Nature vs. Nurture Debate in regard to Intelligence.

The great nature versus nurture debate has recently shifted from, whether our genetics or the environment influences our psychological processes, to how much both, biology or the environment has an impact. Both nature and nurture have been researched thoroughly with evidence to support both sides of the debate. The nature side or the genetic side argues that intelligence is inherited in the way that a person is born with their maximum mental ability. To say that a person’s genetics solely established their mentality is to say that the environment has no influence at all. On the other hand the nurture side or environmental side argues that the environment plays a significant role in a person’s mental ability. This discussion will look at the research and compare the evidence that supports both sides of the debate.

It has been a well known fact for some time now that traits such as hair, eye and skin colour, are all determined by specific genes passed down from our parents. The nature theory takes it further to say that traits such as intelligence, personality, aggression and sexual orientation are also in our genetics. This can be tested thanks to the birth of monozygotic or identical twins born from the same cell. Most data suggests that the genetic effect is more powerful. For example, identical twins reared apart show an average IQ correlation of about .75, which is even larger than DZ twins reared together (Burton, Weston, Kowalski, 2012). Although this correlation is not likely to be as strong in low socioeconomic groups as this is the group that has the greatest amount of risk factors. The greater amount of risk factors, the greater chance that a person will not reach their full potential (Hackman, Farah, Meaney, 2010).

Francis Galton was the first to use twin studies to collect evidence for this hypothesis to explain intelligence and many other researchers continuing to use this same technique. These studies involved sets of twins, both identical and fraternal twins, which are used to correlate IQ. They are conducted so that the results can compare the influence of heritability and the environment. As monozygotic twins share 100 percent of their genes, and dizygotic twins share 50 percent it gives us the ability to compare variables. If genetic factors are important in IQ, monozygotic twins should be more alike than dizygotic twins, siblings, and parents and their off-spring (Sternberg, Grigorenko, 1997). Biological relatives should also be more alike than adopted children and their adoptive parents or siblings. (Burton, Weston, Kowalski, 2012) These studies also involve comparing the results to the family, comparing IQ to parents and other siblings.

Research on adoption is also used for both sides of the debate, comparing variables between siblings or twins reared apart in order to examine the relative influence of genes and the environment. Adoption is highly beneficial for nature as it shows the effects of children brought up in the same family compared with those of different genetics in the family (Sternberg, Grigorenko, 1997). An example in favour of nature would be, if a set of monozygotic twins were to show similar intelligence even after being raised in different environments. It has been seen that monozygotic twins reared apart still have a higher correlation of IQ than dizygotic twins reared together(Burton, Weston, Kowalski, 2012). If genetics did not play a part in intelligence then dizygotic twins reared together would resemble each other strikingly close regardless of their only 50 percent in genetic relatedness. The interesting evidence is that dizygotic twins show a higher correlation than their other siblings even when reared apart supporting the theory once again that genetics does have a major influence on human intelligence. By using monozygotic twins as the control group any differences would have to be explained by environmental factors (Sternberg, Grigorenko, 1997). Studies have also shown that adopted children compared to the family’s biological children have no correlation although they have been brought up in the same family, school, and economic environment (Sternberg, Grigorenko, 1997). These studies have all found that it is the genetics that have a stronger influence on intelligence of a person rather than the environment.

On the other side of the debate we have the nurture theory that believes that intelligence is caused by a person’s environment. This means that environmental factors may include education, socioeconomic status, nutrition, parents behaviour, alcohol, criminal behaviour, emotional adaptation, down to the amount of time spent reading or even watching television amongst many others (Flynn, 1992). Research has focused much on infants and children, nutrition, twin and adoption just like supporters of the nature theory. It has also been noticed that IQ has been rising about 3 IQ points per decade across all industrialised countries, this means that since WWII the average IQ has risen over 1 standard deviation (Flynn, 1992). This suggests that social and environmental conditions lead to changes in IQ (Burton, Weston, Kowalski, 2012). Although studies have shown that nutrition plays a large role in development, the increase in IQ cannot be explained by diet alone. Another explanation is that children have experienced a wide variety of new technological creations stimulating them, helping with visual puzzles like those on IQ tests (Neisser, 1998). Many researchers have attempted to explain the theory, yet it is still unknown to what causes this increase in IQ. Many environmental factors have shown to have only slight contributions and are often unrelated to one another.

