Nature Vs. Nurture Case Study

1456 Words 6 Pages
The famous discussion of nature vs. nurture was somewhat interrupted by the realization that both aspects, genetics and environment, have important input in individuals. By combining the studies of genetics and psychology it is possible to correlate results from the fields and search for possible, and hopefully specific, genes involved in the expression of certain traits. For instance, Poulin et al (2011) explored the relationship between receptor genes of oxytocin and vasopressin and prediction of prosocial behavior. In this particular study, Poulin et al (2011) intended to “examine whether oxytocin and vasopressin interact with threat to predict prosocial behavior outside the contexts of the laboratory and close relationships” by examining …show more content…
In addition, that “long forms of the AVPR1a rs1 and rs3 microsatellites … should predict greater levels of prosocial behavior” than the short forms. Poulin et al (2011) implemented internet-based surveys, including life-event, social and political surveys, and DNA collection to test their hypothesis. With the surveys, it was predicted that “[h]igher mean scores indicated greater disagreement that people and the world in general are good” (p. 448) for perceived threat. The results for civic duty and charitable activities were not explicitly correlated to a certain interpretation, but were taken into account for the final …show more content…
nurture resolution opened the doors to new perspectives of study that would include both factors and their subsets, such as the past one, their reliability is still debatable in the context of their replicability. Dick et al (2015), for instance, argument that there should a concern and special attention to candidate gene studies. One of the reasons they pose this concern is because there are different conceptualizations of the results depending on the field. According to Dick et al (2015), for psychologists and members of other social sciences the genetics-environment effects are interpreted “as a genotype moderating the association between an environmental factor and an outcome” (p. 41), in other words, it is the environmental factors the ones that are associated with increased risks. On the other hand, for geneticists the genetics-environment is interpreted “as an environment moderating the association between a genotype and the outcome” (p, 41), the opposite of the previous conceptualization. In addition, Dick et al (2015) say that “widely studied candidate genes were not found to be significant when studied systematically across the backdrop of the genome in well-powered studies” (p. 42) with few exceptions. Dick et al (2015) also say that there is probable publication bias, where the “interest in positive findings is clearly misplaced if they are false, as the can (mis)guide research efforts and funding priorities” (p. 42). Moreover,

Related Documents