Nature vs.

nurture
Multi-level approach
Social level
nurture

reductionism Psychological level

Psychophysiological/neuropsychological level

Neurological/biochemical level

Anatomical level nature

1
 Nature - nurture
• According to Pennington:
• Familiar clinical distiction between
functional and organic is misleading and
incorrect
• Old idea: functional disorders call for
behavioral treatments – organic disorders
call for biological interventions
• Universal theory of psychopathology
2
 Nature - nurture
• Unidirectional causation
• Etiology – brain development – behavior

• Bidirectional causation
• Etiology – brain development - behavior

3
Factors creating serious problems
for the biopsychology

Hierarchical conception of science

Reductionism

Culture biology dualism

nature vs. nurture

Gilbert Gottlieb, behavior biologist

Genes or environment?
SPLIT-VIEW 4
Old view relation nature nurture

No interaction between structure (CNS)/nature and

function (environment)/nurture

Behavior is a passive by-product of neural maturation.

In this view structure determines function, not the reverse

The recapitulation theory of development.

The ontogenesis (individual development) is a repeat of
the phylogenesis (development of species)

There is instinct, not learning

5
Unfolding of a genetic code (maturation)

old view is unidirectional

Genes Structural maturation Function

At the anatomical level, maturation refers to proliferation,

Migration, but not to for instance synaptogenis
see slide 21, 22 lecture II and slides concerning postnatal
development
6
 New view

Cybernetic interaction between all levels

Genes structure function

Quasi finality Cell death

Stable flexibility Experience expected

Experience dependent 7
 Definitions

• Stable flexibility = end goal has degrees of

freedom

• Experience expected = unfolding genetic codes

= startup mechanism

• Experience dependent = on-off firing depending

on environmental triggers
8
 EXAMPLE 1 interaction nature
nurture
Strain
Genetic influence
Generation Hypertensive Normal
•1 h n
•2 h n
•N20 h feeded n
new born
not hypertensive

•Cierpial and McCarty (1987)

9
 Strain
Genetic influence
Generation Hypertensive Normal
•1 h n
•2 h n
•N20 h feeded n
new born
not hypertensive

10
 Example 2: At least seven bio
markers for anti social behavior
• MAOA
• 5HTT anti social behavior

• BDNF
• NOTCH4
• NCAM GOOD BAD
• Tlx
• Pet-1-ETS FAMILY ENVIRONMENT
11
• antisocial behavior

• genes environment

• brain impairment

• Caspi and Moffitt (2006) Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 7, 583-590

12
 Real question concerning
causality
• Is the risk factor sufficient or necessary

• Sufficient = factor’s presence is enough to

develop a problem (this is rare)
• Necessary = factor belongs to a set of
factors needed to develop a problem (this is
common: multi-causality)
13
 Example 3: interaction nature nurture
focused on an early human skill

• THE DEVELOPMENT OF FACE

RECOGNITION
• First part is experience expected

14
 Newborn Studies

– Simion, Macchi-Cassia and

colleagues (2002, 2003):
– a stimulus with an oval >
perimeter and internal features
situated in the upper half of the
oval is preferred over the same
oval with features situated in -Johnson & Morton, 1991
the lower half; moreover, these -Valenxa, Simion, Macchi Cassia,
& Umilta, 1996
features do not need to
resemble faces, they can also
simply be dot patterns.

15
• Newborns prefer
>
geometrical, non-
facelike stimuli with
more elements in the
upper part over stimuli >
in which more
elements are in the
lower part. >
16
…and of course, these effects also obtain
with “real” faces...

17
 Face processing

• Second part is experience dependent

18
 The Other-Species Effect

• Pascalis, de Haan & Nelson (2002) * directly tested theory of perceptual narrowing ** using the Visual
Paired Comparison procedure in 6 and 9 month old infants and adults.
• Results indicate that adults and 9 month olds looked longer at novel human faces, but looked equally
long at monkey novel and familiar faces.
• In contrast, 6-month-olds showed novelty preferences in both the human and the monkey conditions.
• Thus, perceptual window through which faces are viewed initially tuned broadly, then narrows with
experience (accounting for why 6 month olds are “better” at discriminating monkey faces than are 9
month olds and adults)

*
Pascalis, O., de Haan, M., & Nelson, C.A. (2002). Science, 296, 1321-1323.
**
Nelson, C.A. (2001). Infant and Child Development, 10, 3-18

19
• EXAMPLES OF RESEARCH FOCUSED
ON FACE RECOGNITION

20
 Scott, Shannon & Nelson, in
preparation
Infant ERP Task

Adult ERP and Behavioral Study

21
 Experimental Design

Familiar
Novel
Test Phase
•Encoding Phase (ERPs) (Preferential-looking)

Familiar
Novel 22
Snyder (in preparation).
 Memory Effects
Effect: Novelty preferences associated with a reduction in the
amplitude of the slow wave (but only for face stimuli),
possibly reflecting a more fully encoded stimulus (one that
requires less updating)
FP

* NP < FP
10
5

0
NP
-5
-10

250 500 750 1000 1250 1500

NP 23
FP Snyder (in preparation).
 What about Disorders of Face
Recognition?
• The study of typical development can
often be informed by the study of
children who deviate from a normal
trajectory.
– Prosopagnosia
– Autism

24
 Autism
• Dawson et al (2002) recorded ERPs in 3
and 4 year olds with autism.
– Children with autism did not differentiate
familiar and unfamiliar faces (but did
differentiate objects) see next slide

25
 Dawson et al (2002)
Autism Control

Faces

Objects

26
 Looking task:
inter-trial interval
Looking task:
step 1
Looking task: Simple
step 2
Looking task:
step 1
Looking task: competition
step 2
 Frequency of responses: Disengagement
100

75
Percent of trials

50

Noncompetition Trials
Competition Trials
Errors
25

0
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 25 26

Age in weeks
Butcher et al., 2000