You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
The nature-nurture debate asks whether our behaviour and psychological characteristics arise primarily from biological inheritance (nature) or from environmental influence (nurture). It is among the oldest questions in the discipline, but the modern consensus has moved decisively away from an either/or contest towards an interactionist position: nature and nurture are so entangled that the more interesting question is no longer which matters but how the two interact. The AQA specification requires you to understand the heredity-environment distinction, the interactionist approach, and the more sophisticated concepts that have largely dissolved the old dichotomy — epigenetics and gene-environment interactions and correlations — and to evaluate examples drawn from across the course.
Key Definition: Nature refers to the influence of genes, heredity, evolution and other biological factors on behaviour and psychological characteristics — what is innate.
Key Definition: Nurture refers to the influence of experience, learning, socialisation, upbringing and culture — what is acquired through the environment.
This lesson covers the nature-nurture strand of the AQA 7182 Paper 3 Issues and Debates topic. You are required to understand the relative importance of heredity and environment; the interactionist approach; and the way the debate has been transformed by epigenetics and by the idea of gene-environment interaction. These are AO1 concepts, but the marks come from applying them to material you already know — the genetic and learning-theory explanations of attachment, the biological and social-learning explanations of aggression, and especially the diathesis-stress account of schizophrenia, depression and phobias in the psychopathology topic — and then evaluating the debate (AO3). The topic is inherently synoptic and overlaps the free will and determinism debate (nature and nurture are both deterministic) and the holism-reductionism debate. A recurring examiner theme is that the strongest conclusion is interactionism: a top answer treats nature-versus-nurture as a false dichotomy and explains, with mechanisms such as epigenetics, why the two cannot be cleanly separated.
The nature position holds that behaviour is substantially shaped by inherited biological factors: genes (the DNA we inherit), evolution (behaviours that aided survival and reproduction being naturally selected, such as attachment, fear responses and mate preferences), and neurochemistry and hormones (serotonin, dopamine, testosterone and cortisol shaping mood and behaviour). The empirical engine of this position is behavioural genetics, which uses twin and adoption designs to estimate the genetic contribution to a trait.
Twin studies compare monozygotic (MZ) twins (genetically identical) with dizygotic (DZ) twins (sharing about 50% of their segregating genes). If MZ pairs are more concordant for a trait than DZ pairs, a genetic influence is inferred. Gottesman and Shields (1966) reported substantially higher MZ than DZ concordance for schizophrenia — but, crucially, the MZ concordance was well below 100%, which by itself proves that genes are not the whole story: identical genomes do not guarantee identical outcomes, so environment must also contribute.
Adoption studies disentangle genes from rearing environment by comparing adopted children with both their biological and adoptive relatives: greater resemblance to biological relatives implies a genetic influence even when those relatives did not provide the upbringing. Plomin's behavioural-genetic research programme has been central in establishing that a wide range of psychological traits — intelligence, personality, psychopathology — show meaningful heritability, while also insisting that heritability is never total.
The nurture position holds that behaviour is built by experience. The clearest expression is behaviourism: classical conditioning (Pavlov, Watson — learning by association), operant conditioning (Skinner — learning through reinforcement and punishment) and social learning (Bandura — learning by observation and imitation). To these the broader environment adds socialisation (acquiring the norms and values of one's group) and culture, whose power is shown by cross-cultural variation in conformity, attachment classifications and definitions of abnormality.
The strong form of nurture is the tabula rasa ("blank slate") view. Watson (1924) captured it in his famous boast that, given a dozen healthy infants and a free hand, he could train any one of them to become any kind of specialist — doctor, lawyer or thief — regardless of their inherited talents. Behaviourism's practical successes (systematic desensitisation, token economies) demonstrate that the environment really can shape behaviour, but the strong claim that biology is irrelevant is contradicted by the twin and adoption evidence above.
Key Definition: Heritability is a statistical estimate of the proportion of the variation in a trait within a population that can be attributed to genetic differences between individuals. It does not describe how much of an individual's trait is "due to" genes.
Heritability is the single most misunderstood concept in this topic, and using it precisely is a quick route to credit. Three points matter. First, estimates vary by trait — intelligence, for example, yields heritability estimates in the region of 50%, meaning roughly half of the variation in IQ scores across a population is associated with genetic differences. Second, a heritability of 50% does not mean half of your intelligence is genetic; the statistic is about population variance, not individual causation. Third, heritability is population- and context-specific: it can change across environments and historical periods. Counter-intuitively, equalising the environment (so everyone has the same schooling) tends to raise heritability, because the remaining variation must then be more genetic — which neatly shows why heritability cannot be read as the fixed "weight" of nature.
Modern psychology treats nature-versus-nurture as a false dichotomy: outside the laboratory, the two are practically inseparable, and the interesting science lies in their interplay.
Key Definition: The diathesis-stress model proposes that psychopathology arises from the interaction of a genetic or biological predisposition (the diathesis) with an environmental trigger (the stress). Neither alone is sufficient: the vulnerability must be activated by experience.
