2.3: The nature-nurture debate

Question 1

Discuss the nature-nurture debate.

Refer to two topics you have studied in psychology in your answer (16 marks)

Answer 1

Nativists such as philosopher Rene Descartes support the nature argument.
Descartes claimed that personality, intelligence, abnormality and even elements of knowledge are innate.
They are the result of heredity

Question 2

Discuss the nature-nurture debate.
Refer to two topics you have studied in psychology in your answer (16 marks).
Nativists such as philosopher Rene Descartes support the nature argument.
Descartes claimed that personality, intelligence, abnormality and even elements of knowledge are innate.
They are the result of heredity.

Answer 2

Nativists claim that anatomy is destiny, meaning that our behaviour and characteristics are genetically determined.
This is a deterministic view

Question 3

Discuss the nature-nurture debate.
Refer to two topics you have studied in psychology in your answer (16 marks).
Nativists such as philosopher Rene Descartes support the nature argument.
Descartes claimed that personality, intelligence, abnormality and even elements of knowledge are innate.
They are the result of heredity.
Nativists claim that anatomy is destiny, meaning that our behaviour and characteristics are genetically determined.
This is a deterministic view.

Answer 3

Empiricists such as philosopher John Locke support the nurture argument.
Locke claimed that at birth, the mind is a blank slate and experiences, environmental factors and learning shape what we become.
This is one of the assumptions of the behaviourist approach and learning theory, which supports the idea that personality and intelligence are the result of environmental factors

Question 4

Discuss the nature-nurture debate.
Refer to two topics you have studied in psychology in your answer (16 marks).
Nativists such as philosopher Rene Descartes support the nature argument.
Descartes claimed that personality, intelligence, abnormality and even elements of knowledge are innate.
They are the result of heredity.
Nativists claim that anatomy is destiny, meaning that our behaviour and characteristics are genetically determined.
This is a deterministic view.

Empiricists such as philosopher John Locke support the nurture argument.
Locke claimed that at birth, the mind is a blank slate and experiences, environmental factors and learning shape what we become.
This is one of the assumptions of the behaviourist approach and learning theory, which supports the idea that personality and intelligence are the result of environmental factors.

First AO3 PEEL paragraph

Answer 4

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the nature argument

Question 5

Discuss the nature-nurture debate.
Refer to two topics you have studied in psychology in your answer (16 marks).
Nativists such as philosopher Rene Descartes support the nature argument.
Descartes claimed that personality, intelligence, abnormality and even elements of knowledge are innate.
They are the result of heredity.
Nativists claim that anatomy is destiny, meaning that our behaviour and characteristics are genetically determined.
This is a deterministic view.

Empiricists such as philosopher John Locke support the nurture argument.
Locke claimed that at birth, the mind is a blank slate and experiences, environmental factors and learning shape what we become.
This is one of the assumptions of the behaviourist approach and learning theory, which supports the idea that personality and intelligence are the result of environmental factors.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the nature argument.
Example

Answer 5

For example, Martin Seligman’s preparedness theory of phobias is that humans are biologically prepared to learn to fear objects and situations that threatened the survival of the species throughout its evolutionary history.
Biological preparedness is said to be responsible for individuals having phobias related to survival such as the fear of snakes and spiders

Question 6

Discuss the nature-nurture debate.
Refer to two topics you have studied in psychology in your answer (16 marks).
Nativists such as philosopher Rene Descartes support the nature argument.
Descartes claimed that personality, intelligence, abnormality and even elements of knowledge are innate.
They are the result of heredity.
Nativists claim that anatomy is destiny, meaning that our behaviour and characteristics are genetically determined.
This is a deterministic view.

Empiricists such as philosopher John Locke support the nurture argument.
Locke claimed that at birth, the mind is a blank slate and experiences, environmental factors and learning shape what we become.
This is one of the assumptions of the behaviourist approach and learning theory, which supports the idea that personality and intelligence are the result of environmental factors.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the nature argument.
For example, Martin Seligman’s preparedness theory of phobias is that humans are biologically prepared to learn to fear objects and situations that threatened the survival of the species throughout its evolutionary history.
Biological preparedness is said to be responsible for individuals having phobias related to survival such as the fear of snakes and spiders.

Answer 6

Our ancestors developed genes of fear for objects that were harmful to them and passed them down to us, so we are more ‘prepared’ to fear them over objects that were not harmful to them in the past.
The idea of preparedness also explains why we do not easily learn fears of modern things that are potentially dangerous, such as cars or knives

Question 7

Discuss the nature-nurture debate.
Refer to two topics you have studied in psychology in your answer (16 marks).
Nativists such as philosopher Rene Descartes support the nature argument.
Descartes claimed that personality, intelligence, abnormality and even elements of knowledge are innate.
They are the result of heredity.
Nativists claim that anatomy is destiny, meaning that our behaviour and characteristics are genetically determined.
This is a deterministic view.

Empiricists such as philosopher John Locke support the nurture argument.
Locke claimed that at birth, the mind is a blank slate and experiences, environmental factors and learning shape what we become.
This is one of the assumptions of the behaviourist approach and learning theory, which supports the idea that personality and intelligence are the result of environmental factors.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the nature argument.
For example, Martin Seligman’s preparedness theory of phobias is that humans are biologically prepared to learn to fear objects and situations that threatened the survival of the species throughout its evolutionary history.
Biological preparedness is said to be responsible for individuals having phobias related to survival such as the fear of snakes and spiders.
Our ancestors developed genes of fear for objects that were harmful to them and passed them down to us, so we are more ‘prepared’ to fear them over objects that were not harmful to them in the past.
The idea of preparedness also explains why we do not easily learn fears of modern things that are potentially dangerous, such as cars or knives.

Answer 7

This shows that the nature argument is valid

Question 8

Discuss the nature-nurture debate.
Refer to two topics you have studied in psychology in your answer (16 marks).
Nativists such as philosopher Rene Descartes support the nature argument.
Descartes claimed that personality, intelligence, abnormality and even elements of knowledge are innate.
They are the result of heredity.
Nativists claim that anatomy is destiny, meaning that our behaviour and characteristics are genetically determined.
This is a deterministic view.

