Formal Lecture

2

Parents and Peers Parents and Early Experiences Peer Influence

Cultural Influences Variations Across Cultures Culture and the Self

3

Cultural Influences Culture and Child-Rearing Developmental Similarities Across

Groups

Gender Development Gender Similarities and Differences

4

Gender Development The Nature of Gender The Nurture of Gender

5

Behavior Geneticists study our differences and weigh the relative effects of heredity and environment.

Genetic arguments of behavior are based on

the principle of inheritance ( heredity ). Genes, the basic unit of heredity, are located

on chromosomes. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, with approximately 25,000 genes which were passed on from each parent.

Chromosomes are made up of DNA, and genes are just segments of DNA.

Each gene ( or segment of DNA) contains four basic chemicals –identified by the letters A,T,C and G.

7

Chromosomes containing DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) are situated in the nucleus of a cell.

8

Segments within DNA consist of genes that make proteins to determine our development.

9

Genome is the set of complete instructions for making an organism, containing all the genes in that organism. Thus, the human genome makes us human, and the genome for drosophila makes it a common house fly.

Sir Francis Galton (1822-1911) was the first scientist to study heredity and human behavior systematically.

The term "genetics" did not even appear until 1909, only 2 years before Galton's death. With or without a formal name, the study of heredity always has been, at its core, the study of biological variation.

Human behavioral genetics, a relatively new field, seeks to understand both the genetic and environmental contributions to individual variations in human behavior. It is important to note that genetics alone could never define behavior. Our environment plays a significant role in genetic expression.

*With reference to relevant research studies, to what extent does genetic inheritance influence behavior?

*Essay Question

•Genetic predispositions may affect behavior and or mental processes.

•Our behaviors have an evolutionary explanation and have been passed from generation to generation through the process of natural selection.

•These behaviors are genetically inherited and play a role in human behavior.

Genetics is the study of how living things pass on traits from one generation to the next.

We are not clones of our parents, but some traits or characteristics appear generation after generation in predictable patterns.

Scientists named these basic units of inheritance genes.

Genes are carried by threadlike bodies called chromosomes found in the nucleus of all cells. Humans have 23 pairs, peas have 7, monkeys have 27.

The main ingredient of chromosomes is DNA -- a complex molecule in a double helix pattern. DNA carries the directions for a particular trait.

Understanding differences in human behavior has

traditionally been done from two perspectives – the nature approach that emphasized genes and inborn characteristics, and the nurture approach that emphasize learning, experience and the environment. This was the origin of the nature/nurture debate that spanned the 20th century.

The twentieth century saw a swing between these two perspectives, but current thinking emphasizes gene - environment interplay

A+ info on gene expressionhttp://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/003642.html

Psychologists now believe that an individual may

have a genetic predisposition towards a certain behavior, but without the appropriate environmental stimuli this behavior may not be manifested ( e.g. a genetic predisposition towards depression, but a happy childhood environment )

A+ info on gene expressionhttp://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/003642.html

The effects of genes on behaviors (such as

aggression) can be seen primarily through three methods; correlational ( twin and adoption studies) linkage studies and gene-environment interplay.

Evidence for the influence of genes:Evidence for the influence of genes:Twin studiesGene studies

Twin studies are often used by psychologists to

look at the influence of heredity and environment.

Identical (monozygotic - MZ) twins develop from a single fertilized ovum so any differences between them must be due to environmental factors.

Fraternal (dizydotic - DZ) twins develop from two separate fertilized eggs and are no more similar genetically than brothers and sisters

Identical twins serve as excellent subjects for

controlled experiments because they share prenatal environments and those reared together also share common family, social, and cultural environments.

Furthermore, studies of twins can both point to hereditary effects and also estimate heritability, a term that describes the magnitude of the genetic effect.

Some of the most conclusive twin study research

has analyzed identical and fraternal twins who were raised apart.

Researchers have sought to establish whether characteristics such as personality traits, aptitudes, and occupational preferences are the products of.nature or nurture

Similar characteristics among identical twins

reared apart might indicate that their genes played a major role in developing that trait.

Different characteristics might indicate the opposite—that environmental influences assume a much stronger role. By comparing identical and fraternal twins, investigators can investigate the extent to which genetic inheritance influences behavior.

