The nature-nurture debate | AQA A-Level Psychology Revision
- Revision Notes
- Aug 5
- 18 min read
Updated: 5 days ago
For 7182 specification, first teach in September 2025
AQA A-Level Psychology | Free Revision Notes
Estimated study time: 55 minutes
The nature-nurture debate asks how far behaviour is influenced by heredity and how far it develops through environmental experience. This nature-nurture debate A-Level Psychology revision page explains both sides of the debate, the interactionist approach and how these ideas apply across the course. It builds on questions about behavioural control and causation and prepares you to evaluate explanations rather than simply labelling them as biological or environmental.
Learning Objectives 🎯
By the end of this revision page, you should be able to:
Define nature, nurture and heredity.
Explain the relative roles of heredity and environment in determining behaviour.
Distinguish nature-based explanations from nurture-based explanations.
Explain the interactionist approach.
Apply the nature-nurture debate to topics studied elsewhere in Psychology.
Evaluate one-sided and interactionist explanations of behaviour.
Revision Notes 📚
The nature-nurture debate A-Level Psychology revision: the central question
The nature-nurture debate concerns the relative importance of heredity and environment in determining behaviour.
The debate asks:
How far is behaviour influenced by characteristics inherited from biological parents?
How far is behaviour shaped by learning and experience?
Do heredity and environment operate separately?
Does behaviour result from an interaction between inherited characteristics and environmental conditions?
A complete definition must include both nature and nurture. It must also make clear that the debate concerns their relative contribution.
The question is not simply whether heredity and environment affect behaviour. Most psychologists accept that both may have some influence. The debate concerns how important each influence is and how they work together.
Nature
Nature refers to inherited and biological influences on behaviour.
These may include:
genes inherited from biological parents
inherited predispositions
brain structures
neurochemistry
hormones
evolutionary influences
A nature-based explanation argues that some part of behaviour originates in a person’s biological inheritance or biological functioning.
Example of a nature-based explanation
Suppose several members of a biological family display a similar psychological characteristic.
A nature explanation might propose that an inherited genetic factor contributes to this similarity.
This does not necessarily mean that the characteristic is unavoidable. A genetic influence may create a predisposition without determining that a particular behaviour must occur.
Heredity
Heredity is the transmission of genetic characteristics from biological parents to their children.
Genes provide instructions that contribute to biological characteristics. Psychologists may investigate whether inherited differences are associated with differences in behaviour.
In AQA Psychology, heredity may be relevant when an explanation refers to:
genetic vulnerability
inherited characteristics
biological predispositions
similarities among biologically related people
biological processes linked to inherited information
The specification requires you to consider the relative importance of heredity, rather than assume that identifying a genetic influence provides a complete explanation.
An inherited influence is not necessarily a fixed outcome
A common mistake is to assume that any genetic influence makes behaviour inevitable.
A person may inherit a predisposition, meaning that they have an increased likelihood of developing a characteristic. Whether that characteristic is expressed may also depend on experiences and environmental conditions.
This distinction is important:
Inherited influence: Genes contribute to the likelihood of a behaviour or characteristic.
Inevitable outcome: The behaviour must occur regardless of experience.
The first statement does not automatically support the second.
This is also why nature should not be confused with hard biological determinism. You can revisit the distinction between influence and complete control.
Nurture
Nurture refers to environmental influences and experiences that affect behaviour.
These may include:
upbringing
learning
conditioning
reinforcement and punishment
observation of role models
social relationships
family experiences
education
culture
significant life events
A nurture-based explanation argues that behaviour develops through interaction with the physical and social environment.
Example of a nurture-based explanation
A child receives praise whenever they read aloud. This positive consequence increases the likelihood that the child will continue reading.
The resulting behaviour can be explained through environmental learning because the response has been shaped by experience.
Understanding how environmental consequences influence behaviour helps you explain nurture using a psychological mechanism rather than vague references to upbringing.
