Introduction
Within the world of science, the debate about nurture against nature will always remain as a confrontational subject. Some scientists along with psychologists allege that the behavioral aspects of persons are mainly influenced by the environmental, which comes into their life in the process of growing up.
On the other hand, an opposing group of specialists argues that the behavioral aspects of individuals can be attributed to the naturalist phenomenon.
The concept of naturalist phenomenon is based on the idea that the behavioral characteristics of individuals are mainly passed from parents to children through the hereditary genes. The two diverse viewpoints have historically brought about numerous theories, ideas, as well as arguments within the psychology field.
Nature versus Nurture
The American behaviorism father, John Broadus Watson, reinforced the idea of nurture greatly by conducting comprehensive studies on adaptive along with learned behavior patterns within the people’s environmental surroundings (Good, 2004).
In the course of the same period of psychological revolutionary ideas, Arnold Gesell, who is an American renowned psychologist came up with a different theory, which was against the views brought up by Watson. The Gesell theory stated that physical long with motor growth as well as development are under a natural automatic process of monitoring and regulation.
Most of the Gesell’s along with Watson’s ideas persisted strongly within the psychology world in the course of the 19th Century up to the twentieth century (McGuffin, 2004).
However, as at present, a novel as well as unified psychology world treats both of the Watson’s along with Gesell’s theories equally. It has been discovered that the elaboration on the people’s behavioral characteristics can be linked to both their heredity as well as the environment within which they have been raised.
In my own perspective, the nurture aspects theories, in addition to nature play a role in the explanation of individuals’ complete behaviors. Within the recent years, numerous studies, as well as experiments, were carried out within the psychology field to offer this idea its deserved support thesis.
An extensive research, as well as testing, has been carried out to resolve the bewildering results, which are associated with individuals’ growth development situational differences.
The diverse causes, along with impacts of different situations, paying attention to the factual importance, along with the childhood development proper nurturing necessity have been made the central focus.
Studies on children’s early developing years reveal the diverse environmental situations which have the potential of causing mixed personalities, sexual preference, mixed attitudes believes along with other diverse behavioral patterns which affect children (McGuffin, 2004).
Examples of behavioral disorders
Two examples of behavioral disorders are schizophrenia along with anti-social individuality disorder. These kinds of behavioral disorders mostly affect children living within adoption homes. Concerning the anti-social individuality disorder, numerous studies have been undertaken to check the prevalence of anti-social individuality disorder within the children living in adoption homes.
The studies were aimed at establishing the likelihood of children developing symptoms, which are related to the anti-social personality disorder especially while living in adoption homes. The studies were also focused on determining whether the adoption homes environment has the potential of protecting the children from developing the disorders.
Previous studies have revealed that the anti-social individuality disorder mostly affects the adoptees that currently possess biological factors of risk (Berrettini, 2000). That is, at least a single biological parent possessed a criminality background or the anti-social individuality disorder.
It has also been established that the children living in the adoption homes who previously did not indicate any risk of suffering from the disorder have less chances of acquiring the disorder upon getting into the adoption homes. The combination of adoptive home environments along with the currently existing biological risk tends to contribute towards the prevalence of anti-social individuality disorder amongst adoptees.
In addition, it was found out that the children living within adoption homes have an increased risk of acquiring anti-social individuality disorder in the event that the biological parents along with the adoptive parents had previous criminal backgrounds. Nevertheless, there are methodological problems experienced within this nature of studies because numerous factors had to be put into consideration (Berrettini, 2000).
For instance, it has not been established whether the disorder is generally passed on by biological mothers or biological fathers. Majority of the adoption studies are undertaken using biological mothers’ information only while overlooking the other equation’s half, that is, biological fathers.
Information regarding the criminal background is inconclusive to be used as an anti-social individuality disorder checkmark within biological along with adoptive parents.
In most of the cases, it is assumed that in the event that the biological parents have a criminal background, it implies that the parent possessed anti-social individuality disorder and besides has most definitely passed it over to the offspring who has been adopted way (Shaffer, 2009).
The arising problem is that, it is not certain that the absence of any criminal background among the biological parents obviously means that the disorder shall not come about.
As a result of the previously mentioned reasons, interpretation of the adoption studies results is quite difficult. In addition, it is usually challenging to draw concrete conclusions regarding the aspect that adopted children already exhibit higher chances of suffering from anti-social individuality disorder when weighed against the overall population.
Nevertheless, adopted children, in most of the cases are sent to adoptive home environment, which is identical to their biological environment. Due to the all of the previously mentioned discrepancies along with uncertainties, undoubtedly, the process of figuring out the most determinant factor affecting the anti-social individuality disorder development is very complex.
The other example of behavioral disorder, which is most common within the adoptive homes, is schizophrenia. The initial studies undertaken regarding schizophrenia indicates that the environment present within the family contributes to the chances of a child developing disorders like schizophrenia (Berrettini, 2000).
A study was done on the adopted children whose biological mothers had been attacked by schizophrenia and those whose birth parents exhibited zero mental disorders. It is highly probable that the adopted children whose birth parents had experienced schizophrenia symptoms had also inherited the disorder.
On the other hand, the adopted children whose biological parents did not experience any form of mental disorder were most unlikely to suffer from schizophrenia.
