This project explores how both genes (things we’re born with) and environment (things around us) affect mental health. Combining all these pieces of information together, from empirical studies of a diverse range of sources and literature reviews to doctoral dissertations, highlights the importance of nature vs nurture perspectives. The research points up the fact that genetics are extremely important they are also extremely impactful. The research paper discusses the strengths and weaknesses of different research methodology and sources. In addition, the paper only explains the complexities involved in the study of mental health but also suggests an interdisciplinary approach. The research will contribute to the existing literature and provide an outline of the study in order to expand the knowledge on the nature versus nurture issues in the mental health field. The outlined issues might then lead to further research directions that may guide in developing evidence-based interventions.
Mental health has long been a topic of intrigue and concern, particularly regarding the origins of various disorders such as eating disorders and depression. The effects of these conditions among millions of people globally are not only felt by the individuals but also require health systems and society to take action to solve the challenges. The central theme in psychology and psychiatry is the aetiology of psychological disorders. Are mental disorders, such as eating disorders and depression, the result of nature or nurture? This question thus plunges into the sophisticated details of the relationship between biology and environment as the two components of man’s behavior and emotional features.
The research revolves around the nature-versus-nurture controversy, which is a long-standing discourse that seeks to clarify the role that genetic inheritance and environmental experiences play in the development of mental disorders or traits. Indeed, while the older psychological theories of Rousseau and Locke asserted the mind to be just a blank slate onto which experiences inscribed themselves, modern research shows that the relationship between genetic and environmental factors can be much more complicated (Ward, 2019). Eating disorders, including anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, and binge-eating disorder among them, serve as a clear example of this complexity. This family of conditions, manifested by the disruptions of eating habits and body image, presents a variety of causal factors that simple models do not easily explain. Genetic research is now able to identify some inborn factors in the susceptibility of eating disorders, such as variations of brain receptors, appetite regulators, and personality traits. Regardless, genes or inborn predispositions are not the only factors that should be taken into consideration because they are as dynamic as the physical environment or pressures they receive.
The significance of environmental factors on the appearance and development of eating disorders should be considered. The Sociocultural factors and the media that construct the idealized body images and the societal pressure for thinness are the essential elements for the development of body image distortions and those eating disorders that are overt in many high-risk individuals (Izydorczyk & Sitnik-Warchulska, 2018). Besides inherited genes, family communications, friendship experiences, stressful events, and other eventualities are the other determining factors in whether and when the development of such an eating disorder occurs. This eventually illuminates the connection between genetic predisposition and environment. Additionally, epigenetics, which is a mechanism of gene regulation in response to environmental cues, creates a link between nature and nurture. Therefore, individuals who experience a certain environment can leave those environmentally driven marks on the genome that then influence their susceptibility to mental health issues.
The gene-environmental correlated effect seems to have a deeper connection with depression, a condition defined by long-term feelings of sadness and lack of interest in life-related issues. The genetic analyses lead to the identification of several genes that are possibly involved in depression either by means of mediating the neuron transmitters and the stress response pathways and neural circuits that affect the mental mood. Although genetic inclinations are greatly affected by environmental influences, their role in shaping or modulating genetic predispositions is significant. Adverse childhood experiences, continuous stress, social isolation, and life incidents that include trauma or loss play a role in bringing about or further growing depressive symptoms, especially among genetically susceptible individuals (Jones et al., 2019). Along with the complexities of mental health disorders, modern perspectives on mental health disorders embrace a biopsychosocial model where both biological, psychological, and social factors are used in the aetiology and treatment of these disorders. The realization of the complex relationship between nature and nurture encourages the development of holistic approaches that focus on treating the underlying genetic factors, reducing environmental risk factors, and improving psychological determinants that lead to mental well-being.