The environment is more than a person’s physical surroundings
In Psychology, the environment includes any external experience or condition that may influence behaviour.
It may include:
what a person observes
how other people respond to them
rewards and punishments
cultural expectations
relationships with caregivers
stressful experiences
educational opportunities
Writing that behaviour was caused by “the environment” is therefore usually too vague for an applied answer.
You should identify the exact influence and explain how it affected behaviour.
Nature and nurture compared
Feature | Nature | Nurture |
Main source of influence | Heredity and biological functioning | Environment and experience |
Typical terminology | Genes, inherited, biological predisposition, hormones, neurochemistry | Learning, conditioning, reinforcement, role models, upbringing, culture |
Origin of influence | Within the person’s biological inheritance or body | Outside the person through physical and social experience |
Example | A genetic vulnerability increases the likelihood of a condition | Stressful experiences contribute to the development of a condition |
Possible limitation | May underestimate learning and social context | May underestimate biological predispositions |
Wider link | Biological explanations | Behaviourist and social learning explanations |
The meaning of relative importance
The nature-nurture debate concerns the relative importance of heredity and environment.
This means psychologists consider:
whether one influence has a greater effect than another
whether the balance differs between behaviours
whether the same influences affect everyone equally
whether biological and environmental factors interact
whether the evidence allows their effects to be separated
There is no requirement for the contribution of nature and nurture to be equal.
An interactionist explanation might conclude that:
heredity provides a strong predisposition and environment acts as a trigger
environmental experience is especially influential among people with a particular biological vulnerability
both contribute, but one has a greater effect
different combinations of heredity and environment can produce similar outcomes
Extreme nature explanations
An extreme nature position explains behaviour mainly or entirely through heredity and biological factors.
For example, a psychologist might claim that a person’s behaviour is caused by inherited genes and would develop regardless of upbringing or experience.
Possible strengths
Nature-based explanations may:
identify measurable biological influences
generate testable predictions
contribute to biological treatments
explain similarities among biologically related people
Possible limitations
An extreme nature explanation may:
underestimate learning and cultural experience
treat a predisposition as an inevitable outcome
offer an incomplete account of complex behaviour
contribute to biological determinism
overlook how the environment affects the expression of inherited characteristics
Extreme nurture explanations
An extreme nurture position explains behaviour mainly or entirely through learning and environmental experience.
For example, a psychologist might claim that behaviour results from conditioning and that
inherited differences are unimportant.
Possible strengths
Nurture-based explanations may:
identify environmental influences that can be changed
lead to practical interventions
explain differences produced by experience
allow environmental variables to be investigated experimentally
Possible limitations
An extreme nurture explanation may:
underestimate biological predispositions
assume people respond identically to the same environment
present individuals as passive products of experience
contribute to environmental determinism
overlook why the same experience may have different effects on different people
The interactionist approach
The interactionist approach proposes that behaviour results from the combined influence of nature and nurture.
Nature and nurture are not treated as independent alternatives. Instead, inherited characteristics and environmental experiences affect one another.
An interactionist explanation may propose that:
A person has an inherited or biological predisposition.
The environment provides particular experiences or conditions.
The biological and environmental factors combine.
The resulting behaviour reflects their interaction.
The specification names interactionism as the central alternative to treating nature and nurture as separate explanations.
A simple interactionist example
Imagine two people who experience the same stressful event.
Person A has a biological vulnerability and develops a psychological difficulty.
Person B does not have the same vulnerability and does not develop the difficulty.
The stressful experience alone does not fully explain the difference. The biological vulnerability alone is also insufficient because it did not necessarily produce the difficulty before the stressful event.
The outcome is explained by the interaction between vulnerability and experience.
Interaction does not mean simple addition
Interactionism is more than stating:
Nature affects behaviour and nurture affects behaviour.
A developed interactionist explanation shows how the two influences work together.
Compare these answers:
Limited answer:
Both genes and the environment affect behaviour.
