CHAPTER 2

MAKING SENSE OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT

TOPICS:
■ BIOLOGICAL-PSYCHOLOGICAL AND SOCIAL KNOWLEDGE
■ Biological knowledge about the body, its development, and its influences on emotion
and behaviour.
■ Psychological knowledge about feelings, behaviour and relationships.
■ Social knowledge about how societies and cultures function and influence the
individual.
■ And, most importantly, the overlap areas between each of these.

■ GENES, ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOUR

As we go through life, we all have to make sense of our development – women perhaps
more than men are forced to understand their body and its changes; we try to make sense of
how we form and manage relationships, our behaviour towards others, and what we may call
‘phases’ in life.

TOPIC 1: BIOLOGICAL –PSYCHOLOGICAL AND SOCIAL KNOWLEDGE

One of the most straightforward descriptions of social work is that it is a psychosocial activity
(Ruch et al., 2010; Wilson et al., 2011), concerned with the ‘person-in-the-situation’: not just
the person on their own, nor just the social arrangements around them, but the two together.
In providing a knowledge base about individual development, this book draws attention to
biological factors as well as the psychological and sociological – a bio-psychosocial perspective.

BODIES AND HEALTH

Social workers acquire much of their specific information about the body and brain not in their
initial training courses but in particular social work contexts. For example, a social worker
working with autistic children will acquire specific information as they work – because of
particular children and parents, through continuing professional training, and because of
specific multidisciplinary discussions. The same will be true of social workers in a hospice, or
social workers in a team that meets the needs of people with dementia and their careers.
PSYCHOLOGICAL UNDERSTANDING

Understanding of development in people’s feelings, behaviour and relationships. Different

researchers and practitioners have created different schemes for making sense of these
subjects. Sometimes, these different perspectives illuminate different aspects of life, but
researchers also sometimes claim that their findings show that another theory is simply
mistaken.

Stage theories of development, particularly Erikson’s psychosocial model – in which it is

claimed that life can be understood as a series of stages (including infancy, adolescence,
older age, for example) which will be introduced later.

In the introductory reading given earlier, What ‘stage(s)’ of life would you say 16-year-old
Tia is in? What about Nicola’s mother and father?
This question highlights some of the ambiguity of thinking about universal ‘stages’. Tia is
an adolescent, a first-time mother, a young adult living in her first independent home. Some
would regard becoming a grandparent as the start of a new stage in life – perhaps part of
old age; some grandparents would definitely not think so! Different stages can be present at
the same time, and different people may follow them in a different sequence. Dividing life
into ‘stages’ can cause as much confusion as clarity.

■ Attachment theory, which interprets observational studies as showing that infants are born
with a drive to form attachments and parents are programmed to respond with care and
protection. The ‘attachment style’ of an individual develops throughout life in response to
external relationships and events, but early attachments are very influential in shaping later
attitudes and behaviour. (Attached video for further illustration)

■ Psychodynamic theories, which take for granted the existence of conflicting motivations and
interests, and view some of them as being unconscious.

What might be some of the conflicting impulses which motivate Nicola’s partner Steve?
What about her son Matthew, or Nicola herself? What influences how they resolve these
conflicts?

■ Humanistic models, such as Rogers’ person-centred approach, which points out that people
from childhood onwards have a drive to achieve something in life, and also a need for
unconditional acceptance; it examines achievements and difficulties in life in the light of
this.

■ Learning theories, including cognitive behavioural and ‘social learning’ perspectives, which
emphasise that behaviour is shaped by rewards and punishments that have been applied in
the past, and also by the perception of what is thought to be advantageous or problematic.
 Think about Matthew when he was 20 months old. In simplified, cognitive behavioural
terms, what accounts for how Matthew’s behaviour is developing? How might that
perspective account for the difference between what Naoko’s parents think are good
qualities in a woman and what Nicola thinks?
The answer in each case is that the behaviour shown depends on what behaviour has
been rewarded and encouraged in the past, and which behaviours punished or discouraged.