Psychological experiments of conditioning are an example of ways of controlling a person’s environment and show how important a person’s environment is in effecting how they think and therefore their intelligence. It has been demonstrated through experiments on children that fear can be learned. If it were not learned from the environment then it would likely never develop to show how important the environment is for the development of humans in many aspects. Burrhus Frederic Skinner’s experiments on pigeons is an example of how much is possible with conditioning (Burton, Weston, Kowalski, 2012). He was able to produce pigeons that could do figure eights, play tennis, dance and do certain actions in order to receive food. Although this is not an example of humans it shows a distinct connection between the environment and potential if just given the chance a person or animal is highly capable. This is an example of both nature and nurture working together, with the necessary genetics available and the environmental stimulus.

The study of twins for the nurture side is done by looking at identical twins and the fact that they are not 100% the same with different characteristics, behaviour and intellectual ability is proof enough that the environment must have had an impact on them. Just as adoption studies have also shown that a person’s environment plays a part in their assisting with intelligence (Sternberg, Grigorenko, 1997). Studies on interracial adoption in particular have shown that black children adopted by white middle class families who are tested before and later down the track have had a significant improvement of average IQ 83 to IQ 103, a 15 point increase and 20 point increase than their biological mother (Williams, 1997). This could be due to a numerous amount of factors whether it is schooling, opportunity, family or social environment. Schooling has been proven to improve a child’s IQ and with other environmental factors such as change of post code and resources combines can make significant changes to help with developing a person’s intelligence.

Looking at all the research covered although much has not been discussed, there is significant evidence that would prove that both sides have a great influence on our intelligence. There are high correlations for monozygotic twins even when raised apart are an extremely strong point in favour for nature. (Sternberg, Grigorenko, 1997). Although most studies are done on middle class white families where environmental risk factors are significantly lower than in lower class families. It does not show how influential the environment can be, if it were to be done on lower class monozygotic twins it would likely show a lower correlation and from their other siblings as well (Hackman, Farah, Meaney, 2010). Both sides work together complementing each other contributing and influencing a person’s intelligence. As this has been a topical debate for some time now, it isn’t surprising that an interactionist perspective has come about on explaining intelligence (Sternberg, Wagney, 1994). This perspective argues that both nature and nurture interact and work together, that neither nature nor nurture are capable of explaining intelligence entirely. ‘The person and the situation each contribute components to be integrated in successful performance’ (Sternberg, Vagner, 1994). A person is born with their genetic component and as they grow and experience life, the environment shapes and teaches that person assisting with intelligence. According to this theory it would be unlikely for a person to reach their full potential as the environment is filled with positive but also negative risk factors that would affect a person’s abilities. A person’s environment must require certain interactions and possibilities to learn in order to reach their biological potential already built in from birth.

Reference

Burton, L., Westen, D., Kowalski, R. (2012). Psychology (3^rd ed). John Wiley and sons inc.

Flynn, J. R. (1992). Cultural distance and the limitations of IQ. In J. Lynch, C. Modgil, & S. Modgil (Eds.), Education for cultural diversity: Convergence and divergence (pp. 343-360). London: Palmer Press.

Hackman, D. A., Farah, M. J., Meaney, M. J. (2010). Socioeconomic status and the brain: mechanistic insights from human and animal research. Macmillian Publishers Limited

Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. (1997). Intelligence, Hereditary, and Environment. Cambridge University Press

Sternberg, R. J., Wagney, R. K. (1994). Mind in context: Interactionist Perspectives on Human Intelligence. Cambridge University Press

Neisser, U. (1998). The rising curve: Long-term gains in IQ and related measures. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.