Empiricists such as philosopher John Locke support the nurture argument.
Locke claimed that at birth, the mind is a blank slate and experiences, environmental factors and learning shape what we become.
This is one of the assumptions of the behaviourist approach and learning theory, which supports the idea that personality and intelligence are the result of environmental factors.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the nature argument.
For example, Martin Seligman’s preparedness theory of phobias is that humans are biologically prepared to learn to fear objects and situations that threatened the survival of the species throughout its evolutionary history.
Biological preparedness is said to be responsible for individuals having phobias related to survival such as the fear of snakes and spiders.
Our ancestors developed genes of fear for objects that were harmful to them and passed them down to us, so we are more ‘prepared’ to fear them over objects that were not harmful to them in the past.
The idea of preparedness also explains why we do not easily learn fears of modern things that are potentially dangerous, such as cars or knives.
This shows that the nature argument is valid.

Second AO3 PEEL paragraph

Answer 8

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that despite this, a weakness of the nature argument is that extreme deterministic theories have led to controversial researchers trying to link race, genetics and IQ in their theories of eugenics

Question 9

Discuss the nature-nurture debate.
Refer to two topics you have studied in psychology in your answer (16 marks).
Nativists such as philosopher Rene Descartes support the nature argument.
Descartes claimed that personality, intelligence, abnormality and even elements of knowledge are innate.
They are the result of heredity.
Nativists claim that anatomy is destiny, meaning that our behaviour and characteristics are genetically determined.
This is a deterministic view.

Empiricists such as philosopher John Locke support the nurture argument.
Locke claimed that at birth, the mind is a blank slate and experiences, environmental factors and learning shape what we become.
This is one of the assumptions of the behaviourist approach and learning theory, which supports the idea that personality and intelligence are the result of environmental factors.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the nature argument.
For example, Martin Seligman’s preparedness theory of phobias is that humans are biologically prepared to learn to fear objects and situations that threatened the survival of the species throughout its evolutionary history.
Biological preparedness is said to be responsible for individuals having phobias related to survival such as the fear of snakes and spiders.
Our ancestors developed genes of fear for objects that were harmful to them and passed them down to us, so we are more ‘prepared’ to fear them over objects that were not harmful to them in the past.
The idea of preparedness also explains why we do not easily learn fears of modern things that are potentially dangerous, such as cars or knives.
This shows that the nature argument is valid.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that despite this, a weakness of the nature argument is that extreme deterministic theories have led to controversial researchers trying to link race, genetics and IQ in their theories of eugenics.
Example

Answer 9

For example, Henry Goddard (1917) described Russians, Jews, Hungarians and Italians as 'feeble-minded' based on IQ tests of immigrants.
William Shockley (1952) blamed genetics for the low IQ test scores of Black Americans compared to White Americans

Question 10

Discuss the nature-nurture debate.
Refer to two topics you have studied in psychology in your answer (16 marks).
Nativists such as philosopher Rene Descartes support the nature argument.
Descartes claimed that personality, intelligence, abnormality and even elements of knowledge are innate.
They are the result of heredity.
Nativists claim that anatomy is destiny, meaning that our behaviour and characteristics are genetically determined.
This is a deterministic view.

Empiricists such as philosopher John Locke support the nurture argument.
Locke claimed that at birth, the mind is a blank slate and experiences, environmental factors and learning shape what we become.
This is one of the assumptions of the behaviourist approach and learning theory, which supports the idea that personality and intelligence are the result of environmental factors.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the nature argument.
For example, Martin Seligman’s preparedness theory of phobias is that humans are biologically prepared to learn to fear objects and situations that threatened the survival of the species throughout its evolutionary history.
Biological preparedness is said to be responsible for individuals having phobias related to survival such as the fear of snakes and spiders.
Our ancestors developed genes of fear for objects that were harmful to them and passed them down to us, so we are more ‘prepared’ to fear them over objects that were not harmful to them in the past.
The idea of preparedness also explains why we do not easily learn fears of modern things that are potentially dangerous, such as cars or knives.
This shows that the nature argument is valid.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that despite this, a weakness of the nature argument is that extreme deterministic theories have led to controversial researchers trying to link race, genetics and IQ in their theories of eugenics.
For example, Henry Goddard (1917) described Russians, Jews, Hungarians and Italians as 'feeble-minded' based on IQ tests of immigrants.
William Shockley (1952) blamed genetics for the low IQ test scores of Black Americans compared to White Americans.

Answer 10

This type of biological determinism has been used to justify racism, social inequality and oppression and according to Stephen Gould is scientific racism

Question 11

Discuss the nature-nurture debate.
Refer to two topics you have studied in psychology in your answer (16 marks).
Nativists such as philosopher Rene Descartes support the nature argument.
Descartes claimed that personality, intelligence, abnormality and even elements of knowledge are innate.
They are the result of heredity.
Nativists claim that anatomy is destiny, meaning that our behaviour and characteristics are genetically determined.
This is a deterministic view.

Empiricists such as philosopher John Locke support the nurture argument.
Locke claimed that at birth, the mind is a blank slate and experiences, environmental factors and learning shape what we become.
This is one of the assumptions of the behaviourist approach and learning theory, which supports the idea that personality and intelligence are the result of environmental factors.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the nature argument.
For example, Martin Seligman’s preparedness theory of phobias is that humans are biologically prepared to learn to fear objects and situations that threatened the survival of the species throughout its evolutionary history.
Biological preparedness is said to be responsible for individuals having phobias related to survival such as the fear of snakes and spiders.
Our ancestors developed genes of fear for objects that were harmful to them and passed them down to us, so we are more ‘prepared’ to fear them over objects that were not harmful to them in the past.
The idea of preparedness also explains why we do not easily learn fears of modern things that are potentially dangerous, such as cars or knives.
This shows that the nature argument is valid.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that despite this, a weakness of the nature argument is that extreme deterministic theories have led to controversial researchers trying to link race, genetics and IQ in their theories of eugenics.
For example, Henry Goddard (1917) described Russians, Jews, Hungarians and Italians as ‘feeble-minded’ based on IQ tests of immigrants.
William Shockley (1952) blamed genetics for the low IQ test scores of Black Americans compared to White Americans.
This type of biological determinism has been used to justify racism, social inequality and oppression and according to Stephen Gould is scientific racism.
Example

Answer 11

For example, black people weren’t allowed in universities, which is unfair and the research led to the segregation of black and white Americans and the refusal to educate black Americans.
This prevented their social mobility, but also has implications for the economy

Question 12

Discuss the nature-nurture debate.
Refer to two topics you have studied in psychology in your answer (16 marks).
Nativists such as philosopher Rene Descartes support the nature argument.
Descartes claimed that personality, intelligence, abnormality and even elements of knowledge are innate.
They are the result of heredity.
Nativists claim that anatomy is destiny, meaning that our behaviour and characteristics are genetically determined.
This is a deterministic view.