In the most widely publicized study of

this type, launched in 1979, University of Minnesota psychologist Thomas Bouchard and his colleagues have chronicled the fates of about 60 pairs of identical twins raised separately.

Some of the pairs had scarcely met before Bouchard contacted them, and yet the behaviors and personalities and social attitudes they displayed in lengthy batteries of tests were often remarkably alike.

The first pair Bouchard met,

James Arthur Springer and James Edward Lewis, had just been reunited at age 39 after being given up by their mother and separately adopted as 1-month-olds.

Springer and Lewis, both Ohioans, found they had

each married and divorced a woman named Linda and remarried a Betty.

They shared interests in mechanical drawing and carpentry; their favorite school subject had been math, their least favorite, spelling.

This type of twin study research has consistently suggested that genes can play an important role in our behaviors. But is it the only factor?

It is often difficult to separate the relative

influences of heredity and environment on human characteristics.

People who have similar genetic makeup (e.g., brothers and sisters, parents and their children) typically live in similar environments as well. So when we see similarities in behavior among members of the same family, it is hard to know whether those similarities are due to the genes or to the environments that family members share.

Nevertheless, a significant body of research tells us that both heredity and environment affect behavior.

A+ info on gene expressionhttp://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/003642.html

Thus far it has been established through research and various studies that genetics do influence criminal or antisocial behavior. However, researchers also agree that there is an environmental component that needs to be examined. Thus, it safe to safe that environment research is just as important as genetic research. Environment enrichment research can also be used to support this idea.

Social Learning theory (1965) Bandura (1965), claims that aggressive

behavior is learned through observing and imitating aggressive other people. His Bobo doll studies powerfully demonstrated the imitation of aggressive behaviors by children. We shall look at this study in more detail under the Sociocultural level of analysis.

28

Some human traits are fixed, such as having two eyes. However, most psychological traits are liable to change with environmental experience.

Genes provide choices for the organism to change its form or traits when environmental variables change. Therefore, genes are malleable or self-regulating.

29

Genes can influence traits which affect responses, and environment can affect gene activity.

A genetic predisposition that makes a child restless and hyperactive evokes an angry response from his parents. A stressful environment can trigger genes to manufacture neurotransmitters leading to depression.

30

Genes can influence traits which affect responses, and environment can affect gene activity.

A genetic predisposition that makes a child restless and hyperactive evokes an angry response from his parents. A stressful environment can trigger genes to manufacture neurotransmitters leading to depression.

Examine one evolutionary explanation of behavior.

“ Genetics is the key to the past. Every human gene must have an ancestor….each gene is a message from our forebears and together they contain the whole story of human evolution” ( Steve Jones, 1994, British Geneticist)

“Our modern skulls houses a Stone Age mind “

(Cosmides & Tooby) Evolutionary psychology is a combination of

evolutionary biology and cognitive psychology. It sees the mind as a set of evolved mechanisms, or adaptations, that have promoted survival and reproduction.

All behavior is a result of these evolved mechanisms. Thus every behavior that we see today is the result of an evolved process.

To understand evolutionary psychology it is necessary to have a basic understanding of genes, inheritance, and the principles of natural selection.

Evolutionary psychology is inspired by the work of Charles Darwin and applies his ideas of natural selection to the mind.

Natural selection is the nonrandom process by which biological traits become more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution. A+ info on Darwin’s work

http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/pdf/Origin_of_Species.pdf

Darwin's theory argues that all living species, including humans, arrived at their current biological form through a historical process involving random inheritable changes (genetic mutations)

Some changes are adaptive, that is, they increase an individual's chances of surviving and reproducing.

Changes of this kind are more likely to be passed on to the next generation (natural selection), while changes that hinder survival are lost.

Examples of adaptations which would have promoted survival and reproduction are behaviors such as aggression which might be understood as an adaptive necessity in the competition for limited resources.

Food preferences for sweet tastes might be understood as a adaptive urge to seek out scarce sweet, ripe fruits which provided energy.

Even mental disorders might be explained from an evolutionary perspective.

Depression may be explained as an adaptive urge to strategic ally withdrawal to conserve energy and regroup after a setback of some kind.

