H567/02 Section B - Nature, nurture and individual or situational explanations

Nature, nurture and interaction

An extreme nature position treats development as largely determined by inherited potential; an extreme nurture position treats environmental learning as the main source of differences. An interactionist position explains development through the way biological characteristics and experience work together. A predisposition may be expressed differently in different environments, and experience may change biological functioning.

“Biological” does not automatically mean “inherited”. A brain difference could reflect previous learning, injury or maturation as well as genes. Likewise, a behaviour appearing early in life is not sufficient evidence that it is innate: early experience has already occurred. Researchers need designs that distinguish plausible explanations rather than simply attach labels to findings.

Consider a child who learns to copy an adult's words. The language environment supplies experience, while sensory and neural capacities make learning possible. Saying that both are involved becomes a useful explanation only when the proposed interaction is specified: for example, which experience affects which developing capacity. “Half nature, half nurture” invents a numerical division unless relevant evidence establishes it.

What the research supports

Bandura, Ross and Ross (1961) exposed nursery children to an aggressive adult model, a non-aggressive model or no model. Children who watched aggression later reproduced more of the model's distinctive physical and verbal acts in a separate play setting. Matching groups on prior aggression and controlling the demonstration strengthened the explanation in terms of observational learning. This supports nurture because changing experience changed subsequent behaviour. It does not show that every form of aggression is learned, or that imitation of a doll predicts lasting violence towards people. The 1961 procedure did not directly reward the model or child; do not describe it as an experiment manipulating vicarious reinforcement. Original study.

Blakemore and Cooper (1970) raised kittens with early exposure restricted to horizontal or vertical stripes. Later visual behaviour and cortical cell responses favoured the experienced orientation. The finding links environmental input to a developing biological system: nurture changes the expression of visual capacities, rather than replacing biology. Controlled exposure supports an experience–response link, but abnormal rearing and an animal sample limit generalisation to ordinary human development. The neural recordings described in the preliminary report involved two cats; a precise total behavioural sample should not be invented. OCR overview, original report, pp477–478.

Compulsory mental-health research offers a different source of evidence. Gottesman et al. (2010) used Danish registers to compare offspring's psychiatric admissions with parental diagnoses. Schizophrenia risk was higher with two affected parents than one or neither. This is consistent with inherited vulnerability, but relatives also share aspects of environment; parental diagnosis was not randomly allocated. Admission records measure diagnosed, treated cases, not all experiences of symptoms. Risk was not certainty, even in the highest-risk group. Thus an association supporting nature does not eliminate nurture. OCR mental-health research guide, pp15–16.

The studies illustrate developmental, biological and mental-health themes. Alternative placements can be defensible: Bandura examines development through social learning; Blakemore and Cooper uses biological measurement to investigate experience. Explain the feature supporting the placement rather than claim a study can belong to only one area.

Applications and links to other debates

A nurture account of imitation suggests demonstrating calm conflict resolution in schools. Staff could model specific respectful responses during disagreements and give pupils opportunities to practise. The proposed mechanism is observing and reproducing behaviour. Bandura provides a reason to test this intervention, but his aggression study did not establish the success of a particular school programme.

A nature account of familial vulnerability suggests offering informed support to families with a history of mental disorder. Risk information should be communicated as probability, with privacy and voluntary choice protected. It should not be used to label a child as destined to become ill. An interactionist application combines recognition of vulnerability with attention to support, stress and learning opportunities. This is a proposal informed by the pattern, not a treatment trial conducted by Gottesman.