Nature Of Nurture Research Articles

Beyond the gene roundtable discussion

This virtual discussion between biomedical researchers and academics in the literary humanities took place in June–July 2013, through the medium of blog and email. The participants are Tim Spector (Genetic Epidemiology), Karen Temple (Medical Genetics), Angelique Richardson (Literary Studies), Deborah J.G. Mackay (Human Genetics) and Peter Garratt (Literary Studies). The conversation was initiated and convened by Mandy Bloomfield (Literary Studies). What develops in the course of the discussion is a sense of the ways in which biomedical researchers working on genetics are discovering new complexities with profound cultural and philosophical implications, whilst those working in the humanities are considering what those implications might be, but from a position on the edges of specialist scientific knowledge and modes of thinking. Perhaps inevitably, we sometimes find we are not speaking quite the same language. And this question of language – of metaphors, varieties of meaning, precision and indeterminacy – crops up time and again in this discussion. Perhaps it is in these frictive edges between disciplines that productive dialogue can happen, and we can learn from the differences between perspectives. For example, in this discussion the ‘nurture–nature’ dichotomy is interrogated in different ways, but with equivalent levels of reflective rigour, by researchers in the biomedical and humanities disciplines alike. What do we really mean by those terms? What are the historical components of this conceptual divide? Is it even possible to separate ‘nurture’ from ‘nature’? If a consensus emerges from this discussion, it is that current research in both the sciences and the humanities is blurring the distinctions between such dichotomous constructions as ‘nature vs. nurture’ in ways that are changing thinking and practices across the disciplines. Whether this takes us to a revaluation of Victorian understandings of organism and environment, or into ever-more complicated relationships between medical practitioners and their patients, we are, as one participant puts it, ‘in for an interesting time'.

The Nature of Nurture: Refining the Definition of the Exposome

Historical debates concerning human biology and behavior have frequently focused on contributions of nature, ie, the inherited characteristics with which we are born, and nurture, ie, life’s influences after birth. Indeed, the concept of nature vs nurture has guided our understanding of human biology for decades, if not centuries. A series of discoveries has greatly advanced the knowledge of our nature. Watson and Crick’s unraveling of the double helix revolutionized the understanding of our genetic makeup (Watson and Crick, 1953). The polymerase chain reaction allowed amplification and manipulation of genes (Saiki et al., 1988). Identified links between specific genes and disease (Saiki et al., 1985) led to new diagnostic tools and treatments. These advances spurred the Human Genome Project with success in sequencing the entire human genome (Lander et al., 2001; Venter et al., 2001). This epic undertaking of biomedical science and technology was completed with amazing speed and celebrated with great fanfare. But the limitation of genetics to predict disease rapidly became obvious; as noted by Dr Venter shortly after the completion of human genome sequence, “We simply do not have enough genes for this idea of biological determinism to be right (McKie 2001).” Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have revealed genetic associations and networks that improve understanding of disease, but these still account for only a fraction of disease risk. With the majority of disease causation being nongenetic, the need for improved tools to quantify environmental contributions seems obvious. The simple distinction between genes and environment is blurred by knowledge that environmental exposures cause permanent genetic changes via mutagenesis and also have long-term impact on gene expression through epigenetic mechanisms. Importantly, epigenetic mechanisms are central to differentiation and development, impacting genome function before birth and throughout life. The epigenome is highly reliant on nurture, ie, the nature and timing of environmental exposures and external forces. Randy Jirtle, a pioneer in epigenomics stated “The nature vs. nurture argument is rapidly proving to be irrelevant, because we’re finding that the 2 forces interact in highly specific ways that alter gene behavior (Duke Health, 2006).” Although Dr Jirtle suggests the argument is becoming irrelevant, the reality is that biomedical research is overwhelmingly focused on the gene side of this debate. The tools and knowledge of our nature are far ahead of those for the environment. If we want to focus on the interaction between nature and nurture, we need better ways of cataloguing and integrating the complex exposures and forces that represent nurture. Such a framework is provided by the exposome.