Empiricists such as philosopher John Locke support the nurture argument.
Locke claimed that at birth, the mind is a blank slate and experiences, environmental factors and learning shape what we become.
This is one of the assumptions of the behaviourist approach and learning theory, which supports the idea that personality and intelligence are the result of environmental factors.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the nature argument.
For example, Martin Seligman’s preparedness theory of phobias is that humans are biologically prepared to learn to fear objects and situations that threatened the survival of the species throughout its evolutionary history.
Biological preparedness is said to be responsible for individuals having phobias related to survival such as the fear of snakes and spiders.
Our ancestors developed genes of fear for objects that were harmful to them and passed them down to us, so we are more ‘prepared’ to fear them over objects that were not harmful to them in the past.
The idea of preparedness also explains why we do not easily learn fears of modern things that are potentially dangerous, such as cars or knives.
This shows that the nature argument is valid.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that despite this, a weakness of the nature argument is that extreme deterministic theories have led to controversial researchers trying to link race, genetics and IQ in their theories of eugenics.
For example, Henry Goddard (1917) described Russians, Jews, Hungarians and Italians as ‘feeble-minded’ based on IQ tests of immigrants.
William Shockley (1952) blamed genetics for the low IQ test scores of Black Americans compared to White Americans.
This type of biological determinism has been used to justify racism, social inequality and oppression and according to Stephen Gould is scientific racism.
For example, black people weren’t allowed in universities, which is unfair and the research led to the segregation of black and white Americans and the refusal to educate black Americans.
This prevented their social mobility, but also has implications for the economy.
Another weakness of the nature argument

Answer 12

Another weakness of the nature argument is the heredity coefficient, which is a way of assessing the extent to which something is inherited.
It is a numerical figure ranging from 0 to 1 and if the value is 1, then the characteristic being tested is entirely genetic

Question 13

Discuss the nature-nurture debate.
Refer to two topics you have studied in psychology in your answer (16 marks).
Nativists such as philosopher Rene Descartes support the nature argument.
Descartes claimed that personality, intelligence, abnormality and even elements of knowledge are innate.
They are the result of heredity.
Nativists claim that anatomy is destiny, meaning that our behaviour and characteristics are genetically determined.
This is a deterministic view.

Empiricists such as philosopher John Locke support the nurture argument.
Locke claimed that at birth, the mind is a blank slate and experiences, environmental factors and learning shape what we become.
This is one of the assumptions of the behaviourist approach and learning theory, which supports the idea that personality and intelligence are the result of environmental factors.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the nature argument.
For example, Martin Seligman’s preparedness theory of phobias is that humans are biologically prepared to learn to fear objects and situations that threatened the survival of the species throughout its evolutionary history.
Biological preparedness is said to be responsible for individuals having phobias related to survival such as the fear of snakes and spiders.
Our ancestors developed genes of fear for objects that were harmful to them and passed them down to us, so we are more ‘prepared’ to fear them over objects that were not harmful to them in the past.
The idea of preparedness also explains why we do not easily learn fears of modern things that are potentially dangerous, such as cars or knives.
This shows that the nature argument is valid.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that despite this, a weakness of the nature argument is that extreme deterministic theories have led to controversial researchers trying to link race, genetics and IQ in their theories of eugenics.
For example, Henry Goddard (1917) described Russians, Jews, Hungarians and Italians as ‘feeble-minded’ based on IQ tests of immigrants.
William Shockley (1952) blamed genetics for the low IQ test scores of Black Americans compared to White Americans.
This type of biological determinism has been used to justify racism, social inequality and oppression and according to Stephen Gould is scientific racism.
For example, black people weren’t allowed in universities, which is unfair and the research led to the segregation of black and white Americans and the refusal to educate black Americans.
This prevented their social mobility, but also has implications for the economy.
Another weakness of the nature argument is the heredity coefficient, which is a way of assessing the extent to which something is inherited.
It is a numerical figure ranging from 0 to 1 and if the value is 1, then the characteristic being tested is entirely genetic.
Plomin (1994)

Answer 13

Plomin (1994) found from multiple studies in varying populations that the heredity coefficient figure for IQ is 0.5, meaning that a person’s IQ is 50% due to their environment (nurture)

Question 14

Discuss the nature-nurture debate.
Refer to two topics you have studied in psychology in your answer (16 marks).
Nativists such as philosopher Rene Descartes support the nature argument.
Descartes claimed that personality, intelligence, abnormality and even elements of knowledge are innate.
They are the result of heredity.
Nativists claim that anatomy is destiny, meaning that our behaviour and characteristics are genetically determined.
This is a deterministic view.