Montag et al.’s (2016) study, “The Role of Nature and Nurture for Individual Differences in Primary Emotional Systems: Evidence from a Twin Study,” explores the relationship between genetics and environmental factors in developing primary emotional systems. This research uses a twin-sibling design with 795 study participants, including monozygotic twins, dizygotic twins, and full siblings with non-twin siblings. Involving Affective Neuroscience Personality Scales (ANPS), scientists measured the functioning of the primary emotional systems. This study showed moderate to strong genetic influences on individual differences in primary emotional systems, with specific heritability estimates from 33% to 69%. Genomics multivariate methodology has demonstrated that biological and environmental factors play the key roles in the interaction of emotional systems. These results show the complicated interaction of nature and nurture factors in the incarnation of primary emotions, which shows the need for diverse approaches in emotion classification.
Cooper (2018) suggests that while significant progress has been made in comprehending molecular genetics, the current understanding remains incomplete, hinting at the presence of a genetic component. The study draws attention to the need for an interdisciplinary approach and briefs on environmental hazards. The genes-environment interaction is complex; genes seem to be less of a risk factor, especially in neuropsychiatric disorders, and genes might make people more susceptible to psychological stress, which might be the cause of common mental disorders.
Wermter et al. (2010) conducted a comprehensive research using genetic analysis, environmental screenings, and clinical evaluations to establish the genetic-environmental interplay in mental disorders. They enrolled people with psychiatric conditions and healthy controls; genetic studies were carried out to identify those germline variants in genes that might be related to the disease. Environmental variables, such as stress and post-traumatic stress symptoms, and the statistical methods that investigated gene-environment interactions were assessed. The findings revealed links between particular gene mutations and ADHD and schizophrenia. The environmental stressors would modulate the expression of genetic vulnerabilities. Such study emphasizes the intricate gene-environment interaction in mental disorders, paving the way for personalized approaches in dealing with at-risk individuals.
Rutter’s (2002) study, “The Interplay of Nature, Nurture, and Developmental Influences: The Challenge Ahead for Mental Health,” explores the complex relationship between genetic and environmental elements to mental health outcomes. The report puts forward success stories in the framework of psychiatric genetics, psychosocial factors, developmental interventions, and the challenges of keeping up with psychotherapy, medical treatment, and biomedical research. Rutter mentions obstacles like the limitations of genetic contribution and environmental and gene-environment permeation. Further Rutter supports that based on empirical research, and longitudinal investigations, the genes in concert with their environment are the most important factor when thriving mental health. The study highlights that the multidimensional approach should be taken instead because it is the most effective one.
According to Dover (2023), the debate over whether mental illnesses are predominantly influenced by nature or nurture remains contentious. It sometimes seems like the hereditary factor is at work, but it may be too early to tell the proper mechanisms that cause those patterns. Scientific research shows the existence of genetic predisposition for mental disorders among certain people. In contrast, others insist that the environment has the most significant part in the making of a mental illness. Dover’s aim is to offer an understanding on the fact that people are influenced by internal and external factors that determine their mental health. She explains how different genes interact with their external environment to form the unique variation of each person’s vulnerability to mental disorders, pointing out that these two interconnected factors are of equal importance.
Amelia Faye Smith’s (2019) doctoral dissertation, “Family Processes and Child Mental Health: Unpacking Nature from Nurture,” unravels the complicated relationship between genes and the environment in forming children’s mental health. The study’s objective is to investigate the relative impact of fathers and mothers on their children’s psychological problems by emphasizing interparental conflict, maternal and paternal parenting, and the relationship between parents. This study is based on a multi-method, longitudinal adoption-at-birth design, with over 300 intact families, that uses data collected from the Early Growth and Development Study (EGDS). Research results demonstrate a relationship among inter-parental conflict, parental care style, and child outcomes. This shows that nature and nurture should be considered to enhance children’s mental well-being. The knowledge also can help design policy and practice interventions.
