is no free will.

​Nature suggests everything we do is mapped out for us from birth by our innate characteristics (eg genes). This is BIOLOGICAL DETERMINISM.

This view takes support from some twin studies, especially case studies of identical twins that were separated as babies but grew up to lead strikingly similar lives.
The similarities between the Jim Twins are so mind-blowing you wonder if they are the same person
Nurture is also DETERMINIST if it suggests that everything we do is shaped by our environment which we are powerless to resist. Factors like poverty, broken homes and poor education are often blamed.

Neither nature nor nurture accepts that people make free-willed decisions of their own. For most of us, this is an unacceptable conclusion, especially because our decisions feel like they are our own, freely made, not determined in advance by biology or society.
In Alex Cox's 1984 cult movie Repo Man, Duke dies blaming society for making him a criminal but Otto is unimpressed
The two views also link to POLITICS.

In general, the political Left (Labour) favours a Nurture view that people are shaped by upbringing and social class. Left-wing politicians want to change people's social experiences to ensure that they grow up happier and healthier. This is often done through education and intervening with 'problem families'.

The political Right (Conservatives) favours a Nature view, that some people are just naturally more intelligent, ambitious or hard-working than others. Right-wing politicians feel we should recognise people's talents and not discriminate against the naturally-able. They often support Grammar schools and low taxes that enable successful earners to keep their money.

Earlier in the 20th century, Biological Psychology supported the EUGENICS MOVEMENT. This theory, influenced by evolutionary ideas, argued that characteristics like IQ, morality and law-abidingness were all strongly biological and based on race. This led to the conclusion that some races were 'biologically unfit' and that some people should not be allowed to breed.
The history of biology is littered with horrifying examples of the misuse of genetics (and evolutionary theory) to justify power and inequality: evolutionary justifications for slavery and colonialism, scientific explanations for rape and patriarchy, and genetic explanations for the inherent superiority of the ruling elite - Pankaj Mehta (2014)
One of the most controversial areas of this debate is in LGBT (lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender) rights. Activist groups like Stonewall claim that sexual orientation is present at birth, perhaps at conception; the claim is that LGBT people are "born this way". This is an important claim because it is clearly unfair to discriminate against people because of characteristics (like gender or skin colour) which are beyond their control and unchangeable. These activists often use scientific discoveries about genes or brain structure to help make their nativist case.

However, critics claim that sexual orientation is influenced by childhood experiences and social pressures. For example, homosexual behaviour is high in single-sex prisons. Some of these critics argue that, if sexual orientation is learned, it can be changed through behavioural or cognitive therapy. However, the case for so-called "gay cures" is very controversial indeed!
As usual, the interactionist view is probably right: it's a bit of both. Of course, even if some sexual orientation is learned, it's still wrong to discriminate against people
Willy Russell's musical "Blood Brothers" explores nature/nurture when twin brothers are separated at birth, one growing up with wealth and privilege but the other with hardship and prison. The tragic ending suggests determinism is at work.
In "Les Miserables", the convict Valjean is shown unexpected mercy by a priest. He looks back over the nurture that made him what he is and resolves to turn his life around - rebelling against determinism
​NATURE/NURTURE & THE KEY QUESTIONS
The Biological Key Question asks "What are the implications for society if aggression is found to be caused by nature and not by nurture?"

Nativists claim aggression is innate - it's an unchangeable part of us that is present from birth. We might be able to re-direct our aggression into something constructive (sport, business, art) but we can never get rid of it.

​Nurturists claim aggression is learned. If we can improve the circumstances in which people grow up (better parenting, tackle poverty, improve education, less violence in the media) then we can have a less violent society.

​Interactionists accept that a certain level of aggression may be unavoidable, but much can be done to reduce extreme aggression (like inner city gang violence) by improving people's environments.
The Cognitive Key Question asks, "How can psychology help treat people suffering from dementia?"

​Nativists view dementia as an illness brought about by genes that have been present your whole life; the illness is caused by the shrinking of brain structures and is unpreventable and irreversible.

Nurturists focus on how thought and memory can be stimulated by cognitive therapies, helpful schemas, familiar surroundings and freedom from distractions.

The interactionist view is that lifestyle and therapy makes a difference to dementia, but can't 100% prevent it or stop it because of the genetic component.
The Learning Key Question asks, "Is the influence of models and celebrities something that causes anorexia?"

Nativists would answer "No" to this. They would argue that eating disorders are biological illnesses, perhaps brought on by brain damage in the limbic system where appetite is based. Since anorexia often appears around the same time as puberty in girls, it may have a genetic basis and needs maturation before it can appear.

Nurturists would answer "Yes" because they think eating disorders are learned behaviours rather than biological illnesses. The question for them is whether skinny models are a bigger influence than friends and family who try to persuade the anorexic person to eat.

The interactionist view is that genes might give people a predisposition towards eating disorders, but something  in the environment is needed to trigger anorexia. For some people, skinny models might be a trigger, but not for others.
The Social Key Question asks, "How can knowledge of social psychology be used to reduce prejudice in situations such as crowd behaviour or rioting?"

Nativists take the view that crowd behaviour and rioting are rooted in our animal nature - part of the "pack mentality" we have inherited from our evolutionary ancestors. There's little that can be done about this other than breaking large groups up by force (tear gas, water cannons, etc).

Nurturists focus instead on how crowd behaviour is learned from culture and consists of prejudices and attitudes that can be challenged and changed.