■ Models of the experience of ‘spoiled identities’ – growth to positive self identity in the face
of widespread social attitudes indicating the individual is part of a ‘problem group’.
Examples are gay, lesbian and transgendered people brought up in a society in which their
sexual identity is seen as ‘unnatural’
or immoral, or people with disabilities facing attitudes which confuse speech difficulty with
cognitive impairment.

■ Theories of ageing, including the ‘social disengagement’ model, ‘activity theory’, and
‘political economy theory’. The first of these, for example, builds on research findings to
theorize that there is a mutual advantage for the individual and for society if the older
generation gradually withdraws from social interaction and responsibility.

SOCIOLOGICAL THINKING

The life course of mother and baby will be profoundly affected by social factors. If the mother is
from a Gypsy Traveller community, the Department of Health’s report suggests that the baby is
more than twelve times as likely to die from sudden infant death syndrome, and ten times as
likely to die from all causes before the age of 2; a third will die before reaching the age of 25
and more than seven out of ten will die before reaching the age of 59 (Parry et al., 2004,
explaining they used statistics from Ireland – see McKittrick, 2007).

The life course of Naoko’s mother (introductory reading) in rural Japan may have been
profoundly different from that of a woman of comparable age brought up in the UK. A child
growing up as part of a stigmatized group which is seen as ‘problematic’ or ‘immoral’ by wide
sections of the population faces distinctive developmental issues. Whatever genetic differences
are at work, there are differences in the experience and expectations of males and females
throughout the course of life which are heavily influenced by societal attitudes and
expectations.

However, this perspective refers frequently to ways in which social factors and perspectives are
areas to explore in relation to individual change and development. It assumes a ‘cosmopolitan’
view of society – in brief, that people’s inner worlds (their identity, values, fears, memories,
pleasures) may or may not be primarily embedded in the geographical area in which they live.
 One account which sets out systematically the different interpersonal and sociological
influences on development is Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model which will be unveiled in the
ensuing chapter.

The ‘life course’ approach to development emphasises that there is no universal ‘natural
cycle’ of life. Lives are always located in specific historical, geographical and cultural contexts,
and the search for ‘normal development’ or universal stages may do violence to the diversity of
human experience.

Objectivity and subjectivity: facts, theories and viewpoints

This chapter has offered some snapshots, and then referred to the range of ways it is
possible to analyse individual development and change. There is no single
developmental framework which captures what is happening in life, and if, as a
worker in training (and subsequently as a practitioner), you are competent, you will
find that you understand development differently as you go through life. Your views
about relationships, aggression, culture, people’s needs, infantile experience and
sexuality are understood differently when you are 15, 20, 35, or 55. As a professional
person, this change will be influenced by events in your own life, by what you learn
from people to whom you provide service, by scientific research and by informed
discussion about challenging situations in which you will be asked to intervene.

Conclusion: (Personal Insights)

Indeed, multifarious factors immensely affect the development of a child. Physically, the child’s
nutrition count a lot. When the body frequently frails, the brain does not function very well and
this may be due to improper nutrition.

Emotionally, the child’s security of himself is accounted by the feelings and behaviors the
mother has starting from conception until this child grows. Further, as theories discussed
above point out, basically, parents, family and other “significant others” crucially and
significantly affect the response of the child to experiences like frustration, aggression, hatred,
etc.

In like manner, values, belief systems, societal norms and standards somehow define the
personality of the individual person. This starts at home and nourishes by societal reactions.
The results of interaction of the child to these units build a foundation of his/her development.
When the child has experienced sound relationship then this child shall become good, if
otherwise, then, expectedly he will become a person difficult to deal with. Hence, it is
imperative that parents, caregivers and the society as well are consciously cognizant of their
roles in child’s development so that this child shall have a relationship compatible with others,
thereby avoiding societal problems to occur.

ABOUT YOURSELF

Assessment: One of your previous activities is to draw a lifeline representing

your
life to where you are now. You were asked to mark some important milestones or
transitions you have experienced – for example, being born; birth of siblings;
parents’
relationship – separation, divorce, remarriage; starting school; getting a job;
friendships; marriage, and so on. This activity, actually, gave you the experience to
reflect on the different factors that shaped your development.