Developed answer:
An inherited vulnerability may increase a person’s susceptibility, while a stressful environmental experience triggers the development of the behaviour. The effect of the environment therefore depends partly on the person’s biological predisposition.
The second answer explains the relationship between the influences.
Interactionism and the diathesis-stress model
The diathesis-stress model is an interactionist explanation included in the schizophrenia option.
A diathesis is a vulnerability. A stressor is an environmental event or condition that places pressure on the individual.
The model proposes that:
a person has an underlying vulnerability
environmental stress activates or combines with that vulnerability
the condition develops through the interaction of both factors
Neither component necessarily provides a complete explanation by itself.
This is explored directly in the combination of vulnerability, stress and treatment. The AQA mark schemes use the model as a clear example of genetic vulnerability interacting with stressful life events.
Nature-nurture and biological determinism
Nature and biological determinism overlap, but they are not identical.
A nature explanation identifies biology or heredity as an influence.
Biological determinism goes further by proposing that biological factors govern or control behaviour.
Statement | Nature or determinism? |
Genes may contribute to differences in behaviour | Nature |
An inherited vulnerability increases the likelihood of a condition | Nature |
Genes completely determine behaviour, so the person cannot act differently | Biological determinism |
Biology and experience interact to influence behaviour | Interactionism |
Do not automatically label every genetic explanation as hard determinism.
Nature-nurture and reductionism
An explanation that focuses exclusively on one inherited mechanism may be biologically reductionist. An explanation that reduces behaviour to learned stimulus-response links may be environmentally reductionist.
However, the debates ask different questions:
Nature-nurture asks about the sources of behaviour.
Reductionism asks whether behaviour has been broken into smaller components or explained at a restricted level.
Determinism asks how far behaviour is controlled by causes.
The next Issues and Debates topic examines whether behaviour should be explained through component parts or as a whole.
How psychologists investigate nature and nurture
Psychologists may compare patterns of behaviour among people with different levels of genetic similarity or different environmental experiences.
Evidence may appear to support nature when:
greater genetic similarity is associated with greater similarity in behaviour
a characteristic appears among biologically related people
biological variables are associated with behavioural differences
Evidence may appear to support nurture when:
different experiences are associated with different behavioural outcomes
behaviour changes following learning
environmental conditions predict behaviour
altering the environment changes behaviour
However, interpreting such evidence is difficult because heredity and environment are often connected.
Interpreting concordance information
An examination question may provide concordance rates. Concordance means that both members of a pair display the same characteristic or obtain similar outcomes.
Suppose a question reports greater concordance among people with greater genetic similarity.
This pattern may support nature because greater genetic relatedness is associated with greater behavioural similarity.
However, if concordance is below 100%100\%100%, the result does not show that heredity provides a complete explanation. Environmental influences or other differences may also be relevant.
AQA’s specimen assessment used this reasoning. Higher concordance among genetically identical twins supported nature, while concordance below 100%100\%100% left a role for nurture.
Exam focus: Do not merely repeat the percentages. State what the pattern means for the nature-nurture debate.
Why nature and nurture are difficult to separate
Heredity and environment do not occur in isolation.
People with different inherited characteristics may:
respond differently to the same experience
receive different reactions from other people
be drawn towards different activities
be differently affected by stress or reinforcement
Similarly, environmental conditions may influence whether a biological vulnerability is expressed.
This makes it difficult to assign a precise amount of behaviour to nature and another amount to nurture.
Correlation and causation
Research into heredity and environment often identifies associations.
For example, researchers might find an association between:
genetic similarity and behavioural similarity
family experiences and psychological outcomes
stressful events and the development of a condition
An association does not by itself prove causation.
Possible explanations may include:
the proposed factor causes the behaviour
the behaviour affects the proposed factor
another variable contributes to both
nature and nurture interact
This links to the scientific search for behavioural causes.
Applying the debate to attachment
Attachment can be considered from both sides of the debate.
Nurture
Learning theory explains attachment through environmental processes such as classical and operant conditioning.