Anorexia may have evolved from rationing tendencies. During human evolution it would not have been adaptive to always eat everything in site, but rather it would have important to effectively ration during lean times, as well as eating up during more abundant times. Thus, the capacity to "go without food" would have been important for survival.

Attachment is a deep and enduring emotional bond that connects one person to another across time and space (Ainsworth, 1973; Bowlby, 1969).

Attachment does not have to be reciprocal.  One person may have an attachment with an individual which is not shared. 

Attachment is characterized by specific behaviors in children, such as seeking proximity with the attachment figure when upset or threatened (Bowlby, 1969).

It appears to be a behavior that ALL living creatures have encoded in their genes.

If the sole purpose of a gene is to ensure survival, having parents that have the gene that influences bonding would ensure the survival of the offspring.

Having children with an innate push to form attachments will also ensure the protection of the child (along with the gene).

This is suggesting that attachments are inherited from parents and expressed regardless of the environment.

Attachment theory in psychology originates with the seminal work of John Bowlby (1958). 

In the 1930’s John Bowlby worked as a psychiatrist in a Child Guidance Clinic in London, where he treated many emotionally disturbed children. 

This experience led Bowlby to consider the importance of the child’s relationship with their mother in terms of their social, emotional and cognitive development. 

Specifically, it shaped his belief about the link between early infant separations with the mother and later maladjustment, and led Bowlby to formulate his attachment theory.

Adaptive Behavior – According to Bowlby, infants have an innate desire to attach to their mothers as it increases their chances of survival.

If a mother does not care for her child, the child will die and therefore the mother’s genes will also die.

Due to this process, mothers now have a gene for looking after their babies.

Monotrophy: infants have an innate tendency to attach to one figure. This attachment will be qualitatively different to any other attachment the child will make.

This attachment usually forms with who or whatever the infant views at the “mother”.

In 1935 Konrad Lorenz supported the evolutionary attachment thesis with young ducklings and goslings.

He observed that at a certain critical stage soon after hatching, they learn to follow real or foster parents.

He divided goose eggs into two groups and marked each goose once hatched so he knew which geese were in which group.

One group was hatched with the mother goose and one group was hatched with Lorenz.

The geese that were hatched with Lorenz followed him and attached to him as if he were their mother and showed distress if they lost sight of him, none of the geese in this group became attached to their real mother goose.

The process, which is called imprinting, involves visual and auditory stimuli from the parent object; these elicit a following response in the young that affects their subsequent adult behavior.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UIU9XH-mUI&feature=related

Harlow did a number of studies on an avolutionary theory of attachment in monkeys during the 1950's. 

He stated that monkeys must form their attachments during the first year of life (critical period). His experiments took several forms: 1. Infant monkeys reared in isolation – some died,

others were frightened and behaved in an abnormal manner. They could not interact with other monkeys even when they were older.

Harlow did a number of studies on an evolutionary theory of attachment in monkeys during the 1950's. 

He stated that monkeys must form their attachments during the first year of life (critical period). His experiments took several forms:http://youtu.be/hsA5Sec6dAI

This supports the evolutionary theory of attachment, in that the rhesus monkeys seem to innately seek out meaningful attachments.

Harlow concluded that for a monkey to develop normally s/he must have some interaction with an object to which they can cling during the first months of life (critical period). 

Clinging, according to Bowlby and Harlow, is a natural response - in times of stress the monkey runs to the object to which it normally clings as if the clinging decreases the stress.

 -Is speculative, the effect of evolution on behavior cannot be “proven” directly because we have little information on the behavior of our early ancestors-There are also cognitive, social and cultural factors for emotions-The studies are correlational, cannot infer cause-effect-/+Studies be generalized to theory (evolution) but is difficult to investigate scientifically – only because something is genetic, does not mean it is an adaptation (can be a mutation)+There is supporting research+Research is controlled/scientific

 Multiple research studies have supported a perceived innate drive for animals and humans to form attachments.Cross-cultural research has shown the behavior to be present in nearly every culture (which suggest an innate drive to attach)

 Research into evolutionary explanations are ethically impossible to conduct in humans (this limits the research to computer models and animals)The effect of evolution on behavior cannot be “proven” directly because we have little information on the behavior of our early ancestors

Questions?

Discuss ethical considerations in research into genetic influences on behavior?