TOPIC 2: GENETICS AND ENVIRONMENT

Everyone is different, and all the theories that are used to make sense of the differing paths
to people’s lives acknowledge that both genetic makeup and different environments play their
part in shaping the course of a person’s life. There are many areas in which social workers will
hear assertions about the relative influences of ‘nature’ and ‘nurture’. They may hear questions
asking whether men are by nature more aggressive, or more promiscuous, than women, for
example. They will hear psychologists refer to the hereditable nature of intelligence, or the
supposed identification of a genetic basis for schizophrenia. In every case, the context may be a
discussion about whether the converse is true – that these features are a result of environment
– family history, culture, peer influences and so on. This topic presents some considerations
which are necessary to make sense of particular instances of the ‘nature–nurture debate’.

Key ideas that are used in the following ‘Taking it further’ section are:

■ The ‘instruction set’ that tells your body how to build itself your eye colour, whether you
are male or female, your brain’s ability to learn languages, whether you are likely to
develop breast cancer – is contained in biological structures called genes. There is a
complete set of genes in every tiny component cell of your body. It is important to
understand that, by and large, you are a conduit for this instruction set and it is passed on
faithfully through the generations – you do not change it by becoming a champion
weightlifter or a highly qualified academic or a brutal dictator, or by eating well or poorly.
■ When a new baby is started, it contains one set of genes from the mother

and one from the father. When this baby grows up and has a baby, it may pass on either of

these genes. For example, a girl, Tia (whose own eggs were formed inside her when she was
in her mother’s womb) will have genes from both her father and her mother and may pass
either of these on in a particular egg her body releases each month after puberty, as shown
in Figure above.

So Tia may pass on characteristics such as straight or curly hair, from her mother or her father.
And similarly, her partner’s sperm may be passing on details from his mother or his father. For
each parent, this selection occurs randomly and more or less independently for every gene in
their ‘instruction set’.
The figure illustrates another feature of genetic reproduction. All the cells in the body
contain two sets of genes, one from each parent, except the male sperm and the female egg
which only contain one set each. When the egg and the sperm combine to form the start of a
new person, the fertilised egg now contains the usual double set

Approximately 25,000–30,000 genes are grouped together into structures called

chromosomes. The chromosomes come in pairs, one containing the instructions
from the father and one from the mother. Although the detail of what they code for
may be different (one for blue eyes, one for brown eyes), the genes on each of a
matched pair are for the same function (eye colour in this case). The pair of
chromosomes determining sex are different from this general pattern. They come in
Lead-up questions
two different forms, called because of their shape X and Y. If the fertilised egg has
the pair X-Y, the child will be a boy. If the pair is X-X, the child will be a girl.
?

A man has a gene (call it G1) on his Y chromosome. Will that gene ever have been
operating in a female?
Answer: No, because women never have a Y chromosome in their body – they are
X-X.

A woman has a gene (call it G2) on her X chromosome. Has this ever been operating
in a male?
Answer: Yes, because female bodies have X-X and men have X-Y. A daughter will
always have one X chromosome from her father.

Of all the Y chromosomes in the population (say, a country), how many are in
male bodies? Answer: All of them.

Of all the X chromosomes in a population, how many are in female bodies at any
given time?
Answer: Two out of three. Women have X-X and men have X-Y chromosomes.

What else affects your development and who you are other than your genes?
Answer: Well, we hope you found the answer to that fairly obvious! – How you’re
brought up, whether you have always eaten well, what illnesses you have
suffered, your choices about which school to go to and what career to follow . . .
The list is endless. The topic is particularly concerned with the question: what are
some of the factors that affect how genes and environment interact?