The interactionist view would be that it is natural for humans to lose their sense of identity in large groups, but that whether these groups behave prosocially or antisocially is based on culture and situations, so there are things that can be done to defuse riots.
In lots of films and stories there is a "chosen one" who is BORN special - this is NATURE. Sometimes they don't like their "destiny" but they can't change it
But then there are stories where an ordinary person BECOMES special through what they experience, their childhood or their training - this is NURTURE
Yes, before any T.H. White fans pick me up on this, in "The Sword in the Stone", Arthur is both the son of Uther Pendragon and born to rule (Nature), but also trained by Merlyn to be fit to rule (Nurture). Harry Potter was born a wizard (Nature), but his scar and his link to Voldemort came about through (bad) experiences (Nurture). See? It's complicated!

EVALUATING THE APPROACHES FOR NATURE/NURTURE (AO3)
ASSESSING THE ASSUMPTIONS

Biological Approach

A strongly Nativist perspective that looks for the causes of behaviour in genes, hormones and brain structure.

Since the 1980s, Biological Psychology has increasingly come to view the brain as 'plastic' - it changes in responses to experiences.
  • Adrian Raine is very careful NOT to conclude that the NGRIs in his study were born that way; their apparent brain damage might have come about because of their experiences (eg drug abuse, violent relationships, etc).

This interactionist view suggests that while people may inherit certain predispositions towards intelligence, violence or addiction, the brain can be trained to think differently. The 'brain training' games on computers are based on a similar idea.
The Psychodynamic Approach is another rather interactionist perspective. Freud believed we have innate desires for sexual gratification and natural stages we mature through as we grow up. Because these are natural they are unchangeable and everyone experiences them in the same order.

However, our relationships with our parents are powerful external factors. These shape the effect that maturation has on us, turning each of us into a unique individual rather than a general type.
Cognitive Approach

The Cognitive Approach takes a more balanced approach. Obviously, cognitions are internal processes, but where do they come from ultimately?

Supporters of neurocognitions would argue that cognitions are shaped by chemical processes within the brain - a Nature approach. Supporters of learned cognitions would argue that cognitions are shaped by previous experiences - Nature.
It's common to combine the two, arguing that cognitions are learned from experiences but we have psychological predispositions to learn some cognitions more easily than others (eg it comes naturally to learn to favour your in-group).
Learning Approach

The Learning Approach takes a strongly Nurture-based perspective. B F Skinner and John Watson argued that all human behaviour was learned from the environment and that there are no inbuilt characteristics other than the impulse to seek pleasure and avoid pain.
Behaviourism often combines Learning with the Biological Approach to produce a more interactionist perspective. The idea of 'pleasure centres' in the brain suggests that what we find rewarding or aversive may be natural to us and might differ from one person to the next. Studies suggest that the biological children of alcoholics have inherited a tendency to experience more pleasure (and stronger reinforcement) from alcohol than the children of non-drinkers.
Social Approach

The Social Approach has always taken a strongly Nurture perspective, because it looks for the causes of behaviour in the social environment.
Studies like Milgram and Sherif suggest that individual differences like personality actually make very little difference in the presence of strong social pressures - regardless what we are like 'inside', we all behave the same way.

This leads to a view of people as passive ("sheeple" as the Internet calls us) and easily dominated by powerful leaders, peer pressure or group identity.
Some Social Psychology goes against this trend. The 'Great Man' approach to leadership explains obedience because of the charisma and drive that some leaders possess. Meredith Belbin suggests that people have a tendency to adopt certain roles within groups and that group behaviour is caused by the people in it, not the other way round.

EXEMPLAR ESSAY
How to write a 8-mark answer

Assess the studies by Raine and Milgram in terms of the nature/nurture debate. (8 marks)
  • A 8-mark “evaluate” question awards 4 marks for AO1 (Describe) and 4 marks for AO3 (Evaluate). You need a conclusion to access the top band (7-8 marks)

Description
Raine wanted to find out if there was a connection between brain structure and crime. He used PET brain scans on 41 murderers.
The brain scans were compared to a control group and showed less activity in the prefrontal cortex and corpus calossum, but more activity on the right side of the amygdala,
Milgram wanted to find out if ordinary Americans would obey orders from an authority figure to kill a helpless victim. He recruited 40 men to take part.
All of the men delivered shocks up to 300V (when the Learner fell silent) and 65% went to 450V (a fatal electric shock). Despite showing distress, they still obeyed.

Evaluation
The Raine study supports the Nativist viewpoint because it suggests that murderers have faulty brains. A malfunctioning amygdala will muddle up fear and aggression and a low-functioning prefrontal cortex will not be able to exercise self-restraint.
However, brain plasticity means the murderers may not have been bor with brains like that. They might have developed brain damage through bad life experiences.
Milgram argues that the kind of person you are is much less important than the type of social situation you are in. This supports the nurturist view.
However, Milgram admits that the Agentic State is an evolved response, which comes from Nature. Moreover, the fact that some of the participants quit the study suggests there may be individual differences based on innate things like personality.

Conclusion
Neither the nativist nor nurturist viewpoint fully explains aggression and obedience. An interactionist viewpoint is best, acknowledging that both nature and nurture have effects.

Notice that for a 8-mark answer you don’t have to include everything in this issue. I haven’t described research into personality and aggression/obedience . But I have tried to make the two halves – Description and Evaluation – evenly balanced.