Exploring the literature reveals the fundamental theories and concepts pertaining to discussions on nature versus promoting intellectual health. Cooper (2018) and Wermter et al. (2010) point out the critical role of genetics-environment interaction in mental disorder aetiology, offering insights that environment plays a significant part in this interplay. Rutter (2002) focuses on the complex interweaving of genes and environmental interaction in mental health outcomes, highlighting the struggle to recognize susceptibility genes and understand the mediating role of the environment in risk processes. Montet et al. (2016) explore the interrelation between genes and environment in the genesis of primary emotional systems that presently, based on evidence, moderate to substantial genetic impacts on the variation of individuals are demonstrated. Dover (2023) examines the controversial idea of whether natives and nurture play equal or dominant roles in developing mental illnesses and how genetic variants interact with environmental factors. Finally, Amelia Faye Smith (2019) focuses on the role played by family in child mental health development, and it highlights the functions of mothers and fathers in how they influence the development of psychopathologies in children.
The literature review approach is the most suitable method for the selected research topic because it allows for the in-depth examination of pre-existing knowledge and the outcomes of available research on the nature versus nurture issue in mental health. This approach helps the researcher synthesize compelling arguments and enables the analysis of divergent, opposing, and different kinds of theories, contributions, and facts from various scholarly sources (Booth et al., 2021). Through the critical, selective, and thorough examination of the body of knowledge, patterns, holes in the existing knowledge, and where more research could be done can be revealed. Moreover, a literature review explains the issue’s complexity and how it can be investigated, consequently helping to create the research questions and hypotheses.
A literature review demonstrates to be the most suitable in the process of discovering growing academic literature and significant perceptions of the nature versus nurture dialogue in mental health. This in turn makes inclusion of different sources and viewpoints to become an integral part of the research process, and therefore helps the experience be more meaningful. A professional literature review will also help to key in on information deficits and areas that need further investigation.
Nevertheless, a disadvantage presented by overreliance on a literature review could lead to a bias or an insufficient scope related to selected sources. When a researcher does not do their research, they get constrained by previous research and may miss alternative viewpoints or new theories. Also, the importance of the quality and the authenticity of the resources being used must be acknowledged as they will directly influence the reliability of the findings. Eventually the researcher has to be critical and intelligent enough to be able to identify and integrate different sources in order to solve the problem comprehensively.
The literature review is built from the diverse range of scholarly articles, studies, and dissertations from reputable journals and academic platforms that are encountered. These sources furnish the scientists with studies, theory, and conceptualization. As such, they provide research that helps scientists better understand the nature versus nurture debate in mental health. Overall, the sources are well above average in terms of their reliability and appropriateness for the research, providing an understanding of the aspects of gene-environment interaction in mental health. Nevertheless, a researcher must be thorough when evaluating the methods utilized, results obtained, and limitations of these sources in establishing an insightful and reliable literature review.
The research techniques applied to the present study integrate a literature review and a systematic synthesis of current scholarly sources. According to Cooper et al. (2018), “a systematic literature review” is the best quality and most thorough way of identification, selection, and summarizing the topical research papers on the issue chosen. This, therefore, offers sound exploration to the various lines of approaches, theories, and data available in the entire spread of textual sources. I searched on a few public online databases for my reading, such as Google Scholar, PsycINFO, and websites of academic journals, among others, to identify relevant and peer-reviewed articles and studies published within the pre-specified timeframe against such nature versus nurture, mental health, genetics, environment, lifetime’s live multiple, and other adoptive studies. After I identified the possible sources, I applied the inclusion and exclusion criteria to select articles that were relevant to the study and of the appropriate quality and reliability. The selected articles were then critically analyzed and synthesized to produce key findings, theories, concepts, and methodology that were relevant to the research topic. The systematic literate review procedure was based on accepted principles and methodologies to guarantee the study’s findings and conclusions to be true, accurate, and scientifically sound.
The appropriateness of the systematized literature review methodology as the research methodology is specifically highlighted below. The genetics and human modifying debate in the case of mental health is a complex and multi-dimensional issue that should be seen in the frame of present theories and researches and then it should be recorded in a logical order. A structured approach in literature review helps in constructing a sound platform for composition and evaluation of existing material by evolving a base framework using relevant literature (Booth et al., 2018). Directly communicating about following standard review procedures and methods, the researcher can therefore proceed confidently that the results found in the study can be trusted, valid, and reliable. In the given context, this approach can be used to detect the already existing inconsistencies, gaps and new research hypotheses which could in turn be used to fill the previous knowledge about mental health in the future.