Some other words and phrases used in the topic:

■ discrete category: a grouping which contains items which definitely do not belong in a
contrasting group – there’s a yes/no answer to whether they belong – for example,
someone is pregnant or they are not.
■ continuous variable: a quality which does not fall into discrete categories, but varies by
infinitesimally small progressions, progressions so small that whenever you choose two
items which differ, you can always specify a third item which is in between (such as
height).
■ constitutional: this is used in the discussion as an ‘ordinary language’ description, not a
technical term. It describes how someone’s body seems to be in itself, often implying
that it’s without special treatment or training. Someone might be described as having a
‘strong constitution’ because they seldom become ill and usually resist infections, or they
 might be constitutionally suited to being a weightlifter because they have a powerful,
compact body.
■ pathways: a term used to describe the route by which someone’s personal qualities
come into existence. The pathway to having blue eyes is a genetic makeup which sets off
certain chemical and biological processes. The pathway to becoming a good social
worker is . . .?
■ correlations: some factors which have an effect on an outcome can be changed
separately from each other. To find what layout of magazine the readers prefer, a
changed separately from each other. To find what layout of magazine the readers prefer, a
publisher can vary the size of print and the colour of print separately, and find whether one has
more effect than the other, and what colour, size, and combination of colour and size have a
good effect. If for some reason the factors are interlinked, so that changing one changes the
other – they are correlated in some way. If changing the size would for some strange reason
change the colour, then it’s a different question to disentangle the effects. When the publishers
thought they had measured the effect of size, they might without realizing it be measuring the
effect of colour. We have chosen this example because it will seem strange. The notes explain
that genes and environment have often been understood to vary independently, but in fact
there may be complicated ways in which they are linked.

TAKING IT FURTHER

GENES, ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOUR:

CORRELATIONS AND INTERACTIONS

Presentations of ‘the nature–nurture debate’ usually conclude by emphasising that both are
involved in human behaviour (for an introductory account, see Holt et al., 2015 – more detail is
given in Ridley, 1999; Rutter, 2006). Further analysis explores the particular mechanisms and
routes which operate for specific outcomes. These are usually infinitely complicated.
Geneticists
(Sudbery and Sudbery, 2009; Bateson, 2001) point out that a very large number of genes are
required to cooperate to produce behaviour, and the same version of a gene can produce
different results in a different ‘team’ of genes or in different environments. A multitude of
environmental differences are relevant in different episodes of development. Given this
introduction, the elements highlighted here are:

■ ‘Biological variation’ is not the same as ‘genetic variation’.

■ Genes can conflict.
■ The distinction between behaviours that form a separate category and those that are
continuous with the behavioural range in the general population.
■ There can be different pathways to the same behavioural characteristics.
■ The interdependence of genes and environment – environments are not always
 independent of genes, and genetic effects are affected by environment.
■ The reasons for variability between individuals (the relative importance of heredity and
environment) might be different from the reasons for variability between
average scores of groups of people.

Running through this are various issues about the meaning and operation of ‘cause’ in this
context. The discussion is illustrated by reference to children’s behaviour, gender and mental
health issues.

BIOLOGICAL VARIATION IS NOT GENETIC VARIATION

‘Constitutional’ conditions may be biological but not necessarily genetic in origin. Even when
present at birth, they may be caused by nutrition, prenatal environment in the womb, viruses
or complex interactions between genetic factors and environment. For example, Tourette’s
syndrome is a neurological condition in which people constantly mix little verbal explosions,
sometimes swear words, into their speech (National Institutes of Health, 2005). One suggested
cause of Tourette’s syndrome is that it is manifest after an individual with a particular genetic
makeup is exposed to a particular balance of hormones in the womb (Eapen et al., 1997).
There are physiological signs that high-achieving athletes often received higher than
average amounts of testosterone in the womb (Paul et al., 2006).
If so, this would be a factor which is constitutional, but not in itself genetic.