Things to consider….Advances in human genetic research hit the

headlines every day in our world. The Human Genome Project, cloning

people, “gay” genes, genes for alcoholism and cancer are all daily fare for the media. We live in a “genetics world”.

It is critical that genetic research is carefully guided by strict and specific ethical guidelines.

The review of genetic research is becoming an increasingly important aspect of the work

of human research ethics committees.

An important thing to remember when considering genetic research is that genes themselves do not cause disease, but alterations to the usual gene sequence may lead to disease. Why is this important to consider when dealing with genetic behavioral research?

It would be over-simplistic to assume that all disease is due purely to our genetic make-up.

Some scientists, and the media, can polarize towards ‘genetic determinism’, assuming that a person is merely the sum of his or her genes.

However, a person’s current and future health is the interaction of many factors, including environment and lifestyle, genes and interaction between the two. Thus, one cannot approach genetic research with the assumption that genes are 100% of any problem.

Consent and recruitment of research subjects Confidentiality, privacy and security The potential benefits and harms of human

research involving genetic testing The interface between research and clinical

practice The future use of samples Vulnerable groupsNote: This list is not compulsory and thus it

should be noted that several other considerations exist.

Researchers should always pay particular attention to ensuring that potential research subjects are adequately informed in an accessible and understandable way about the goals of the study, what their participation entails, and possible harms and benefits of participation. This should be the case in all research at any level of analysis.

In a genetic study specifically, they should also know how their privacy and confidentiality will be protected, and what will happen to any genetic material or information obtained as part of the study. People have a right to know whether their access to insurance or employment could be compromised in any way by genetic data that are generated.

Recruitment and enrollment of both affected and unaffected family members might in some cases pose a threat to the usual relationship between a clinician and patient.

An example of this might be where a patient comes to suspect, rightly or wrongly, that a clinician is more concerned with a successful research outcome than with the patient’s care.

Most genetic research involves patients and family members. Thus, special consideration must be made for family members of patients.

In a genetic study, researchers should pay particular attention to the method by which family members are to be approached and by whom a family member will be contacted.

It is generally accepted by genetics researchers and clinicians that it is best for potential research subjects to be contacted by someone they know and are likely to trust. In many cases this will be a family member.

Sometimes this may make potential participants vulnerable to pressure to participate from other family members, and conversely, if there are family disputes it may be less likely that members will be recruited for valuable research.

These considerations sometimes suggest that it may be better for research subjects to be recruited by health professionals or suitably qualified researchers. Whatever approach is adopted, it is important to confirm that researchers have considered possible difficulties and have thought about the issues.

Subjects should be recruited as individuals in their own right rather than as a family group, and should consent as individuals.

Given the familial nature of genetic research, confidentiality, privacy and security are important considerations in ethical review of a genetic study.

The seriousness of the consequences varies both between conditions and individuals. Genetics research can sometimes, either directly or by implication, reveal private information to one individual about other members of their family.

It might reveal information about health status either through discussion of the result of a genetic test or in the process of collecting information for the construction of a family pedigree.

A research subject may read or deduce information provided by other family members.

Such information may be disclosed by accident through questions asked by a researcher about the family history.

Accidental disclosure of such information can have consequences for the broader family and for one person’s relationships with other family members.

It may be revealed later by one family member to another during a family conflict, or may itself become the subject of a dispute. Care should be taken to ensure that safeguards are in place to avoid this outcome.

As in the review of all medical research, committees have to assess the potential benefits and harms of the project under consideration.

Genetic research will, in all probability, bring great benefits to human health. One benefit that some genetic studies offer is information about susceptibility to disease, and precautions that can be taken to prevent disease.

Another important benefit can be knowledge about risk of having a child with a genetic condition and strategies one can employ to avoid having a child with a genetic condition (adoption, prenatal testing or pre-implantation genetic diagnosis).

Possible psychosocial harms might include fear of discrimination or stigmatization. Research subjects may also become anxious about the implications of test results for insurance, for their future relationships or for future reproductive choice.

In other cases, such as genetic research in psychiatry, research subjects may come to feel that their involvement will lead to social stigmatization or family rejection. Even where the likelihood of such harms might appear to be minimal, consideration may need to be given to the need for advice and counseling to research participants.