The infant’s experiences and the consequences associated with the caregiver are central. This gives the explanation a strong nurture emphasis.
You can revise these mechanisms in the conditioning account of attachment.
Nature
Bowlby’s monotropic theory gives greater importance to innate and evolutionary influences in attachment.
This places the explanation more strongly on the nature side of the debate.
Interactionist evaluation
A balanced discussion may argue that attachment cannot be understood solely through inherited tendencies or solely through learning. Biological preparedness and the quality of caregiving experiences may both contribute to attachment development.
Applying the debate to phobias
The two-process model places strong emphasis on nurture.
It explains:
the acquisition of a phobia through classical conditioning
the maintenance of the phobia through operant conditioning
The person learns an association and avoidance is reinforced.
This makes the learning account of acquiring and maintaining fears a clear nurture example.
When applying the debate, explain the mechanism. Do not simply write that phobias are caused by “bad experiences”.
Applying the debate to obsessive-compulsive disorder
The course includes genetic explanations of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD).
A genetic explanation represents the nature side because it proposes that inherited vulnerability contributes to the condition.
However, inherited vulnerability to OCD does not mean that every person with that vulnerability must develop OCD. The concept of vulnerability leaves room for other influences.
Neural explanations also sit mainly on the nature side because they focus on biological functioning. You should still distinguish between an inherited explanation and a wider biological explanation.
Applying the debate to gender development
Gender development can be explained using both nature and nurture.
Nature explanations
Biological explanations emphasise:
chromosomes
hormones
inherited biological processes
Nurture explanations
Social learning explanations emphasise:
observation
imitation
identification
reinforcement
culture
media
An interactionist discussion may argue that biological influences and social experiences combine in gender development rather than operating as completely separate causes.
Applying the debate to schizophrenia
Schizophrenia provides a particularly clear opportunity to compare all three positions.
Position | Example within schizophrenia |
Nature | Genetic explanations and biological vulnerability |
Nurture | Family dysfunction and stressful experience |
Interactionism | A vulnerability combines with environmental stress |
An effective extended response could compare inherited vulnerability with environmental family influences, before explaining how the diathesis-stress model combines them.
Applying the debate to eating behaviour
Eating behaviour also includes both biological and environmental explanations.
Nature-based influences include:
evolutionary explanations
genes
neural processes
hormones
Nurture-based influences include:
learning
social influences
cultural influences
media
Interactionist thinking is useful because eating behaviour may involve physiological mechanisms alongside cognition and social experience.
Applying the debate to the psychodynamic approach
The psychodynamic approach can be interpreted as interactionist because it includes:
innate drives
the effects of early childhood experience
This means it does not sit entirely on one side of the debate.
A strong application should identify the nature element and the nurture element rather than simply label the whole approach as interactionist.
A structured method for applying nature-nurture
Use four steps in an application question.
Identify the nature influence.
Look for heredity, genes, biological vulnerability, hormones or neurochemistry.
Identify the nurture influence.
Look for learning, reinforcement, role models, upbringing, culture or stressful events.
Link each influence to the behaviour.
Explain the specific mechanism rather than repeating the scenario.
Consider interactionism.
Explain whether the effect of one influence depends on the presence of the other.
Applied example
A child has biological relatives with a history of anxiety. After repeatedly witnessing a caregiver respond fearfully to dogs, the child begins avoiding dogs.
A developed explanation might state:
The family history suggests a possible inherited vulnerability, which supports the nature side of the debate. Observing the caregiver’s fearful behaviour provides a nurture influence because the child may learn fear through modelling. An interactionist explanation would propose that the inherited vulnerability made the child more susceptible to the environmental model.
Evaluating the nature side of the debate
Biological evidence can support inherited influence
Associations between genetic similarity and behavioural similarity can support the view that heredity contributes to behaviour.
Biological explanations may also involve measurable processes such as hormones, brain activity and neurochemistry.
This gives nature-based explanations scientific value because they can produce testable predictions.