Empiricists such as philosopher John Locke support the nurture argument.
Locke claimed that at birth, the mind is a blank slate and experiences, environmental factors and learning shape what we become.
This is one of the assumptions of the behaviourist approach and learning theory, which supports the idea that personality and intelligence are the result of environmental factors.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the nature argument.
For example, Martin Seligman’s preparedness theory of phobias is that humans are biologically prepared to learn to fear objects and situations that threatened the survival of the species throughout its evolutionary history.
Biological preparedness is said to be responsible for individuals having phobias related to survival such as the fear of snakes and spiders.
Our ancestors developed genes of fear for objects that were harmful to them and passed them down to us, so we are more ‘prepared’ to fear them over objects that were not harmful to them in the past.
The idea of preparedness also explains why we do not easily learn fears of modern things that are potentially dangerous, such as cars or knives.
This shows that the nature argument is valid.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that despite this, a weakness of the nature argument is that extreme deterministic theories have led to controversial researchers trying to link race, genetics and IQ in their theories of eugenics.
For example, Henry Goddard (1917) described Russians, Jews, Hungarians and Italians as ‘feeble-minded’ based on IQ tests of immigrants.
William Shockley (1952) blamed genetics for the low IQ test scores of Black Americans compared to White Americans.
This type of biological determinism has been used to justify racism, social inequality and oppression and according to Stephen Gould is scientific racism.
For example, black people weren’t allowed in universities, which is unfair and the research led to the segregation of black and white Americans and the refusal to educate black Americans.
This prevented their social mobility, but also has implications for the economy.
Another weakness of the nature argument is the heredity coefficient, which is a way of assessing the extent to which something is inherited.
It is a numerical figure ranging from 0 to 1 and if the value is 1, then the characteristic being tested is entirely genetic.
Plomin (1994) found from multiple studies in varying populations that the heredity coefficient figure for IQ is 0.5, meaning that a person’s IQ is 50% due to their environment (nurture).

Answer 14

This shows that genetics alone are not responsible for IQ and so casts doubt upon the validity of the nature argument

Question 15

Discuss the nature-nurture debate.
Refer to two topics you have studied in psychology in your answer (16 marks).
Nativists such as philosopher Rene Descartes support the nature argument.
Descartes claimed that personality, intelligence, abnormality and even elements of knowledge are innate.
They are the result of heredity.
Nativists claim that anatomy is destiny, meaning that our behaviour and characteristics are genetically determined.
This is a deterministic view.

Empiricists such as philosopher John Locke support the nurture argument.
Locke claimed that at birth, the mind is a blank slate and experiences, environmental factors and learning shape what we become.
This is one of the assumptions of the behaviourist approach and learning theory, which supports the idea that personality and intelligence are the result of environmental factors.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the nature argument.
For example, Martin Seligman’s preparedness theory of phobias is that humans are biologically prepared to learn to fear objects and situations that threatened the survival of the species throughout its evolutionary history.
Biological preparedness is said to be responsible for individuals having phobias related to survival such as the fear of snakes and spiders.
Our ancestors developed genes of fear for objects that were harmful to them and passed them down to us, so we are more ‘prepared’ to fear them over objects that were not harmful to them in the past.
The idea of preparedness also explains why we do not easily learn fears of modern things that are potentially dangerous, such as cars or knives.
This shows that the nature argument is valid.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that despite this, a weakness of the nature argument is that extreme deterministic theories have led to controversial researchers trying to link race, genetics and IQ in their theories of eugenics.
For example, Henry Goddard (1917) described Russians, Jews, Hungarians and Italians as ‘feeble-minded’ based on IQ tests of immigrants.
William Shockley (1952) blamed genetics for the low IQ test scores of Black Americans compared to White Americans.
This type of biological determinism has been used to justify racism, social inequality and oppression and according to Stephen Gould is scientific racism.
For example, black people weren’t allowed in universities, which is unfair and the research led to the segregation of black and white Americans and the refusal to educate black Americans.
This prevented their social mobility, but also has implications for the economy.
Another weakness of the nature argument is the heredity coefficient, which is a way of assessing the extent to which something is inherited.
It is a numerical figure ranging from 0 to 1 and if the value is 1, then the characteristic being tested is entirely genetic.
Plomin (1994) found from multiple studies in varying populations that the heredity coefficient figure for IQ is 0.5, meaning that a person’s IQ is 50% due to their environment (nurture).
This shows that genetics alone are not responsible for IQ and so casts doubt upon the validity of the nature argument.

Third AO3 PEEL paragraph

Answer 15

The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the nurture argument

Question 16

Discuss the nature-nurture debate.
Refer to two topics you have studied in psychology in your answer (16 marks).
Nativists such as philosopher Rene Descartes support the nature argument.
Descartes claimed that personality, intelligence, abnormality and even elements of knowledge are innate.
They are the result of heredity.
Nativists claim that anatomy is destiny, meaning that our behaviour and characteristics are genetically determined.
This is a deterministic view.

Empiricists such as philosopher John Locke support the nurture argument.
Locke claimed that at birth, the mind is a blank slate and experiences, environmental factors and learning shape what we become.
This is one of the assumptions of the behaviourist approach and learning theory, which supports the idea that personality and intelligence are the result of environmental factors.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the nature argument.
For example, Martin Seligman’s preparedness theory of phobias is that humans are biologically prepared to learn to fear objects and situations that threatened the survival of the species throughout its evolutionary history.
Biological preparedness is said to be responsible for individuals having phobias related to survival such as the fear of snakes and spiders.
Our ancestors developed genes of fear for objects that were harmful to them and passed them down to us, so we are more ‘prepared’ to fear them over objects that were not harmful to them in the past.
The idea of preparedness also explains why we do not easily learn fears of modern things that are potentially dangerous, such as cars or knives.
This shows that the nature argument is valid.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that despite this, a weakness of the nature argument is that extreme deterministic theories have led to controversial researchers trying to link race, genetics and IQ in their theories of eugenics.
For example, Henry Goddard (1917) described Russians, Jews, Hungarians and Italians as ‘feeble-minded’ based on IQ tests of immigrants.
William Shockley (1952) blamed genetics for the low IQ test scores of Black Americans compared to White Americans.
This type of biological determinism has been used to justify racism, social inequality and oppression and according to Stephen Gould is scientific racism.
For example, black people weren’t allowed in universities, which is unfair and the research led to the segregation of black and white Americans and the refusal to educate black Americans.
This prevented their social mobility, but also has implications for the economy.
Another weakness of the nature argument is the heredity coefficient, which is a way of assessing the extent to which something is inherited.
It is a numerical figure ranging from 0 to 1 and if the value is 1, then the characteristic being tested is entirely genetic.
Plomin (1994) found from multiple studies in varying populations that the heredity coefficient figure for IQ is 0.5, meaning that a person’s IQ is 50% due to their environment (nurture).
This shows that genetics alone are not responsible for IQ and so casts doubt upon the validity of the nature argument.