GENES CAN BE IN CONFLICT

Darwin’s formulation of evolution was based on the realization that each individual varies from
its parents; and that just as farmers and pet owners selectively breed for particular qualities –
thereby producing dogs, from pugs to Great Danes; horses, from Shetland ponies to
thoroughbred racers – so over much greater periods of time if they assist the male body, even if
they have indirect consequences harmful to women (as long as these aren’t sufficiently harmful
to impair breeding success). These are rare, as the genes specific will there be selection and
shaping in nature according to which changes survive better and breed more.
This does not, however, imply that the changes that take place in evolution are best for the
survival of all the species. For example (see Ridley, 1999: 107–121), some genes are carried only
by men, so, in theory, variants which occur are differentially selected to men are comparatively
small in number. They are on a relatively small grouping of genes described because of its
shape as the Y-chromosome, and only carried by men. Women, on the other hand, have the
chromosome pair X-X. This means that on average over the generations X-chromosomes spend
more time (two-thirds of their existence) in females. Variations which make their continuance
more likely will preferentially survive. Since they are more often in a female body, these
variations are on average those which make the female more likely to survive, even if the
consequences are unfortunate for the male of the species (as long as these unpleasant
consequences don’t lessen breeding success for the female). The conflicts in this example are of
course primarily about biological processes in the body, brain and reproductive systems – not in
the first instance about psychosocial behaviour.

SEPARATE CATEGORIES OR CONTINUOUS VARIABLES?

A mother may wonder whether her son’s aggressiveness (or intellectual level) is a result of his
genes or how he was brought up. In an example earlier, caregivers of a teenager in local
authority children’s home may wonder whether her seeming lack of maternal feeling towards
her unborn baby is because of genes or experience. Social workers, if only to give educated
replies to their service users and colleagues, have an interest in the relative importance of
genes and environment in ‘psychosocial’ qualities such as aggression, intelligence and mental
confusion.
Rutter (2006: 24) points out that research into behavioural genetics requires clarity (and can
create clarity) about whether the quality (or behaviour) forms a separate category from the
behaviour of the general population or represents a particularly low (or high) value of
something that varies throughout the population.
For example, schizophrenia is listed, with its symptoms, in the authoritative diagnostic
manuals of psychiatry (American Psychiatric Association, 2013) as a classification – the
individual ‘has’ it or not. But the nature of the increasing evidence of its hereditability indicates
that it varies continuously through the population – like intelligence, say – and the
‘categorisation’ must be understood as a convention, an agreed cut-off point. The reference to
intelligence highlights how clarity about this may be important for an accurate understanding.
Intelligence varies continuously throughout the population, with increasingly smaller numbers
at either extreme – very high or very low. This will have one set of environment–gene
interactions. But the most common forms of mild learning difficulties are not part of this
continuous variation. They arise from specific conditions such as Down’s syndrome. This is a
category diagnosis (yes/no) and is caused by a specific genetic condition – the person has an
extra chromosome 21. Obviously, people in the lower third of ability (that is, scoring below
two-thirds of the population on measures of intelligence) may be thus because of the normal
variation of multifactorial determinants of intelligence, or because they come into the category
of Down’s syndrome, having the additional copy of chromosome 21.

MULTIPLE PATHWAYS

This illustrates another feature of gene–environment antecedents of behaviour. In many cases,

the same psychosocial behavioural outcome can arise from different gene–environment
pathways. For example (Rutter, 2006: 29), depression in adulthood may be caused by a genetic
predisposition combined with early negative upbringing (including sexual abuse). But it may
also be the outcome for people without the negative upbringing but with particular current
social stressors. It is likely that some genetic component is implicated in a propensity to
antisocial aggressive behaviour in boys or in men. But some boys with this genetic makeup will
not commit antisocial acts, and others without the propensity will do so in particular social
circumstances.

GENE–ENVIRONMENT CORRELATIONS

The simplicity of the question as to whether genes or environment are responsible for a
particular trait (such as musicality, sportiness or physical aggressiveness) becomes complicated
initially by recognizing that both are always involved. This is shown in line 1 of Figur below,
which shows diagrammatically how a person’s qualities in the present are the product of a
particular genetic makeup and experiences in life. This diagram, which is an analysis by Scarr
and McCartney (Scarr and McCartney, 1983; Scarr, 1996), goes on to show the ways in which
genes and environment do not vary independently. As explained in the following paragraphs,
the environment is affected by a person’s genes, so environmental effects may also be a result
of genes.
Line 2 in the Figure draws attention to correlations in which the child is passive: important
features of the child’s environment are shaped by the actions of parents, but since biological
parents are formed by the same genes as the child, a sporty, musical, or violent environment
may itself be part of a genetic influence. Next (line 3), Scarr and McCartney suggest that
differences in environments may be evoked by the genetic makeup of the children. Active,
muscular babies evoke active, playful interactive responses and entertainment choices from
those around them; children with a disposition to musicality may lead their carers into
providing musical environments.
Figure 2. The increasingly complex nature of gene–environment correlations as analysed by
Scarr and McCartney (Scarr and McCartney,1983; Scarr, 1996)