Nature, nurture, and expertise

Rather than investigating the extent to which training can improve performance under experimental conditions (‘what could be’), we ask about the origins of expertise as it exists in the world (‘what is’). We used the twin method to investigate the genetic and environmental origins of exceptional performance in reading, a skill that is a major focus of educational training in the early school years. Selecting reading experts as the top 5% from a sample of 10,000 12-year-old twins assessed on a battery of reading tests, three findings stand out. First, we found that genetic factors account for more than half of the difference in performance between expert and normal readers. Second, our results suggest that reading expertise is the quantitative extreme of the same genetic and environmental factors that affect reading performance for normal readers. Third, growing up in the same family and attending the same schools account for less than a fifth of the difference between expert and normal readers. We discuss implications and interpretations (‘what is inherited is DNA sequence variation’; ‘the abnormal is normal’). Finally, although there is no necessary relationship between ‘what is’ and ‘what could be’, the most far-reaching issues about the acquisition of expertise lie at the interface between them (‘the nature of nurture: from a passive model of imposed environments to an active model of shaped experience’).

The nature of nurture: Disentangling passive genotype–environment correlation from family relationship influences on children's externalizing problems.

The relationship between interparental conflict, hostile parenting, and children's externalizing problems is well established. Few studies, however, have examined the pattern of association underlying this constellation of family and child level variables while controlling for the possible confounding presence of passive genotype–environment correlation. Using the attributes of 2 genetically sensitive research designs, the present study examined associations among interparental conflict, parent-to-child hostility, and children's externalizing problems among genetically related and genetically unrelated mother–child and father–child groupings. Analyses were conducted separately by parent gender, thereby allowing examination of the relative role of the mother–child and father–child relationships on children's behavioral outcomes. Path analyses revealed that for both genetically related and genetically unrelated parents and children, indirect associations were apparent from interparental conflict to child externalizing problems through mother-to-child and father-to-child hostility. Associations between interparental conflict and parent-to-child hostility across genetically related and genetically unrelated parent–child groupings were significantly stronger for fathers compared to mothers. Results are discussed with respect to the role of passive genotype–environment correlation as a possible confounding influence in interpreting research findings from previous studies conducted in this area. Implications for intervention programs focusing on family process influences on child externalizing problems are also considered.

The Nature of Nurture and the Future of Evodevo: Toward a Theory of Developmental Evolution

This essay has three parts. First, I posit that much research in contemporary evodevo remains steeped in a traditional framework that views traits and trait differences as being caused by genes and genetic variation, and the environment as providing an external context in which development and evolution unfold. Second, I discuss three attributes of organismal development and evolution, broadly applicable to all organisms and traits that call into question the usefulness of gene- and genome-centric views of development and evolution. I then focus on the third and main aim of this essay and ask: what conceptual and empirical opportunities exist that would permit evodevo research to transcend the traditional boundaries inherited from its parent disciplines and to move toward the development of a more comprehensive and realistic theory of developmental evolution? Here, I focus on three conceptual frameworks, the theory of facilitated variation, the theory of evolution by genetic accommodation, and the theory of niche construction. I conclude that combined they provide a rich, interlocking framework within which to revise existing and develop novel empirical approaches toward a better understanding of the nature of developmental evolution. Examples of such approaches are highlighted, and the consequences of expanding existing frameworks are discussed.

The nature of nurture

The issues of research, credibility and regulation are addressed in the first of six articles about complementary and alternative therapies.

The Nurture of Nature: Childhood, Anitmodernism, and Ontario Summer Camps, 1920-1955 (review)