The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the nurture argument.
Example

Answer 16

For example, Michael Rutter’s English Romanian Adoption study provides a direct challenge to the view that IQ is the result of nature.
His research into deprivation and institutionalisation found that despite most of the children showing signs of mental retardation when they arrived in Britain, most of those adopted before the age of 6 months old caught up with the control group by the age of 4

Question 17

Discuss the nature-nurture debate.
Refer to two topics you have studied in psychology in your answer (16 marks).
Nativists such as philosopher Rene Descartes support the nature argument.
Descartes claimed that personality, intelligence, abnormality and even elements of knowledge are innate.
They are the result of heredity.
Nativists claim that anatomy is destiny, meaning that our behaviour and characteristics are genetically determined.
This is a deterministic view.

Empiricists such as philosopher John Locke support the nurture argument.
Locke claimed that at birth, the mind is a blank slate and experiences, environmental factors and learning shape what we become.
This is one of the assumptions of the behaviourist approach and learning theory, which supports the idea that personality and intelligence are the result of environmental factors.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the nature argument.
For example, Martin Seligman’s preparedness theory of phobias is that humans are biologically prepared to learn to fear objects and situations that threatened the survival of the species throughout its evolutionary history.
Biological preparedness is said to be responsible for individuals having phobias related to survival such as the fear of snakes and spiders.
Our ancestors developed genes of fear for objects that were harmful to them and passed them down to us, so we are more ‘prepared’ to fear them over objects that were not harmful to them in the past.
The idea of preparedness also explains why we do not easily learn fears of modern things that are potentially dangerous, such as cars or knives.
This shows that the nature argument is valid.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that despite this, a weakness of the nature argument is that extreme deterministic theories have led to controversial researchers trying to link race, genetics and IQ in their theories of eugenics.
For example, Henry Goddard (1917) described Russians, Jews, Hungarians and Italians as ‘feeble-minded’ based on IQ tests of immigrants.
William Shockley (1952) blamed genetics for the low IQ test scores of Black Americans compared to White Americans.
This type of biological determinism has been used to justify racism, social inequality and oppression and according to Stephen Gould is scientific racism.
For example, black people weren’t allowed in universities, which is unfair and the research led to the segregation of black and white Americans and the refusal to educate black Americans.
This prevented their social mobility, but also has implications for the economy.
Another weakness of the nature argument is the heredity coefficient, which is a way of assessing the extent to which something is inherited.
It is a numerical figure ranging from 0 to 1 and if the value is 1, then the characteristic being tested is entirely genetic.
Plomin (1994) found from multiple studies in varying populations that the heredity coefficient figure for IQ is 0.5, meaning that a person’s IQ is 50% due to their environment (nurture).
This shows that genetics alone are not responsible for IQ and so casts doubt upon the validity of the nature argument.

The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the nurture argument.
For example, Michael Rutter’s English Romanian Adoption study provides a direct challenge to the view that IQ is the result of nature.
His research into deprivation and institutionalisation found that despite most of the children showing signs of mental retardation when they arrived in Britain, most of those adopted before the age of 6 months old caught up with the control group by the age of 4.
What does this show?

Answer 17

This shows that the damage to intellectual development caused by institutionalisation can be recovered if the adoption occurs before 6 months, which suggests that nurture rather than nature is the cause of intellectual retardation and recovery and therefore the nurture argument is valid

Question 18

Discuss the nature-nurture debate.
Refer to two topics you have studied in psychology in your answer (16 marks).
Nativists such as philosopher Rene Descartes support the nature argument.
Descartes claimed that personality, intelligence, abnormality and even elements of knowledge are innate.
They are the result of heredity.
Nativists claim that anatomy is destiny, meaning that our behaviour and characteristics are genetically determined.
This is a deterministic view.

Empiricists such as philosopher John Locke support the nurture argument.
Locke claimed that at birth, the mind is a blank slate and experiences, environmental factors and learning shape what we become.
This is one of the assumptions of the behaviourist approach and learning theory, which supports the idea that personality and intelligence are the result of environmental factors.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the nature argument.
For example, Martin Seligman’s preparedness theory of phobias is that humans are biologically prepared to learn to fear objects and situations that threatened the survival of the species throughout its evolutionary history.
Biological preparedness is said to be responsible for individuals having phobias related to survival such as the fear of snakes and spiders.
Our ancestors developed genes of fear for objects that were harmful to them and passed them down to us, so we are more ‘prepared’ to fear them over objects that were not harmful to them in the past.
The idea of preparedness also explains why we do not easily learn fears of modern things that are potentially dangerous, such as cars or knives.
This shows that the nature argument is valid.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that despite this, a weakness of the nature argument is that extreme deterministic theories have led to controversial researchers trying to link race, genetics and IQ in their theories of eugenics.
For example, Henry Goddard (1917) described Russians, Jews, Hungarians and Italians as ‘feeble-minded’ based on IQ tests of immigrants.
William Shockley (1952) blamed genetics for the low IQ test scores of Black Americans compared to White Americans.
This type of biological determinism has been used to justify racism, social inequality and oppression and according to Stephen Gould is scientific racism.
For example, black people weren’t allowed in universities, which is unfair and the research led to the segregation of black and white Americans and the refusal to educate black Americans.
This prevented their social mobility, but also has implications for the economy.
Another weakness of the nature argument is the heredity coefficient, which is a way of assessing the extent to which something is inherited.
It is a numerical figure ranging from 0 to 1 and if the value is 1, then the characteristic being tested is entirely genetic.
Plomin (1994) found from multiple studies in varying populations that the heredity coefficient figure for IQ is 0.5, meaning that a person’s IQ is 50% due to their environment (nurture).
This shows that genetics alone are not responsible for IQ and so casts doubt upon the validity of the nature argument.

The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the nurture argument.
For example, Michael Rutter’s English Romanian Adoption study provides a direct challenge to the view that IQ is the result of nature.
His research into deprivation and institutionalisation found that despite most of the children showing signs of mental retardation when they arrived in Britain, most of those adopted before the age of 6 months old caught up with the control group by the age of 4.
This shows that the damage to intellectual development caused by institutionalisation can be recovered if the adoption occurs before 6 months, which suggests that nurture rather than nature is the cause of intellectual retardation and recovery and therefore the nurture argument is valid.