Genetic evidence does not prove inevitability
Even strong evidence of inherited influence does not show that environment is irrelevant.
If people with the same genetic characteristics do not always show the same behaviour, other influences must be considered.
A predisposition should therefore not be confused with a guaranteed outcome.
Nature explanations may be socially sensitive
Claims that behaviour is inherited may affect how individuals and groups are viewed.
Such claims may:
encourage biological determinism
make change seem impossible
influence decisions about responsibility
create stigma
be used to justify unequal treatment
Psychologists should therefore report inherited influences cautiously and accurately.
Evaluating the nurture side of the debate
Environmental explanations can lead to change
If behaviour is learned or shaped by experience, environmental conditions may be altered.
This may lead to:
behavioural treatments
changes to reinforcement
educational interventions
family-based support
reduced exposure to harmful influences
Nurture explanations can therefore have important practical applications.
The same experience does not affect everyone equally
People exposed to the same environment may behave differently.
This suggests that environmental experience alone may not provide a complete explanation. Biological predispositions, cognition and previous experience may affect the outcome.
Environmental explanations can create blame
A nurture explanation may place responsibility on:
parents
families
schools
peer groups
cultures
For example, an explanation based on family dysfunction might unintentionally blame relatives for a psychological condition.
This does not mean environmental explanations should be rejected. It means their evidence and social implications should be considered carefully.
Evaluating the interactionist approach
Interactionism provides a more complete explanation
A strength of interactionism is that it recognises the combined influence of biology and experience.
Complex behaviour is unlikely to result from one isolated cause. Interactionism can account for:
inherited vulnerability
environmental triggers
individual differences in response to experience
why a predisposition is not always expressed
Interactionism has practical applications
An interactionist explanation may suggest combining different forms of intervention.
For example:
a biological treatment may address biological vulnerability
psychological or family-based treatment may address environmental and cognitive influences
support may reduce environmental stressors
This may be more appropriate than addressing only one side of the explanation.
Interactions can be difficult to investigate
The more influences an explanation includes, the more difficult it may be to establish:
which factor had the greatest effect
whether one factor caused the outcome
how the factors influenced each other
whether the same combination operates in every person
Interactionist explanations may be realistic, but they can be harder to test than simple one-factor explanations.
Is interactionism always the best answer?
Interactionism is often a useful position, but it should not be selected automatically.
An answer should explain:
what the biological influence is
what the environmental influence is
how the influences combine
what evidence would support the proposed interaction
Simply writing “both nature and nurture are involved” is not enough.
Building an extended response
A strong discussion of the nature-nurture debate might use the following structure:
Define the debate through the relative contribution of heredity and environment.
Explain the nature side using a topic from the course.
Explain the nurture side using the same or another relevant topic.
Explain interactionism and show how the two influences combine.
Evaluate one-sided explanations.
Evaluate the interactionist approach.
Consider practical or socially sensitive implications.
Reach a balanced conclusion about the behaviour in the question.
The specification expects Issues and Debates answers to be illustrated with topics studied elsewhere in the course where appropriate.