Reviewed by: The Nurture of Nature: Childhood, Anitmodernism, and Ontario Summer Camps, 1920-1955 Katharine Rollwagen Wall, Sharon — The Nurture of Nature: Childhood, Anitmodernism, and Ontario Summer Camps, 1920-1955. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2010. Pp. 369. Sharon Wall's recent history of the summer camp movement in Ontario may leave the reader with difficulty remembering the correct title — is it The Nurture of Nature or The Nature of Nurture? After reading Wall's study the reader will learn that the title could, in fact, be either. The Nurture of Nature: Childhood, [End Page 486] Anitmodernism, and Ontario Summer Camps, 1920-1955 examines both the ways in which being "in nature" was seen as beneficial to an increasingly urban population and the ways in which understandings of child development and the purpose of childhood changed during this period. The latter aspect is the focus of this review. Although Wall's study is published by the "Nature/History/ Society" series of the University of British Columbia Press, it has as much to offer to historians of childhood and youth as it does to environmental scholars. Wall's past research focuses mainly on young people's cultures and experiences; "nature" here provides a useful lens through which to examine an increasingly common and influential childhood experience during the middle decades of the twentieth century. In six chapters, Wall reveals the complex ties between nature and childhood manifest in Ontario's fledgling camping movement. Wall focuses most of her narrative on elite private camps and non-profit "Fresh Air" camps, but also includes church-run camps such as the Canadian Girls in Training (CGIT) programme. She limits her study to Ontario, where, she contends, Canada's camping movement was most active in the years between the First and Second World Wars. Her analysis is based on camp archives, the personal papers of camp directors, and published literature, as well as 32 interviews with former campers. The interviews corroborate Wall's arguments and provide colourful anecdotes, but this is not an oral history of campers' experiences. Wall is much more interested in camp directors' ideas and actions and, specifically, in the ways that camps reproduced a class-based social hierarchy. Ontario's camp movement, she insists, was "fundamentally class-segregated" (p. 64). Wall demonstrates clearly that the division between private and charity camps was more significant than one's ability to pay fees. Wealth shaped camps' locations, size, architecture, amenities, staff, programmes, and, ultimately, their impact. For example, Wall demonstrates convincingly that conceptions of nature were shaped by classist assumptions. Private camps, staffed and run mainly by the camp's alumni, were designed to give their clients a much more untamed view of nature than charity-based camps. Private campers learned that "wilderness" was waiting to be conquered; it was a commodity to be consumed. Their camps' locations, far from any centre of habitation, gave them elite status. Only wealthy children could pay to get there (usually by train, then bus, then boat), and they usually stayed at camp for the entire school holiday period. On the other hand, charity camps were run by middle-class do-gooders who saw their working-class clients as already sufficiently "wild" and perhaps in need of a little taming. Fresh air camps, as they were otherwise known, were by necessity located close to the city, but their rural, idyllic settings also promoted a more middle-class appreciation of cultivated nature than the isolated forests and lakes of private camps. The wealthier children in private camps were "roughing it," while the poorer children in charity camps often found better conditions at camp — indoor plumbing, for example — than they had at home. Wall provides sufficient evidence to suggest that class shaped campers' experiences as much as — or more than — gendered or racial ideologies. While camp [End Page 487] programming differed for girls and boys at all camps in the interwar years, the dichotomy between programming at private camps verses fresh air camps was greater. For example, camp directors sought to "make men" out of their male clients. At private camps, this meant exposing boys to activities that would make them physically tough and morally refined. In a...

The Emerging Nature of Nurture

The Fundamentals of Brain Development . Integrating Nature and Nurture. By Joan Stiles . Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2008. 433 pp. $49.95, £32.95, €37.50. ISBN 9780674026742. Stiles draws on the findings of the past two decades to provide an inclusive and accessible account of the complexities and dynamism of brain development.

The Nature of Nurture: A Genomewide Association Scan for Family Chaos

Widely used measures of the environment, especially the family environment of children, show genetic influence in dozens of twin and adoption studies. This phenomenon is known as gene-environment correlation in which genetically driven influences of individuals affect their environments. We conducted the first genome-wide association (GWA) analysis of an environmental measure. We used a measure called CHAOS which assesses ‘environmental confusion’ in the home, a measure that is more strongly associated with cognitive development in childhood than any other environmental measure. CHAOS was assessed by parental report when the children were 3 years and again when the children were 4 years; a composite CHAOS measure was constructed across the 2 years. We screened 490,041 autosomal single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in a two-stage design in which children in low chaos families (N = 469) versus high chaos families (N = 369) from 3,000 families of 4-year-old twins were screened in Stage 1 using pooled DNA. In Stage 2, following SNP quality control procedures, 41 nominated SNPs were tested for association with family chaos by individual genotyping an independent representative sample of 3,529. Despite having 99% power to detect associations that account for more than 0.5% of the variance, none of the 41 nominated SNPs met conservative criteria for replication. Similar to GWA analyses of other complex traits, it is likely that most of the heritable variation in environmental measures such as family chaos is due to many genes of very small effect size.

