Heredity versus Environment - Beyond Heritability

As illustrated so far, most psychology researchers are in agreement that

heredity and environment both play significant roles in the development of
various human traits. Researchers may disagree, however, on the extent to
which heredity and environment contribute to the development of a
particular dimension, and on how various factors may affect each other to
create a certain human characteristic. Neither heritability estimates nor
concordance rates provide useful information on the latter type of
disagreement: how various hereditary and environmental factors interact
with each other to result in a particular characteristic. Mental health,
education, and applied psychology researchers are especially concerned
about optimizing the developmental outcomes among people from all
backgrounds. To this end, knowing that there is a .86 heritability estimate for
IQ scores among identical twins, for example, is not particularly helpful in
terms of establishing ways of maximizing the life choices and opportunities
for individuals. In attaining such goals, it is crucial to understand how
various factors relate to each other. Naturally, in order to do so, one must
first identify which factors are involved in the development of a given trait.
Unfortunately, researchers have had very limited success in identifying
specific genetic patterns that influence particular psychological and
behavioral characteristics.
Nevertheless, this is not to suggest that one should ignore the role of
heredity as reflected in heritability estimates altogether and focus on
optimizing the environmental factors for every child. Heredity, as has been
examined, undoubtedly contributes to the development of various human
traits. Also, researchers exploring environmental influences have found that
contrary to what most theorists expected, environmental factors that are
shared by reared-together twins do not appear to be relevant in explaining
the development of particular traits. It is therefore unlikely that exposing
every child to a "one size fits all" environment designed to foster a particular
trait, would benefit everyone equally. Some may react favorably to such an

1
environment, while others may not react to it at all; there may be yet others
who react negatively to the same environment. The notion of "range of
reaction" helps us conceptualize the complex relationship between heredity
and environment; people with varying genetically influenced predispositions
respond differently to environments. As suggested by Douglas Wahlsten in a
1994 article in Canadian Psychology, an identical environment can elicit
different reactions in different individuals, due to variations in their genetic
predispositions. In a hypothetical scenario, Wahlsten suggested that
increasing intellectual stimulation should help increase cognitive
performances of some children. Moderate, rather than high, levels of
intellectual stimulation may, however, induce optimal cognitive
performances in others. By contrast, the same moderate levels of stimulation
may actually cause some children to display cognitive performances that are
even worse than how they performed in a minimally stimulating
environment. In addition, the "optimal" or "minimal" performance levels
may be different for various individuals, depending on their genetic makeup
and other factors in their lives. This example illustrates the individual
differences in ranges of reaction; there is no "recipe" for creating
environments that facilitate the development of particular characteristics in
everyone. Heredity via environment, rather than heredity versus
environment, therefore, may better characterize this perspective.

These views are consistent with the 1990s' backlash against the view that
was prevalent in the mid- to late twentieth century among many clinical
psychologists, social workers, and educators, who focused solely on
environmental factors while discounting the contributions of hereditary
factors. Among the theories they advocated were that gay males decidedly
come from families with domineering mothers and no prominent masculine
figures, that poor academic performances result from lack of intellectual
stimulation in early childhood, and that autism stems from poor parenting
practices. Not surprisingly, empirical data do not support these theories.
Still, people often continue to believe, to some extent, that proper

2
environments can prevent and "cure" these non-normative characteristics,
not realizing that heredity may play significant roles in the development of
these traits.

Some scholars believe that this "radical environ-mentalist" view found its
popularity in the 1950s as a reaction to racist Nazi thinking, which held that
some groups of individuals are genetically inferior to others and that the
undesirable traits they are perceived to possess cannot be prevented or
modified. These assumptions are harmful, as they limit the opportunities for
advancement of some people, strictly because of their membership in a
stigmatized group. It is nevertheless important to reiterate that individual
differences, as opposed to group differences, in genetic predispositions are
evident in the development of most emotional, behavioral, and cognitive
traits. With this in mind, it is also important to realize that focusing on
optimizing environmental influences while ignoring hereditary influences
may lead to the neglect of the developmental needs of some individuals, and
it may be just as harmful in some cases as focusing exclusively on hereditary
influences.