Recent researches have confirmed these results because adopted children whose parents had experienced schizophrenia exhibited various psychotic symptoms whereas those whose parents were free from any form of disorder did not exhibit any type of psychotic symptoms (Berrettini, 2000).
In the event that the adoptive homes functioned at a low rating, the children whose parents had previously experienced schizophrenia were at an increased risk of being infected by schizophrenia. This can be assumed to be the confirmation of the interaction theory commonly termed as genotype-environment. This is because the genotype expression is currently associated with the rearing environment genre.
In spite of the already gathered information regarding the behavioral disorder termed as schizophrenia, it is not yet establish what really brings about the mental disorder. It is also unknown the manner in which the disorder arises within the adoptive homes (Berrettini, 2000).
The major problem, which is affecting the better comprehension of the factors, which bring about the schizophrenia disorder, is the lack of sufficient information regarding the gene, which is associated with transmitting the mental disorder (Berrettini, 2000).
Moreover, it is not yet known whether the aforementioned gene is practically existent. Besides, researchers dealing with the disorder have not yet established the degree within which the gene influences the emergence of the disease within the adoptive home environments.
The diathesis-stress model
The Diathesis-stress model refers to a psychological theory giving an elaboration about various behaviors, which are genetically oriented or aroused by life experiences’ stresses. It is, therefore, more than evident that the model is basically formed on the nature theories. The diathesis is a Greek word, which literally means vulnerability in English (Zuckerman, 1999).
The model assumes that the emergence of various disorders (or simply disorder episodes) is instigated by the summation of the individual’s biological disposition concerning the said disorder (or else traits which have the potential of bringing about the disorders) as well as stressful events which contribute towards the rising up of the disorder.
“Diathesis as a term can simply specifically give the implication of a certain genetic predisposition regarding an unusual or diseased condition” (Zuckerman, 1999). However, the term is defined more broadly as the vulnerability, which arises due to the initial child development.
Diathesis-stress replica gives the impression that most of the abnormal behaviors are because of various environmental stress genres. “The theory is often utilized within mental disorders, initially schizophrenia and in some occasions major depression as well as anxiety disorders on top of post-stress disorders which are traumatic” (Zuckerman, 1999).
Within the medical terminologies, the concept of diathesis-model is believed to have a very long history. Diathesis in the real sense stemmed from the Greece disposition idea. Body fluids are related to diathesis. Originally, various psychologists, such as David Rosenthal developed fresh schizophrenia theories by making use of diathesis-stress reproduction (Kearney & Trull, 2011).
Diathesis- stress reproduction emphasizes that stressors, which influence the vulnerability to genetic predilection, aggravate psychological disorders. However, the fundamental stress aspects along with diathesis are still up to the present unclear (Kearney & Trull, 2011).
For certain authors, there is the likelihood of addiction or impassiveness (for instance, the more the basic vulnerability, the little the stress is needed in triggering the disorder or even behavior and vice versa).
On the other hand, other authors allege that stress along with diathesis are required in high levels, or the changing of the diatheses is undertaken within high stress so as to enable other less stressing events to stress effectively the diathesis as well as trigger the emergence of a certain disease.
The application of the diathesis-stress model
The diathesis-stress model has aggravated research concerning the basic stressors which individuals affected by disorders, for instance schizophrenia, have high prevalence, and the manner in which they can be managed or controlled. Mental health caregivers using a model, which is founded on stress, protectiveness along with prevalence, develop a private individual’s vulnerability profile.
While developing the profile, attention is paid on the hurting aspects, the helpful factors, as well as the prevailing stressors (Zuckerman, 1999). The victim’s family members should also learn developing the profile through the same procedure followed by the mental health-caregivers.
As at present, there are several theories, which stimulate genetic predispositions related to the early personality development along with subsequent reaction to stress, for instance, concerns about aggression along with violence (Zuckerman, 1999). However, the ‘diathesis-stress’ as a term is not necessarily used and probably other evolutionary psychology models or gene-environment interaction model can be utilized.
Conclusion
From the above discussion, it can therefore, be concluded that the diathesis-stress model is usually applied in the control of schizophrenia symptoms. Upon accessing the victim suffering from schizophrenia condition with the model, mental health caregivers are able to offer the most economical means of treatment to the patient.
While making use of the model, the caregivers should reconsider socio-cultural factors while developing the victim’s treatment plan (Kearney & Trull, 2011).
Making use of the model within the adoptive homes is more practicable than within the health clinics dealing with mental patients because the background of the victim is widely understood. In addition, the mental health caregivers are in better position of monitoring the victims within the adoptive homes. The anti-social individuality disorder can be resolved in the same manner as schizophrenia using the model.
Reference List
Berrettini, W. H. (2000). Are schizophrenic and biological disorders related? A review of family and molecular studies. Biological Psychiatry, 48, 531-538.
Good, S. L. (2004). Nature versus nurture: Factors indicating probable cause of learning and behavior disorders in children. Thesis (M.A.L.S.)–Hollins University.
Kearney, C. A., & Trull, T. J. (2011). Abnormal psychology and life: A dimensional approach. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Pub Co.
McGuffin, P. (2004). Nature and nurture interplay: Schizophrenia. Psychiatrists Praxis, 31, S189-S193.
Shaffer, D. R. (2009). Social and personality development. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning.
Zuckerman, M. (1999). Vulnerability to psychopathology: A biosocial model. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.