Williams, W. M., Ceci, S. J. (1997). Are Americans Becoming More or Less Alike? Trends in Race, Class, and Ability Differences in Intelligence. American Psychological Association

My First Year. Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methods Essay

It was a bit rushed and is missing a few things (like a conclusion :/) .. But it still got me a HD :) . So i'm happy!!


Qualitative research methods are conducted in a natural setting that allows for an in-depth analysis to find meaning and are taken in the form of words, sounds, pictures or objects. This allows for precise recordings of events and any consequences that may have occurred as a direct or indirect effect of such an event. Quantitative research methods are precise and focus on a specific topic at hand. It does this by largely depending on specific measurements, analysis and interpretation of numerical and non-numerical data. I will be comparing each type of research method and the different methods used within them, the differences between qualitative and quantitative as well as the methodologies, epistemologies, and ethical issues that are involved with the research methods.

When using qualitative research methods a precise question or hypothesis does not need to be in mind but a general topic of interest that you would like to conduct an experiment on (Willig, 2001). This may become a difficulty though as all research proposals are reviewed by special committees who like to know exactly what and why you are doing the particular experiment. This is why research is based on well thought out and justifiable principles that are relevant to the research. Qualitative researchers take an interpretative approach whilst being subjective. This allows the researcher to have an increased understanding of the meaning behind what is being observed and recorded. These methodologies contribute to the in-depth analysis to have a greater specificity of a smaller number of participants (Willig, 2001). Qualitative research does not require a large number of participants as it is rather exploratory and is not sure what it may uncover so may change as research continues. It is aiming to uncover the larger picture behind an event and is interested in the more humanistic point of view, opinions, experiences and attitudes of the participants rather than solid facts that can be used for generalisability (Willig, 2001). Qualitative research is often used as a starting point to look further into a topic, which may not be as well understood. Such topics like cultural values and social behaviour require in-depth interviewing and intense observation as such qualitative research methods should be used as it is capable of collecting sensitive data that quantitative data cannot.

Unlike qualitative research methods quantitative research methods use ‘The Scientific Method’ to systemically acquire information about behaviour and other phenomena to be researched. This method is done firstly by defining a question or hypothesis to be answered, then by creating a way of measuring or a way to prove the hypothesis, create a study plan for how the research will be conducted, decide on the sample that will be analysed, collect data, analyse data collected and interpret this data.

Qualitative methods are often associated with the aim for social development. Some qualitative research methods include observation, ethnography, interviewing, action research and participatory research. Observational research is used for most psychological research whether it be structured or unstructured. These experiments may be recorded, either video or audio which is an advantage as the researcher can play back and listen or watch recordings to find anything which may have been missed (Flick, 2009). Ethnography is concerned with gaining an understanding of people and communities in their environment and does this by observing, talking to people in these communities, asking questions and coming to conclusions. Interviews can be structured where all questions are specific and the researcher guides the researched, semi-structured where the researcher half guides the researched but allows for other input, and unstructured where the researcher allows the researched to have control over the interview and discuss what they like (Flick, 2009). Action research is motivated by a desire for social change, and often involves questions that relate to an entire community or even nation.

When qualitative researchers are analysing data there are five methods of analysis, which are grounded theory, content analysis, interpretive phenomenology, thematic discourse analysis and Foucauldian discourse analysis. Grounded theory is used to analyse what is said only and is organised into categories that are used for comparative analysis. From these categories and comparative analysis a theory is then created (Coffey, Atkinson, 1996). Content analysis involves looking at what has been said by who and the frequency of this occurrence to bring out significance. This data is now in the form of quantitative data is analysed and conclusions are made. Interpretive phenomenology is interpreting exactly what someone has said and finding meaning. Thematic discourse analysis infers meaning from text and interprets these findings. They then ask questions about the text and analyse trying to find answers, which allows conclusions to be made.