Fourth AO3 PEEL paragraph

Answer 18

The fourth AO3 PEEL paragraph is that a weakness of the nurture argument is that critics are concerned about its application and how people can be manipulated to behave in a particular way that might not be within their best interests

Question 19

Discuss the nature-nurture debate.
Refer to two topics you have studied in psychology in your answer (16 marks).
Nativists such as philosopher Rene Descartes support the nature argument.
Descartes claimed that personality, intelligence, abnormality and even elements of knowledge are innate.
They are the result of heredity.
Nativists claim that anatomy is destiny, meaning that our behaviour and characteristics are genetically determined.
This is a deterministic view.

Empiricists such as philosopher John Locke support the nurture argument.
Locke claimed that at birth, the mind is a blank slate and experiences, environmental factors and learning shape what we become.
This is one of the assumptions of the behaviourist approach and learning theory, which supports the idea that personality and intelligence are the result of environmental factors.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the nature argument.
For example, Martin Seligman’s preparedness theory of phobias is that humans are biologically prepared to learn to fear objects and situations that threatened the survival of the species throughout its evolutionary history.
Biological preparedness is said to be responsible for individuals having phobias related to survival such as the fear of snakes and spiders.
Our ancestors developed genes of fear for objects that were harmful to them and passed them down to us, so we are more ‘prepared’ to fear them over objects that were not harmful to them in the past.
The idea of preparedness also explains why we do not easily learn fears of modern things that are potentially dangerous, such as cars or knives.
This shows that the nature argument is valid.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that despite this, a weakness of the nature argument is that extreme deterministic theories have led to controversial researchers trying to link race, genetics and IQ in their theories of eugenics.
For example, Henry Goddard (1917) described Russians, Jews, Hungarians and Italians as ‘feeble-minded’ based on IQ tests of immigrants.
William Shockley (1952) blamed genetics for the low IQ test scores of Black Americans compared to White Americans.
This type of biological determinism has been used to justify racism, social inequality and oppression and according to Stephen Gould is scientific racism.
For example, black people weren’t allowed in universities, which is unfair and the research led to the segregation of black and white Americans and the refusal to educate black Americans.
This prevented their social mobility, but also has implications for the economy.
Another weakness of the nature argument is the heredity coefficient, which is a way of assessing the extent to which something is inherited.
It is a numerical figure ranging from 0 to 1 and if the value is 1, then the characteristic being tested is entirely genetic.
Plomin (1994) found from multiple studies in varying populations that the heredity coefficient figure for IQ is 0.5, meaning that a person’s IQ is 50% due to their environment (nurture).
This shows that genetics alone are not responsible for IQ and so casts doubt upon the validity of the nature argument.

The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the nurture argument.
For example, Michael Rutter’s English Romanian Adoption study provides a direct challenge to the view that IQ is the result of nature.
His research into deprivation and institutionalisation found that despite most of the children showing signs of mental retardation when they arrived in Britain, most of those adopted before the age of 6 months old caught up with the control group by the age of 4.
This shows that the damage to intellectual development caused by institutionalisation can be recovered if the adoption occurs before 6 months, which suggests that nurture rather than nature is the cause of intellectual retardation and recovery and therefore the nurture argument is valid.

The fourth AO3 PEEL paragraph is that a weakness of the nurture argument is that critics are concerned about its application and how people can be manipulated to behave in a particular way that might not be within their best interests.
Why is this?

Answer 19

This is because, albeit controversially, empiricists suggest that any behaviour can be changed by altering environmental conditions, meaning that desirable behaviours are selectively reinforced and undesirable behaviours are punished or ignored

Question 20

Discuss the nature-nurture debate.
Refer to two topics you have studied in psychology in your answer (16 marks).
Nativists such as philosopher Rene Descartes support the nature argument.
Descartes claimed that personality, intelligence, abnormality and even elements of knowledge are innate.
They are the result of heredity.
Nativists claim that anatomy is destiny, meaning that our behaviour and characteristics are genetically determined.
This is a deterministic view.

Empiricists such as philosopher John Locke support the nurture argument.
Locke claimed that at birth, the mind is a blank slate and experiences, environmental factors and learning shape what we become.
This is one of the assumptions of the behaviourist approach and learning theory, which supports the idea that personality and intelligence are the result of environmental factors.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the nature argument.
For example, Martin Seligman’s preparedness theory of phobias is that humans are biologically prepared to learn to fear objects and situations that threatened the survival of the species throughout its evolutionary history.
Biological preparedness is said to be responsible for individuals having phobias related to survival such as the fear of snakes and spiders.
Our ancestors developed genes of fear for objects that were harmful to them and passed them down to us, so we are more ‘prepared’ to fear them over objects that were not harmful to them in the past.
The idea of preparedness also explains why we do not easily learn fears of modern things that are potentially dangerous, such as cars or knives.
This shows that the nature argument is valid.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that despite this, a weakness of the nature argument is that extreme deterministic theories have led to controversial researchers trying to link race, genetics and IQ in their theories of eugenics.
For example, Henry Goddard (1917) described Russians, Jews, Hungarians and Italians as ‘feeble-minded’ based on IQ tests of immigrants.
William Shockley (1952) blamed genetics for the low IQ test scores of Black Americans compared to White Americans.
This type of biological determinism has been used to justify racism, social inequality and oppression and according to Stephen Gould is scientific racism.
For example, black people weren’t allowed in universities, which is unfair and the research led to the segregation of black and white Americans and the refusal to educate black Americans.
This prevented their social mobility, but also has implications for the economy.
Another weakness of the nature argument is the heredity coefficient, which is a way of assessing the extent to which something is inherited.
It is a numerical figure ranging from 0 to 1 and if the value is 1, then the characteristic being tested is entirely genetic.
Plomin (1994) found from multiple studies in varying populations that the heredity coefficient figure for IQ is 0.5, meaning that a person’s IQ is 50% due to their environment (nurture).
This shows that genetics alone are not responsible for IQ and so casts doubt upon the validity of the nature argument.