The conducting of a systematic literature review on nature versus nurture in mental health involves a number of stages in data collection. First, the researcher ascertains the databases, journals, and academic repositories that have articles, studies, and dissertations that are fully peer-reviewed and applicably related to the research question. The search is focused such that it is diverse and pulls from a range of mental health-related disciplines, including psychology, psychiatry, genetics, and the like.
After ascertaining the presence of the data bases and sources, the researcher uses the relevant terms and criteria to make a systematic search for the relevant literature. The search terms make use of nature vs. nature and can include words that pertain to nature, cultivate gender, natural genes, eco factors, psychiatric illness, family patterns and gene-environment effects. After this is through, the filtering of the irrelevant information is done with the help of the predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria, though with those that are left, it gets to be further narrowed down based on what does not qualify.
Keen reading of the sources set to establish the relevance, quality, and role played in the research topic. This article set will involve perusing through the major part of each article, namely the abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. This will help me make out the relevance of the article towards the literature review. This is because the researcher has to go through one by one, tally the duplicate studies, and confirm the references to show non-bias and maintain the intellectual integrity of the whole review.
Following are the terms with relevancy in literature and findings directly from the sources that are organized in a systematized way as per themes, conceptual framework, and research questions. The task will therefore comprise of data extraction, which includes summing of key points on patterns and trends in synthesizing research information into a story that is coherent and finally directed to the objectives and goals of the study.
The literature review technique provides a great deal of advantages that make it a good tool to use in investigating complex research questions such as nature versus nurture in mental health. One of the major advantages is that it lets an author present a holistic view of the already existing knowledge that gets synthesized from various credible sources such as peer-reviewed articles from the professional community, studies, dissertations, etc. This makes the review more trustworthy and reliable by offering a firm and evidence-based foundation of the research based on scholarly sources (Avella et al., 2016). Furthermore, the systematic method of scanning, sifting, and picking grains promotes low bias. It generates transparency in the process of the review because researchers base their selection on specified inclusion and exclusion criteria. Moreover, this approach enables us to uncover those deficiencies and incoherence in the existing literature that, in turn, pinpoints the need for additional studies and observations.
However, like any approach, the systematic literature review method is a double-edged sword that entails certain drawbacks, which researchers should keep in mind. A shortcoming may be an incomplete search of relevant studies, either because their key phrases or databases have not been explored or because some publications are not accessible (Cooper et al., 2018). This may lead to a sampling bias and will probably cause a disruption in the coverage by the review. Furthermore, such a review is limited in the quality and range of the studies based on what is available in the literature since the quality and scope of studies can be variable from one research area to another. Lastly, the compilation of data from disparate sources may lead to subjective interpretation and increase the possibility of undue influence or simplified presentation of complex ideas.
Results of the reviewed literature showed that the delicate interaction between genetic and external factors is the decisive influence of mental illnesses. According to Cooper (2018), gene-environment interactions are complex in mental disorders, so it is the genetic predisposition coupled with environmental factors that are mainly responsible. The review proposes the uncovering of specific genetic and environmental factors of the psychiatric disorders related to the unknown processes by means of enhanced research and in cooperation with other disciplines in order for the candidate’s risks associated with several diagnostic categories to be figured out.
Likewise, Wermter et al. (2010) find evidence for significant associations between particular gene variants and mental disorders, which emphasizes the involvement of genetic factors in the development of disorders like ADHD and schizophrenia. In this context, the observations remind people of evidence of the part played by environmental components, such as traumas in childhood and family environment, in the worsening of genetic susceptibilities and symptoms that are psychiatric. The study emphasizes a multifactorial strategy to be implemented that takes into account both genetic and lifestyle issues for personalized approaches for the high-risk population.
