The Interactionist Approach
Is there a middle ground between nature and nurture?
- The interactionist approach is used by most psychologists today when considering the impact of nature/nurture on an individual
- A genetic predisposition can be moderated or even ‘switched on’ by the environment as seen in the diathesis-stress model and in the theory of epigenetics
- An interactionist approach is more holistic than an extreme nature/nurture approach as it acknowledges the complex relationship between biology, psychology and environment which is a more valid explanation of behaviour
- Constructivism (sometimes referred to as ‘niche-picking’) is based around interactivist ideas with its emphasis on people picking environments suited to their natural likes, dislikes, habits, talents etc.
- Conditions such as gender identity disorder and schizophrenia benefit from an interactionist approach as they involve different levels of explanation
Worked example
LEVEL: HARD
Discuss one or more features of the nature-nurture debate. Refer to at least one theory/study/topic you are familiar with in your answer
[8]
AO1 = 3 marks, AO2 = 2 marks, AO3 = 3 marks
For 6-8 marks the answer should clearly and concisely explain the nature-nurture debate, using a good level of detail. Effective use of examples should be given to support the points made. There should be confident use of terminology. Evaluation should be effective.
For 4-6 marks the answer should give a coherent account of the nature-nurture debate with some detail involved. There may be some lack of expansion or development of ideas. There should be some use of terminology. Evaluation will be present but may lack depth or detail.
For 1-3 marks the answer will be only partially successful in describing the nature-nurture debate. Terminology will be sparse and there may be some vagueness or ambiguity to the response. Evaluation is likely to be sparse or absent altogether.
Suggested 6-8 mark response:
AO1: The nature-nurture debate represents a dichotomy in the explanation of human behaviour: nativists such as Descartes argue that all behaviour stems from innate, genetic sources whereas empiricists such as Locke argue that human beings are born as blank slates, with life ‘writing’ on them to form behaviour based on external influences. The biological approach tends to favour a nature-based interpretation using studies of genetics (e.g. twin or family studies of schizophrenia, IQ etc.) to argue that there is a strong inherited component to some behaviours.
AO2: Behaviourism and Social Learning theory are aligned with a nurture-based approach, with behaviour being viewed through the prism of environmental stimuli acting upon and informing behaviour (e.g. Pavlov’s experiments with dogs) or via learning in social contexts (e.g. Bandura’s research which looked at the ways in which children imitate the behaviour of role models).
AO3: There are flaws on both sides of this debate: each side can tend to be overly reductionist and deterministic (e.g. arguing that one set of genes may determine criminality or not accounting for mediational influences in the learning process) which results in overly biased and one-sided explanations. It is interesting to note that twin studies could be used as an argument for both nature and nurture as concordance rates are higher for MZ twins (nature) but never 100% so the environment (nurture) clearly plays a role. Neither a purely nature or nurture argument is complete in itself and modern thinking is that an interactionist approach provides the most complete explanation of behaviour as seen for example via the diathesis-stress model.