This is the dominant framework in the psychopathology topic and the clearest worked example of interactionism on the course:
| Disorder | Diathesis (nature) | Stress (nurture) |
|---|---|---|
| Schizophrenia | Polygenic vulnerability | Stressful life events, childhood trauma, urban upbringing, high expressed emotion |
| Depression | Genetic vulnerability (e.g. serotonin-system genes) | Adverse childhood experiences, loss, relationship breakdown |
| Phobias | Genetic predisposition to anxiety | A traumatic conditioning event (diathesis sets the biological preparedness to acquire fear) |
The model explains a fact that pure nature cannot: why two people with the same genetic risk can have different outcomes — the disorder appears only when an environmental trigger meets the predisposition.
A further reason the two cannot be separated is that genes and environments are themselves correlated — people's genotypes help shape the environments they encounter. Three forms are usually distinguished:
| Type | Mechanism | Illustration |
|---|---|---|
| Passive | Parents pass on both genes and a matching environment | Musically inclined parents give a child both relevant genes and a musical home |
| Evocative | The child's heritable traits evoke responses from others | A naturally sociable infant elicits more warm interaction, amplifying sociability |
| Active ("niche-picking") | The individual seeks out environments fitting their disposition | A child predisposed to be active chooses sport, strengthening the trait |
These correlations mean that a measured "environmental" effect may partly reflect genes, and vice versa — which is exactly why a clean nature/nurture split is impossible.
Key Definition: Epigenetics refers to changes in gene expression — which genes are switched on or off — produced by environmental factors without any change to the underlying DNA sequence. Some epigenetic marks can persist and even be passed to the next generation.
Epigenetics provides the mechanism that makes interactionism biologically concrete: the environment does not merely act alongside the genes, it reaches in and regulates them.
Meaney's research on maternal care in rats is the standard illustration. Rat pups reared by mothers showing high licking-and-grooming (LG) behaviour developed, in adulthood, calmer stress responses and better learning than pups of low-LG mothers. Cross-fostering showed the effect to be environmental rather than inherited: pups born to low-LG mothers but raised by high-LG mothers acquired the calm profile. The mechanism was epigenetic — maternal care altered the expression (via DNA methylation) of a gene governing the stress response. The same genome thus produced different phenotypes depending on early experience, which is interactionism in a single experiment. The caveat, as always, is caution in generalising from rats to humans, but the principle reframes the whole debate.
Two further ideas deepen the interactionist case and are worth carrying into an essay.
The first is the constructivist view, which holds that people are not passive recipients of their environment but actively construct their own "nurture." Because of the active gene-environment correlation ("niche-picking") introduced above, an individual's genetically influenced dispositions lead them to select, create and attend to particular experiences — the bookish child gravitates to the library, the athletic child to the field — which then shape development further. This blurs the nature/nurture line in a particularly deep way: the "environment" that appears to mould a person is, in part, an environment that person's nature led them to choose. Nature and nurture are therefore not two separate inputs but a feedback loop in which each continually reshapes the other across the lifespan.
The second concerns how the debate should now be phrased. Because the interactionist evidence shows the two influences to be entangled, the modern question is not the old, crude "which matters more, nature or nurture?" — a question that the gene-environment data render close to meaningless — but rather "how do nature and nurture interact, and through what mechanisms?" Reframing the question in this way is itself an AO1/AO3 hinge: it signals that you understand why the dichotomy collapsed, and it sets up interactionism as the only coherent destination rather than a hedge.
| Framing of the debate | Underlying assumption | Verdict of modern evidence |
|---|---|---|
| "Nature vs nurture" | The two are separable, competing causes | Rejected — they are entangled (epigenetics, rGE) |
| "Nature and nurture" (additive) | Both contribute, as separate percentages | Improved, but still treats them as independent |
| "Nature through nurture" (interactionist) | The two are mechanistically interdependent | The defensible modern position |
Exam Tip: Stating, early in an essay, that the contemporary question is "how do they interact?" rather than "which matters more?" is a high-level framing move that immediately orients the whole answer towards the interactionist conclusion the examiner is looking for.
Nature-nurture runs through every topic, and a strong answer ranges across the course:
Twin and adoption studies provide consistent evidence for a genetic contribution, which establishes that nature cannot be ignored. Across many traits, MZ concordance and biological-relative resemblance exceed what shared environment alone would predict, and this pattern recurs in independent samples. The implication is that any purely environmental ("blank slate") account is untenable: the data force at least a partial role for heredity. However, the same studies set the limit of the nature position, because concordances fall well short of 100% — so the evidence simultaneously refutes strong nurture and strong nature, which is itself an argument for interactionism rather than for either pole.
Twin-study methodology is open to challenge, which means heritability estimates should be read cautiously. The logic of twin studies rests on the equal environments assumption — that MZ and DZ pairs share their environments to the same degree — yet MZ twins are often treated more alike (dressed similarly, expected to share interests), so some of the "extra" MZ similarity may be environmental rather than genetic. The implication is that heritability estimates may be inflated, and that a finding of high concordance is consistent with environmental as well as genetic interpretations. This is why the most defensible reading of twin data is that genes contribute, not that they determine, and it again pushes towards interactionism.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.