Many genetic studies should consider making the services of a genetic counselor available to participants who request this

In addition to these psychosocial harms, participation in a study may leave subjects and their relatives open to stigmatization in a variety of ways.

Discrimination may occur within the family itself, with affected family members rejected by other family members. In some cases genetic information will have the potential to affect a person’s future relationships, or their perceived suitability for marriage. What examples can you think of where this would happen?

Genetic research can reveal unexpected information, that may be a source of harm to research subjects, particularly if this possibility is not discussed when obtaining consent.

Examples include misattributed paternity or ‘secret’ adoptions within a family.

Another example occurs when a family member offers to participate in a study believing s/he is unaffected, and discovers from the study that he or she carries the altered gene but has no signs of the disorder. A+ Info on IEC Manual

http://www.uq.edu.au/oppe/PDFS/IEC_Manual.pdf

The Human Genome Project was completed in 2003. One of the key research areas was ethical, legal, and social issues research (ELSI).

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) devoted 3% to 5% of their annual Human Genome Project (HGP) budgets toward studying the ethical, legal, and social issues (ELSI) surrounding availability of genetic information.

This represents the world's largest bioethics program, which has become a model for ELSI programs around the world.

The ethical issues raised by the human genome project can be grouped into two general categories: genetic engineering and genetic information.

The first category consists of issues pertaining to genetic manipulation or what is sometimes called “genetic engineering.”

The map of the human genome provides information that will allow us to diagnose and eventually treat many diseases. This map will also enable us to determine the genetic basis of numerous physical and psychological traits, which raises the possibility of altering those traits through genetic intervention.

The ethical issues raised by the human genome project can be grouped into two general categories: genetic engineering and genetic information.

The first category consists of issues pertaining to genetic manipulation or what is sometimes called “genetic engineering.”

The map of the human genome provides information that will allow us to diagnose and eventually treat many diseases. This map will also enable us to determine the genetic basis of numerous physical and psychological traits, which raises the possibility of altering those traits through genetic intervention.

Reflection on the ethical permissibility of genetic manipulation is typically structured around two relevant distinctions:

The distinction between somatic cell and germ line intervention, and

The distinction between therapeutic and enhancement engineering

Somatic cell manipulation alters body cells, which means that resulting changes are limited to an individual.

In contrast, germ line manipulation alters reproductive cells, which means that changes are passed on to future generations.

What ethical issues can rise from germ line manipulation?

Therapeutic engineering occurs when genetic interventions are used to rectify diseases or deficiencies.

In contrast, enhancement engineering attempts extend traits or capacities beyond their normal levels.

What ethical issues can rise from genetic engineering?

Germline interventions involve more significant ethical concerns, because risks will extend across generations, magnifying the impact of unforeseen consequences.

While these greater risks call for added caution, most ethicists would not object to the use of germline interventions for the treatment of serious disease if we reach the point where such interventions could be performed safely and effectively.

Indeed, germline interventions would be a more efficient method for treating disease, since a single intervention would render both the patient and his or her offspring disease-free, thus removing the need for repeated somatic cell treatments across future generations.

Enhancement engineering is widely regarded as both scientifically and ethically problematic. From a scientific standpoint, it is unlikely that we will soon be able to enhance normally functioning genes without risking grave side effects. Would the benefit of enhancement engineering to genes outweigh the cost? Why or why not?

Enhancing an individual’s height beyond his or her naturally ordained level may inadvertently cause stress to other parts of the organism, such as the heart.

Moreover, many of the traits that might be targeted for enhancement (e.g., intelligence or memory) are genetically multifactorial, and have a strong environmental component. Thus, alteration of single genes would not likely achieve the desired outcome. These problems are magnified, and additional problems arise, when we move from somatic cell enhancements to germline enhancements.

In addition to the problem of disseminating unforeseen consequences across generations, we are faced with questions about whether future generations would share their predecessors’ views about the desirability of the traits that have been bequeathed to them.

Future generations are not likely to be ungrateful if we deprive them of genes associated with horrible diseases, but they may well feel limited by choices we have made regarding their physical, cognitive, or emotional traits.

In short, there is a danger that social-historical trends and biases could place genetic limitations on future generations. Do you agree or disagree with this assertion?

A+ info on HGP ethical considerationshttp://www.actionbioscience.org/genomic/carroll_ciaffa.html