The Nature of Nurture

The Nature of Nurture

Death, Neurosis, and Normalcy: On the Ubiquity of Personal and Social Delusions

In this article Freudian theory is invoked to illustrate the connections among repression, the fear of death, and delusional phantasies. Civilization is a structure invented to protect individuals from death, but the sacrifices imposed by that social structure are psychologically injurious and terrifying because society threatens individuals with punishment and death for having illicit desires. Annihilation anxiety may be abated by social structures, but the psychological sacrifice and threat amplify annihilation anxiety. I further argue that immersion in personal or social phantasies quells the conscious fear of death. Individuals vary in terms of reactions to death anxiety and how the complex matrix of fear and terror is nourished or abated in the developmental process. A Freudian reading of the developmental process implicates the inherently traumatic nature of nurture and the necessity of self-deceptive illusions. These phantasies do subdue conscious fear, but conscious feelings of security do not dispel unconscious tremors. Underneath these phantasies, dread and terror impel rigid adherence to whatever phantasy system provides subjective feelings of safety and salvation.

The Contribution of Genetics to Psychology Today and in the Decade to Follow

Hundreds of studies conducted by means of twin and adoption methods during the second half of the 20th century showed that hardly any behavior or psychological traits exist to which genes do not contribute when explaining individual differences in these phenomena. It became evident that individual differences in human and animal behavior—regardless of their nature—cannot be reasonably explained without referring to behavioral genetics, underpinning the importance of both genes and environment as inseparable causes. Studies aimed at identifying heritability, thus indicating the proportion of phenotypic variance that can be attributed to the genetic variance, have showed that personality traits, including temperament, as well as cognitive characteristics, especially intelligence, show heritability coefficients ranging from 40% to about 60%. The application of path analysis and structural equation models in elaborating twin and adoption data has allowed for advances in behavioral genetic research resulting in new and qualitatively different approaches. The two last decades of the 20th century experienced a radical increase in behavioral genetic research extending beyond heritability. Studies centering on developmental changes, especially in cognitive abilities, allowed us to identify the dynamics present in the contribution of genes and environment that explain these changes. The switch from a concentration on explaining the phenotypic variance of separate traits to multivariate genetic analysis allowed us to study the contribution of genes and environment to the covariance among traits under study. Behavior genetics has provided spectacular evidence for the importance of the environment in determining individual differences. But despite the common view shared by parents and educators, it turned out that it is mainly the nonshared environment that explains individual differences, that is, the environment that children growing up in the same family experience differently. Several twin and adoption studies have shown the genetic influence on the environment experienced by individuals. In other words, individuals with a given genetic endowment select or create environments that correspond to their genotypes. This discovery, which refers to the “nature of nurture,” allows us to understand why individuals who share the same genes European Psychologist

Stranger in the nest: do parents really shape their child's personality, intelligence, or character?

Within the Nest. SATURDAY SIDE:THE NATURE OF NURTURE Making Connections. Blaming Parents. Forging a World. A Mind of One's Own. Random Elements. SUNDAY SIDE:BLUEPRINTS FOR LIFE Intelligence and Personality. Vulnerability and Creativity. Conduct and Character. Psyche and the Single Gene. A Prenatal World. Unmasked Potentials. Out of the Blue. Beyond the Nest. Chapter Notes. Bibliography. Index.