Finally (line 4), they point out that children shape environmental characteristics for
themselves – choosing those that are compatible with their genetic predisposition. In this, the
child is active in selecting environments, and they call this active gene influences or niche
picking. This links with Eysenck’s view, that because their nervous system is underaroused,
extroverts seek out stimulation.
So in summary, even studies (say, about aggressiveness) which identify genuine
environmental influences may also be picking up intertwined genetic influences – the two are
constantly interlinked.
EVOCATIVE GENE INFLUENCES – CHILDREN’S
GENETIC MAKEUP EVOKES PARTICULAR
ENVIRONMENTS FROM ADULTS

When the Olympic champion Lynford Christie explored the origins of his athletic ability in
a television programme, the interviewer suggested he telephone his friends who were
also champions and ask for their birth dates. Over three-quarters of them had birthdays
 between October and March, and Christie revealed that his birthday also fell in this range.
Why is this?
This is an effect known as the ‘relative age effect’, which is discussed later also in
relation to academic attainment. Adults do choose children for football teams and special
coaching based on ‘natural’ ability, but in school this often reflects the more advanced
development – greater height, weight, motor development – of children whose birthdays
make them up to a year older than other children in the class.
This is an environmental effect (special coaching and attention) which is an evocative
gene effect, modified itself by a ‘random’ environmental effect of when the school year
begins.

GENE–ENVIRONMENT INFLUENCES

Conversely, the way the genotype (the information in the genes) is expressed is itself shaped by
the environment – often through what are now called epigenetic effects. Epigenetics examines
the way in which genetic material controls which genes are switched on or off (resulting for
example in the same instruction set producing brain cells in one place and blood cells in
another, or determining the changes in function at puberty or old age). The appalling
circumstances of Dutch pregnant women under German occupation in the famine of 1942
affected genetically determined factors in their granddaughters’ lives (Ceci and Williams, 1999:
13). The genetic information itself was unchanged – there had been no mutation or miscopying
of genes – but the eggs within the Dutchwomen’s unborn daughters contained instructions for
expression that took account of the conditions of scarcity. When these eggs were fertilized
decades later in the mature daughters, they grew into offspring (grandchildren of the starved
women) with particular characteristics following the epigenetic instructions laid down at the
time of their creation (which took account of shortage of nutrition). They were genetically more
resistant to diabetes and heart attack. Equivalent effects had been discovered independently
for males, in a study of Swedish family records. In this case, the relevant period in the
grandfathers’ lives was just before puberty, producing seed that reflected the food conditions
obtaining at that time (Kaati et al., 2002). The genes were unchanged, but genetic vulnerability
to particular illnesses was changed by the environments affecting the grandparents.