The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the nurture argument.
For example, Michael Rutter’s English Romanian Adoption study provides a direct challenge to the view that IQ is the result of nature.
His research into deprivation and institutionalisation found that despite most of the children showing signs of mental retardation when they arrived in Britain, most of those adopted before the age of 6 months old caught up with the control group by the age of 4.
This shows that the damage to intellectual development caused by institutionalisation can be recovered if the adoption occurs before 6 months, which suggests that nurture rather than nature is the cause of intellectual retardation and recovery and therefore the nurture argument is valid.

The fourth AO3 PEEL paragraph is that a weakness of the nurture argument is that critics are concerned about its application.
This is because, albeit controversially, empiricists suggest that any behaviour can be changed by altering environmental conditions, meaning that desirable behaviours are selectively reinforced and undesirable behaviours are punished or ignored.
What could this lead to?

Answer 20

This could lead to society manipulating its citizens using these techniques which could be applied by dictators to prevent challenges to their rule and to indoctrinate people

Question 21

Discuss the nature-nurture debate.
Refer to two topics you have studied in psychology in your answer (16 marks).
Nativists such as philosopher Rene Descartes support the nature argument.
Descartes claimed that personality, intelligence, abnormality and even elements of knowledge are innate.
They are the result of heredity.
Nativists claim that anatomy is destiny, meaning that our behaviour and characteristics are genetically determined.
This is a deterministic view.

Empiricists such as philosopher John Locke support the nurture argument.
Locke claimed that at birth, the mind is a blank slate and experiences, environmental factors and learning shape what we become.
This is one of the assumptions of the behaviourist approach and learning theory, which supports the idea that personality and intelligence are the result of environmental factors.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the nature argument.
For example, Martin Seligman’s preparedness theory of phobias is that humans are biologically prepared to learn to fear objects and situations that threatened the survival of the species throughout its evolutionary history.
Biological preparedness is said to be responsible for individuals having phobias related to survival such as the fear of snakes and spiders.
Our ancestors developed genes of fear for objects that were harmful to them and passed them down to us, so we are more ‘prepared’ to fear them over objects that were not harmful to them in the past.
The idea of preparedness also explains why we do not easily learn fears of modern things that are potentially dangerous, such as cars or knives.
This shows that the nature argument is valid.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that despite this, a weakness of the nature argument is that extreme deterministic theories have led to controversial researchers trying to link race, genetics and IQ in their theories of eugenics.
For example, Henry Goddard (1917) described Russians, Jews, Hungarians and Italians as ‘feeble-minded’ based on IQ tests of immigrants.
William Shockley (1952) blamed genetics for the low IQ test scores of Black Americans compared to White Americans.
This type of biological determinism has been used to justify racism, social inequality and oppression and according to Stephen Gould is scientific racism.
For example, black people weren’t allowed in universities, which is unfair and the research led to the segregation of black and white Americans and the refusal to educate black Americans.
This prevented their social mobility, but also has implications for the economy.
Another weakness of the nature argument is the heredity coefficient, which is a way of assessing the extent to which something is inherited.
It is a numerical figure ranging from 0 to 1 and if the value is 1, then the characteristic being tested is entirely genetic.
Plomin (1994) found from multiple studies in varying populations that the heredity coefficient figure for IQ is 0.5, meaning that a person’s IQ is 50% due to their environment (nurture).
This shows that genetics alone are not responsible for IQ and so casts doubt upon the validity of the nature argument.

The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the nurture argument.
For example, Michael Rutter’s English Romanian Adoption study provides a direct challenge to the view that IQ is the result of nature.
His research into deprivation and institutionalisation found that despite most of the children showing signs of mental retardation when they arrived in Britain, most of those adopted before the age of 6 months old caught up with the control group by the age of 4.
This shows that the damage to intellectual development caused by institutionalisation can be recovered if the adoption occurs before 6 months, which suggests that nurture rather than nature is the cause of intellectual retardation and recovery and therefore the nurture argument is valid.

The fourth AO3 PEEL paragraph is that a weakness of the nurture argument is that critics are concerned about its application.
This is because, albeit controversially, empiricists suggest that any behaviour can be changed by altering environmental conditions, meaning that desirable behaviours are selectively reinforced and undesirable behaviours are punished or ignored.
This could lead to society manipulating its citizens using these techniques which could be applied by dictators to prevent challenges to their rule and to indoctrinate people.
Example

Answer 21

For example, homosexuals were given aversion therapy (conversion therapy).
They were given something to make them vomit and then were shown a picture of a same-sex person.
This has only recently been abolished in some states in the US

Question 22

Discuss the nature-nurture debate.
Refer to two topics you have studied in psychology in your answer (16 marks).
Nativists such as philosopher Rene Descartes support the nature argument.
Descartes claimed that personality, intelligence, abnormality and even elements of knowledge are innate.
They are the result of heredity.
Nativists claim that anatomy is destiny, meaning that our behaviour and characteristics are genetically determined.
This is a deterministic view.

Empiricists such as philosopher John Locke support the nurture argument.
Locke claimed that at birth, the mind is a blank slate and experiences, environmental factors and learning shape what we become.
This is one of the assumptions of the behaviourist approach and learning theory, which supports the idea that personality and intelligence are the result of environmental factors.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the nature argument.
For example, Martin Seligman’s preparedness theory of phobias is that humans are biologically prepared to learn to fear objects and situations that threatened the survival of the species throughout its evolutionary history.
Biological preparedness is said to be responsible for individuals having phobias related to survival such as the fear of snakes and spiders.
Our ancestors developed genes of fear for objects that were harmful to them and passed them down to us, so we are more ‘prepared’ to fear them over objects that were not harmful to them in the past.
The idea of preparedness also explains why we do not easily learn fears of modern things that are potentially dangerous, such as cars or knives.
This shows that the nature argument is valid.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that despite this, a weakness of the nature argument is that extreme deterministic theories have led to controversial researchers trying to link race, genetics and IQ in their theories of eugenics.
For example, Henry Goddard (1917) described Russians, Jews, Hungarians and Italians as ‘feeble-minded’ based on IQ tests of immigrants.
William Shockley (1952) blamed genetics for the low IQ test scores of Black Americans compared to White Americans.
This type of biological determinism has been used to justify racism, social inequality and oppression and according to Stephen Gould is scientific racism.
For example, black people weren’t allowed in universities, which is unfair and the research led to the segregation of black and white Americans and the refusal to educate black Americans.
This prevented their social mobility, but also has implications for the economy.
Another weakness of the nature argument is the heredity coefficient, which is a way of assessing the extent to which something is inherited.
It is a numerical figure ranging from 0 to 1 and if the value is 1, then the characteristic being tested is entirely genetic.
Plomin (1994) found from multiple studies in varying populations that the heredity coefficient figure for IQ is 0.5, meaning that a person’s IQ is 50% due to their environment (nurture).
This shows that genetics alone are not responsible for IQ and so casts doubt upon the validity of the nature argument.