Key Words 🔑
Key word | Student-friendly definition | How it may be used in an exam |
Nature-nurture debate | The debate about the relative importance of heredity and environment in determining behaviour | Define the debate or organise an extended comparison of biological and environmental explanations |
Nature | Inherited and biological influences on behaviour | Apply genes, hormones, neurochemistry or biological vulnerability to a scenario |
Nurture | Environmental experiences and learning that influence behaviour | Apply conditioning, role models, upbringing, culture or stressful events |
Heredity | The transmission of genetic characteristics from biological parents to children | Explain how an inherited factor may contribute to behavioural similarity |
Environment | External physical and social experiences that may affect behaviour | Identify the particular experience or learning process influencing behaviour |
Genetic vulnerability | An inherited predisposition that increases the likelihood of developing a characteristic or condition | Explain a nature influence without claiming the outcome is inevitable |
Predisposition | An increased likelihood of developing a behaviour or characteristic | Distinguish inherited risk from a guaranteed outcome |
Interactionist approach | The view that behaviour results from the combined influence of nature and nurture | Explain how biological vulnerability and environmental experience work together |
Diathesis | An underlying vulnerability | Apply the nature component of a diathesis-stress explanation |
Stressor | An environmental event or condition that places pressure on an individual | Apply the nurture component of a diathesis-stress explanation |
Diathesis-stress model | An interactionist explanation in which a vulnerability combines with environmental stress | Apply interactionism to schizophrenia |
Concordance | The extent to which two people share the same characteristic or outcome | Interpret data comparing behavioural similarity and genetic relatedness |
Relative importance | The degree to which each influence contributes compared with the other | Avoid treating the debate as a simple choice between two absolute positions |
Hints from the Examiner Reports 💡
Examiner hint: Define both sides of the debate. Mark scheme guidance shows that a full definition must mention nature, nurture and the relative contribution of each. Focusing only on genes or only on experience is incomplete.
Examiner hint: Interactionism means that nature and nurture work together. In the 2024 examination, most students correctly identified the interactionist statement, but a considerable number confused it with an environmental or reductionist explanation.
Examiner hint: Do not confuse the nature-nurture debate with determinism. The 2024 examiner report identified frequent confusion between nature-nurture, determinism and holism-reductionism in extended responses. Nature-nurture concerns the source of behaviour, while determinism concerns the extent to which behaviour is controlled.
Examiner hint: Apply a precise psychological mechanism. Do not write only that a person’s family or childhood “affected them”. State whether the influence involved inheritance, conditioning, reinforcement, modelling, family interaction or stress.
Examiner hint: Use all relevant parts of a scenario. If a stem contains both inherited similarity and environmental experience, explain each and then consider an interactionist account.
Examiner hint: When interpreting data, explain the pattern rather than merely copying figures. Greater similarity among people with greater genetic relatedness may support nature, while incomplete similarity can leave a role for nurture.
Examiner hint: Do not assume that evidence for nature disproves nurture. A genetic vulnerability can contribute to behaviour while environmental conditions influence whether the vulnerability is expressed.
Examiner hint: In an extended response, return repeatedly to the named behaviour or topic. A prepared description of the debate will not earn strong application marks unless heredity, environment and interactionism are linked directly to the material in the question.
Examiner hint: Develop evaluative points. Rather than writing “interactionism is more complete”, explain that it can account for why people with similar vulnerabilities respond differently to environmental stress.
Examiner hint: There is no calculation specific to this lesson. Data questions may require you to compare percentages or patterns, but the main skill is interpreting what those data suggest about nature and nurture.
Common Mistakes ⚠️
Mistake: Defining the debate using only nature
Why this is incorrect:
The debate concerns the relative contribution of both heredity and environment.
How to improve:
Define nature and nurture, then state that psychologists consider their relative importance in determining behaviour.
Mistake: Treating nature as another word for determinism
Why this is incorrect:
Nature identifies an inherited or biological influence. Determinism concerns whether that influence governs behaviour and removes personal control.
How to improve:
Do not claim that an inherited influence makes behaviour inevitable unless the explanation explicitly states this.
Mistake: Treating nurture as only parenting
Why this is incorrect:
Nurture includes learning, reinforcement, role models, education, culture, relationships and significant experiences.
How to improve:
Identify the specific environmental influence relevant to the scenario.
Mistake: Writing that interactionism means nature and nurture are equally important
Why this is incorrect:
Interactionism proposes that they work together. It does not require an equal contribution.
How to improve:
Explain how one influence changes, triggers or depends on the effect of the other.
Mistake: Saying “both are involved” without explaining the interaction
Why this is incorrect:
This lists two influences but does not show how they combine.
How to improve:
Use a sequence such as vulnerability, environmental trigger, resulting behaviour.
