It has been widely agreed upon that it is nearly impossible to distinguish the affects of nature and nurture on an individual. For case studies to be considered valid, it is essential that researchers focus on the affects of both these aspects while analyzing the results of their data. However, it is even more important that when others analyze these studies, they also take into effect how nature and nurture play a role in the study and then report the results of studies correctly. A few weeks ago, a professor in a class that I am currently enrolled in discussed the Hart and Risley study with us. This study focuses on the effects that communication and socio-economic status have on the language abilities and IQ of a child. The Hart and Risley study was very thorough and placed an emphasis on both the nature and the nurture of the children that they observed. However, when discussing this study, my professor completely ignored the nature side of the analysis. In fact, she made it sound as though this study didn't even take nature into consideration. She implied that the study reported that the language abilities of children were based entirely in how they were raised and treated by their parents. This is, of course, a completely inaccurate summary of this study. In the first weeks of class, we discussed how there are a high number of misconceptions about psychology because of reporters misinterpreting the results of studies just like this. It is evident that it is quite easy to fall prey to this, and it further illustrates why we should not believe everything we hear and make sure that we are receiving all of the information necessary when evaluating the results of psychological studies.
TrackBack URL: http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/159039