The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the nurture argument.
For example, Michael Rutter’s English Romanian Adoption study provides a direct challenge to the view that IQ is the result of nature.
His research into deprivation and institutionalisation found that despite most of the children showing signs of mental retardation when they arrived in Britain, most of those adopted before the age of 6 months old caught up with the control group by the age of 4.
This shows that the damage to intellectual development caused by institutionalisation can be recovered if the adoption occurs before 6 months, which suggests that nurture rather than nature is the cause of intellectual retardation and recovery and therefore the nurture argument is valid.

The fourth AO3 PEEL paragraph is that a weakness of the nurture argument is that critics are concerned about its application.
This is because, albeit controversially, empiricists suggest that any behaviour can be changed by altering environmental conditions, meaning that desirable behaviours are selectively reinforced and undesirable behaviours are punished or ignored.
This could lead to society manipulating its citizens using these techniques which could be applied by dictators to prevent challenges to their rule and to indoctrinate people.
For example, homosexuals were given aversion therapy (conversion therapy).
They were given something to make them vomit and then were shown a picture of a same-sex person.
This has only recently been abolished in some states in the US.
Why is this a limitation of the nurture argument?

Answer 22

This is a limitation of the nurture argument, because of the psychological harm to the people involved and subjected to such therapy and also because it leads to stereotyping and discrimination and it is social control

Question 23

Discuss the nature-nurture debate.
Refer to two topics you have studied in psychology in your answer (16 marks).
Nativists such as philosopher Rene Descartes support the nature argument.
Descartes claimed that personality, intelligence, abnormality and even elements of knowledge are innate.
They are the result of heredity.
Nativists claim that anatomy is destiny, meaning that our behaviour and characteristics are genetically determined.
This is a deterministic view.

Empiricists such as philosopher John Locke support the nurture argument.
Locke claimed that at birth, the mind is a blank slate and experiences, environmental factors and learning shape what we become.
This is one of the assumptions of the behaviourist approach and learning theory, which supports the idea that personality and intelligence are the result of environmental factors.

The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the nature argument.
For example, Martin Seligman’s preparedness theory of phobias is that humans are biologically prepared to learn to fear objects and situations that threatened the survival of the species throughout its evolutionary history.
Biological preparedness is said to be responsible for individuals having phobias related to survival such as the fear of snakes and spiders.
Our ancestors developed genes of fear for objects that were harmful to them and passed them down to us, so we are more ‘prepared’ to fear them over objects that were not harmful to them in the past.
The idea of preparedness also explains why we do not easily learn fears of modern things that are potentially dangerous, such as cars or knives.
This shows that the nature argument is valid.

The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that despite this, a weakness of the nature argument is that extreme deterministic theories have led to controversial researchers trying to link race, genetics and IQ in their theories of eugenics.
For example, Henry Goddard (1917) described Russians, Jews, Hungarians and Italians as ‘feeble-minded’ based on IQ tests of immigrants.
William Shockley (1952) blamed genetics for the low IQ test scores of Black Americans compared to White Americans.
This type of biological determinism has been used to justify racism, social inequality and oppression and according to Stephen Gould is scientific racism.
For example, black people weren’t allowed in universities, which is unfair and the research led to the segregation of black and white Americans and the refusal to educate black Americans.
This prevented their social mobility, but also has implications for the economy.
Another weakness of the nature argument is the heredity coefficient, which is a way of assessing the extent to which something is inherited.
It is a numerical figure ranging from 0 to 1 and if the value is 1, then the characteristic being tested is entirely genetic.
Plomin (1994) found from multiple studies in varying populations that the heredity coefficient figure for IQ is 0.5, meaning that a person’s IQ is 50% due to their environment (nurture).
This shows that genetics alone are not responsible for IQ and so casts doubt upon the validity of the nature argument.

The third AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for the nurture argument.
For example, Michael Rutter’s English Romanian Adoption study provides a direct challenge to the view that IQ is the result of nature.
His research into deprivation and institutionalisation found that despite most of the children showing signs of mental retardation when they arrived in Britain, most of those adopted before the age of 6 months old caught up with the control group by the age of 4.
This shows that the damage to intellectual development caused by institutionalisation can be recovered if the adoption occurs before 6 months, which suggests that nurture rather than nature is the cause of intellectual retardation and recovery and therefore the nurture argument is valid.

The fourth AO3 PEEL paragraph is that a weakness of the nurture argument is that critics are concerned about its application.
This is because, albeit controversially, empiricists suggest that any behaviour can be changed by altering environmental conditions, meaning that desirable behaviours are selectively reinforced and undesirable behaviours are punished or ignored.
This could lead to society manipulating its citizens using these techniques which could be applied by dictators to prevent challenges to their rule and to indoctrinate people.
For example, homosexuals were given aversion therapy (conversion therapy).
They were given something to make them vomit and then were shown a picture of a same-sex person.
This has only recently been abolished in some states in the US.
This is a limitation of the nurture argument, because of the psychological harm to the people involved and subjected to such therapy and also because it leads to stereotyping and discrimination and it is social control.
However,

Answer 23

However, this could also be seen as a strength, because of the use of token economies, as people can be manipulated to modify antisocial behaviour in hospital or prison settings, for example