There are three types of research methods for quantitative research they are experimental designs, correlational designs and descriptive designs. An experimental design includes being able to manipulate an outcome, may have a control group but not always, participants are assigned to different groups or conditions on the basis of chance, it uses statistical analysis to confirm the hypothesis and the ability to replicate the experiment again and produce the same or similar findings. In some occasions a placebo may be used or a double-blind to prevent bias from occurring. Correlational designs or method is aimed to find to what extent or even at all if two variables are related. They determine correlations of data of experiments, case studies or surveys. Although it may or may not find a correlation this does not imply causation.

The methods of analysis for quantitative data are statistical analysis both descriptive and inferential statistics, which include the standard deviation, T-test, correlation, chi-square, mode, mean, and median which are used for central tendency. The researcher must also be aware that participants may not have filled out such things like surveys or answered truthfully, which can lead to possible flaws and inadequacy of data collection and reliable data.

From a qualitative perspective the positivism approach is taken, that meaning exists in the world and that our knowledge is a reflection of reality. Positivist research involves predicting general patterns of human activity by empirical observations of individual behaviour. Whereas, when analysing data quantitative researchers use an interpretisvism approach where our meaning comes from the way we interpret the world. What we know can only come from our interpretations of what we have discovered. As quantitative data is in the form of numerical data this interpretation of the results is much more reliable but only if our interpretations are correct.

Some of the differences between the two types of methods are that qualitative research is in-depth, larger amounts of information is collected from each subject, captures and discovers meaning once the researcher becomes immersed in the data, that concepts are in the form of themes and generalisations, measures are often specific to the individual setting or researcher, data are in the form of words and images from documents, observations and transcripts, theory can be casual or non-casual, research procedures are particular and replication is unlikely, analysis proceeds by extracting themes or generalisations from evidence and organizing data to present a coherent consistent picture. Whereas quantitative research is concerned with breadth, smaller amounts of information collected from each subject, tests a hypothesis that the researcher starts with, concepts are in the form of specific variables, measures are systemically created before data collection and are standardized, data is numerical, theory is largely casual and is deductive, Procedures are standard and is replicable, analysis proceeds by using statistics, and tables or charts and discussing how what they show related to the hypothesis.

As quantitative research methods use ‘The Scientific Method’ the methodologies are to keep the method as plausible as possible. These five methodologies are objective measurement, generalizability, reliability, and validity. Objective measurement requires a solid way to determine the value of a variable. Generalisability is the ability for the results to be applied to the entire population, which had been researched. As a population tends to be a significant number of people an experiment tends to look at a sample that should represent the entire population. Reliability is the ability to produce consistent measurements over time.  To check reliability is to see if results give similar values if the same participant does it numerous amounts of times. Inter-rater is when a number of testers who rate the same person on the same criteria and give similar ratings to the participant. Validity is whether or not the experiment measures the variable of interest. Internal validity is whether or not the experiment procedures was conducted correctly, and external validity is whether or not the experimental situation resembles a real situation or the ‘real-world’. Standardisation is having each participant experience the same experience to ensure there is no bias or interference from the researcher.

Researchers of both qualitative and quantitative methods must be respectful for the basic rights of humans and animals when conducting research. As all proposals are reviewed by special committees researchers must be aware of the ethical issues that come into play when conducting and experimental research project. This includes having an understanding of informed consent and being aware that participants need to understand any potential risks and benefits of the study and consent to participate as well as provide a signed statement. Any risks to the participant must be minimised and deception to the participant strongly considered. Although some studies may require the participant to be deceived as to not bias the results there are strict guidelines, which have been made by the Australian Psychological Society (2007) Code of Ethics. At the end of the study all participants are required to be debriefed and informed of any deception, which has occurred. It is also in the Code of Ethics that all participants must not be coeheresed in any way and must be a voluntary participant (Flick, 2009).

Reference List

Coffey, A., Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data: complementary research strategies. Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications

Flick, U, (2009). An Introduction to Qualitative Research. Thousand oaks, Sage publications Ltd

Willig, C, (2001). Introducing qualitative research in psychology: adventures in theory and method : ISBN    0 335 20535 6

Wolf, M. F., Meta-analysis: Quantitative methods for research synthesis. Sage Publications