Mistake: Assuming a genetic vulnerability guarantees a condition
Why this is incorrect:
A vulnerability increases likelihood but does not make the outcome certain.
How to improve:
Use cautious language such as “contributes to”, “increases susceptibility” or “creates a predisposition”.
Mistake: Repeating data without interpreting them
Why this is incorrect:
Writing that one group has a higher concordance rate does not explain what the pattern suggests.
How to improve:
Link greater genetic relatedness and greater behavioural similarity to nature, then consider why incomplete concordance leaves room for nurture.
Mistake: Claiming that concordance below 100%100\%100% disproves genetic influence
Why this is incorrect:
Incomplete concordance suggests that heredity is not a complete explanation. It does not show that genes have no influence.
How to improve:
Reach an interactionist conclusion where the data support contributions from both heredity and environment.
Mistake: Giving vague nurture application
Why this is incorrect:
Statements such as “their childhood affected them” lack a psychological mechanism.
How to improve:
Refer to conditioning, reinforcement, modelling, family interaction or a stressful experience.
Mistake: Confusing interactionism with holism
Why this is incorrect:
Interactionism specifically concerns the combined effect of nature and nurture. Holism examines the whole person and multiple aspects of experience.
How to improve:
Use interactionism only when both biological and environmental influences are clearly linked.
Mistake: Assuming the interactionist approach cannot be evaluated
Why this is incorrect:
Interactionism may provide a fuller explanation, but identifying and testing several interacting influences can be difficult.
How to improve:
Consider both explanatory value and problems establishing the relative effect of each factor.
Mistake: Listing course topics without linking them to the debate
Why this is incorrect:
Simply naming OCD, attachment or schizophrenia does not demonstrate application.
How to improve:
Identify the specific nature or nurture mechanism within each topic and explain why it belongs on that side of the debate.
Exam-Style Questions ✍️
Which one of the following statements best describes the interactionist approach?
A. Behaviour is caused entirely by inherited characteristics.B. Behaviour is caused entirely by environmental experience.C. Behaviour results from heredity and environment working together.D. Behaviour results from conscious choice rather than any causal influence.
[1 mark]
Explain what is meant by the nature-nurture debate in Psychology.
[2 marks]
Explain one difference between heredity and environment as influences on behaviour.
[3 marks]
Aarav is an accomplished pianist. Several of his biological relatives have strong musical abilities. From early childhood, Aarav was also praised for practising and regularly watched his older sister perform.
Explain one nature influence and one nurture influence on Aarav’s musical behaviour.[4 marks]
Researchers investigated a behavioural characteristic in two groups of sibling pairs. Concordance meant that both siblings showed the characteristic.
Sibling group | Concordance rate |
Greater genetic similarity | 64%64\%64% |
Lower genetic similarity | 29%29\%29% |
Explain what the results suggest about the relative roles of nature and nurture.[4 marks]
Two psychologists are discussing anxiety.
Psychologist A: “Anxiety is entirely inherited. Environmental experiences are unimportant.”
Psychologist B: “An inherited vulnerability may make someone more affected by frightening experiences.”
Analyse the two statements using your knowledge of the nature-nurture debate.[6 marks]
Leoni has a biological vulnerability to a psychological condition. She did not experience symptoms until she moved away from home, lost contact with close friends and began a highly stressful course.
Explain how an interactionist approach could account for Leoni’s condition.[4 marks]
Explain how one explanation of attachment and one explanation of a mental health condition illustrate different positions in the nature-nurture debate.
[6 marks]
Discuss the interactionist approach to the nature-nurture debate. Refer to at least one topic you have studied in Psychology.
[8 marks]
Sofia is highly successful academically. Her father believes that she inherited her abilities because several biological relatives achieved highly at school. Her mother points out that Sofia attended a well-resourced school, received regular encouragement and spent many hours studying. Sofia’s teacher suggests that her inherited abilities may have helped her benefit from these educational experiences.
Discuss the nature-nurture debate. Refer to Sofia in your answer.[16 marks]
Comments