CAUSAL FACTORS, RISK AND PROTECTIVE PROCESSES

‘Causation’ is a notoriously slippery concept in relation to human behaviour (Ridley, 1999: 98–
125). Using the examples quoted earlier in the chapter, this is evident in thinking about the
many answers that could be given to the questions: ‘What caused the young woman in care to
become pregnant at the age of 16?’; or, ‘What caused a young woman to settle and start a
family 6,000 miles away from where she was brought up?’ Plausible answers have to include an
account of consciousness and intentionality, but here we are concerned with the complexity of
the gene–environment pathways involved. Rutter (quoting Rothman and Greenland) uses the
analogy of a light switch. The flick of the switch appears to ‘cause’ the light to come on, but this
is also dependent on the wiring being intact, the power supply working, a bulb being in the
socket and so on. There are various ‘causes’ of different types, and a failure of illumination may
be traced to any of these. Furthermore, in relation to genetic/environmental effects, what is
known about the causality gives us probabilities, not categorical knowledge. This, as Rutter
analyses (2006: 18–39) and illustrates in relation to a range of problems, has relevance to risk
and protection factors. Some protective factors may be understood as simply a reduction in the
risk factor (consuming less cholesterol reduces the risk of heart disease; caring parenting is a
protective factor for antisocial behaviour). In other situations, it makes no sense to refer to this
symmetry: ‘Adoption is a protective factor for a number of adverse outcomes of abuse and
neglect, but it makes no sense to talk of “not being an adopted child” as a risk factor.’
Problems with genetic origins may be entirely remedied by ‘environmental’ interventions.
The learning disability caused by phenylketonurea (PKU – a genetic condition which leaves the
child unable to absorb a particular amino acid) will simply not occur if the diagnosis is made at
birth and the baby is fed the correct diet. Rutter uses examples of adult depression and
antisocial behaviour to summarize how genetic makeup, earlier environment and
contemporary situation may interact as risk and protective factors.

GROUP AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES

Statistical investigations into the amount of variation caused respectively by heredity and
environment apply only to the group in which the measurement is made. A thought experiment
will make this clear. If the environment is optimal and uniform, none of the variation in that
study is caused by the environment, so if environment and genes are the two variables under
study, the differences in the population (say in respect of IQ score) will be totally attributable to
heredity. On the other hand, if relevant features of the environment vary enormously, most of
the variation may be caused by the environment. In a population in which people smoke, the
influence of heredity relative to environment in causing cancer will be different from that in a
population in which no one smokes.
Furthermore, the amount of difference that environment may cause in highly hereditable
traits can be much larger than intuitively may be expected. Ceci and Williams (1999: 3–5)
provide both a qualitative explanation and a mathematically worked example. In this example,
a group of adopted children have average IQ measures of 107 in a population with high
hereditability. Even if the average IQ of their mothers is 85, a full 22 points lower, this is still
consistent with intelligence (as measured by the IQ scores) being 70 per cent hereditable.
This draws attention to a final important point: for groups who typically are subject to
different environmental variables (say children of elite families and children of poor families),
differences in average scores between the two groups will not arise from the same allocation of
genetic/environmental influence as do individual differences. The differences in height among a
group of friends may be highly genetic in origin, but the differences between their average
height and that of another group (say, their parents) may be largely environmental – as a result
of changes in nutrition and healthcare.

CONCLUSION

Social workers sometimes need to understand references to the relative influence of heredity
and environment in troublesome aspects of human development. This section explains some of
the basics of gene– environment interactions. The basic account concludes that both genes and
environment are involved in the creation of a person’s psychosocial qualities – her character,
the age at which she may have a baby, her behaviour, intelligence, emotional characteristics,
vulnerability to illness, and so on. This essay has analysed some factors to be borne in mind
when considering this subject: biological features are not necessarily hereditary features;
continuously varying features should be distinguished from ‘categorical’ conditions; the same
behavioural outcome can arise from different gene–environment interactions; genes and
environment are not two separate independent variables (an environmental effect may be the
effect of genes, and a genetic effect may be the result of environmental conditions); the
relative contribution of genes and environment to different population averages may not be
the same as that applying to differences between individuals. Social workers are not specialists
and should not claim to have technical expertise in this field; nevertheless, they will encounter
the issue – from antenatal work with people who have had genetic counselling, to questions
from parents about the origins of difficult behaviour or emotional difficulties. Historically, social
workers were involved both for and against the social management of individuals within
eugenics philosophies (Payne, 2005: 130; Kennedy, 2008), and with approaches to mental
health which underestimated the contribution of genetic factors. It is important for them as
laypeople in this field to be sufficiently well-informed so as to avoid oversimplification.

Assignment: For submission (Tuesday, Sept. 15, 2020)

Group and Share: (Create a group with 5 members and share your thoughts on the
nature-nurture debate) Screenshot your conversation.

Reference:

Sudbery, Jhon & Whittaker, Andrew, Human Growth and

Development: An Introduction for Social Workers 2nd edition,
Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14
4RN and by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
www.routledge.com/Student-Social-Work/book-series/SSW