DNA and destiny: nature and nurture in human behavior

Genes and Human Behavior The Old Nature versus Nurture Debate The Dark History of Eugenics The Nature of Nurture: Defining Environmental Influences New Tools for an Old Problem New Improvements in the Old Tools The Inheritance of Disease: A Paradigm for the Inheritance of Behavior? Intelligence Mental Disorders Personality Traits Sexual Orientation Alcoholism and Addictive Behavior Crime and Violence Sex, Genes, and Testosterone Biology and Social Responsibility Epilogue References Index

Book reviews

Book reviewed in this article:Discursive Psychology. By D. Edwards & J. Potter.Personality at Work: The Role of Individual Differences in the Workplace. By A. Furnham.Language, Interaction and Social Cognition. Edited by G. R. Semin & K. Fiedler.Feminism and Psychoanalysis: A Critical Dictionary. Edited by Elizabeth Wright.Psychology and Postmodernism. Edited by S. Kvale.Vulnerability and Resilience in Human Growth. Edited by B. Tizard & V. Varma.Health Psychology: Stress, Behaviour and Disease. By D. Carroll.Accounting for Transsexualism and Transhomosexuality. By Bryan Tully.The Nature of Nurture. By T. D. Wachs.A History of Hypnotism. By Alan Gauld.It Shouldn't Happen to a Patient. By Pittu Laungani.

The nature of nurture. Indivudual Differences and Development Series, Vol. 3. By Theodore D. Wachs. Sage, Newbury Park, CA, ISBN 0‐8039‐4374‐1

Early Development and ParentingVolume 4, Issue 1 p. 42-44 Book ReviewFree Access The nature of nurture. Indivudual Differences and Development Series, Vol. 3. By Theodore D. Wachs. Sage, Newbury Park, CA, ISBN 0-8039-4374-1 Theodore D. Wachs, Theodore D. Wachs Department of Psychological Sciences Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USASearch for more papers by this author Theodore D. Wachs, Theodore D. Wachs Department of Psychological Sciences Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USASearch for more papers by this author First published: March 1995 https://doi.org/10.1002/edp.2430040107AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL References Crawford, C., and Anderson, J. (1989). Sociobiology: an environmentalist discipline. American Psychologist, 44, 1449– 1459. Gottleib, G. (1992). Individual Development and Evolution. New York: Oxford University Press. Killackey, H. (1990). Neocortical expansion: an attempt toward relating pylogeny and ontogeny. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 2, 1– 17. Plomin, R. (1994). Response to commentaries. Social Development, 3, 71– 76. Rowe, D. (1994). The Limits of Family Influence. New York: Guilford. Scarr, S. (1985). Constructing psychology. American Psychologist, 40, 499– 512. Wachs, T. D. (in press). Genetic and family influences on individual development: both necessary. neither sufficient. Psychological Inquiry. Volume4, Issue1March 1995Pages 42-44 ReferencesRelatedInformation

More on the nature of nurture

More on the nature of nurture

The nature of nurture: Genetic influence on “environmental” measures

AbstractEvidence for genetic influence on environmental measures will emerge in quantitative genetic analyses if genetically influenced characteristics of individuals are assessed by these environmental measures. Recent twin and adoption studies indicate substantial genetic influence when measures of the environment are treated as phenotypes in genetic analyses. Genetic influence has been documented for measures as diverse as videotaped observations of parental behavior toward their children, ratings by parents and children of their family environment, and ratings of peer groups, social support, and life events. Evidence for genetic influence on environmental measures includes some of the most widely used measures of environment – the Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment, the Family Environment Scales, and the Social Readjustment Rating Scale of life events, for example. The goal of this article is to document and discuss these findings and to elicit commentary that might help to shape the course of research on this topic, which has far-reaching implications for the behavioral and brain sciences.

A psychiatric perspective on the “nature of nurture”

A psychiatric perspective on the “nature of nurture”

Nature and nurture: an introduction to human behavioral genetics

Why are people different? Individual and group differences. The challenge. How do genes influence behaviour? DNA. Genetic influence and behaviour. How can genetic influence on behaviour be detected? Quantitative genetic theory. Behavioural genetic methods used in animal studies. Human behavioural genetic methods. How much does heredity affect behaviour? Cognitive abilities. Personality. Psychopathology. Delinquency and crime. Alcoholism. How are nurture and nature important? The importance of environment. Nonshared and shared environmental influence. The nature of nurture. The future of behavioural genetics.