On the other hand, Rutter (2002) offers a comprehensive overview of the genetics of psychiatric disorders, psychosocial factors, and developmental processes. The research puts a prime focus on the harmonious combination of genetic predispositions and the surrounding factors that are ultimately responsible for the various mental health outcomes. It deals with issues like breaking down susceptibility genes, bringing to light environmentally mediated risk processes, and researching the effects of social adversity. The study suggests creation of online lessons and quizzes based on this given sentence. These tests can be used by students as self-assessment tools or taken as part of an exam. Further, Rutter proposes an all-embracing study that defines multiple facets of nature and that researches it as a unit of one to recognize and develop a way around mental ill-health.
Moreover, through the research of Montag and his colleagues (2016) about the role of nature and nurture in the extreme emotionality of individual primary emotional systems. The whole research finds out that genetic factors exert a moderate to high degree of heritability on primary emotional systems, each of them being found to imply some degree of liability for heredity. The use of multivariate genetic modeling reveals that, at the same time, associations among emotional systems are both genetically and environmentally (conditions of living and development) driven. This finding supports the great roles played by both nature (genetics) and nurture (environment) in the formation of emotional diversity, with a lot of knowledge gained for the researcher in biologically oriented personality psychology search.
Furthermore, Dovers (2023) showcases the ongoing dilemma concerning the expandability of nature and nurture in future generations’ mental health states and adds a touch to the undetermined interaction between genetics and the environment. The article goes into detail with reference to how variations in brain chemical activities and imbalances linked to mental disorders might be affected by natural and natural medical environments. Furthermore, it discusses both the opportunities and tensions surrounding digital mental health interventions. Clearer methodologies form the basis for useful remedies around the globe.
Smith’s (2019) doctoral dissertation, which focused on family processes and child mental health, found substantial connections between interparental conflict, parenting practices, and child outcomes. This research affirms the nature of reciprocity in the parent-child interaction and reminds us that while men and women share the role of parenting, their individual contributions stand out. The study amazingly discovered that co-parenting was not associated with parenting styles and child outcomes, thus exposing the need for more studies. The reviewed literature presents the gene-environment complexity in the mental health field. It emphasizes the importance of biological vulnerability and environmental factors when it comes to explaining and treating mental health disorders.
The sources reviewed offer a detailed information at how genes and the environment affect mental health. Every research provides deep knowledge from different angles, illustrating to us the essence of the debate between nature and nurture in mental health maintenance. Cooper (2018) emphasizes genes and environment and offers a broad overview of the genetic and environmental factors in mental disorders through a complete review of past studies. In contrast to the typical reductionist approach, the interdisciplinary approach employed by a gene-environment interaction study allows for a more sophisticated understanding of gene-environment interactions.
Wermter & colleagues (2010) provide an additional point of view on gene variants linked to mental disorders. The genetic analysis, as well as the environmental assessment, is used to support the findings thus making them valid. Rutter (2002) synthesizes experimental recordings from psychiatric genetics, psychosocial factors, and developmental processes, and thus the picture becomes even more complete. Montag et al. (2016) shed light on the role of genetics and environment as determinants of the emotional primary systems. The study had a twin-sibling design with a large sample size that was used in a very rigorous research methodology. This enhances the robustness of its findings. Dover (2023) utilizes genetic and environmental arguments in relation to mental disorders susceptibility to examine our modern understanding of nature vs nurture in mental illness. Lastly, Smith (2019) elaborates on family processes and child mental health, focusing on the effects of maternal and paternal parenting on the psychopathology of children. The application of longitudinal adoption-at-birth design and use of the Early Growth and Development Study (EGDS) data in the research methodology help in enhancing the rigor of the research methodology.
Although the sources examined are generally valuable, they possess a few drawbacks that must be taken into account.
Limited Generalizability: Some studies have distinct limitations in their generalizability like unrepresentative sample or research methodology design. One could use Wermter et al.’s study, which centered on specific gene and psychiatric diseases, as an example of the fact that the researchers should have considered the whole complexity of gene-environment interactions in different races. As a matter of fact, Smith’s data from the EGDS is probably unrepresentative of all family styles and children’s mental health problems.
Methodological Limitations: The few studies that used retrospective or cross-sectional data might introduce recall bias or reduce causal inference possibility. Moreover, the employment of the self-reported, which may be faulted by social desirability bias or inaccurate reporting, has been applied in some studies.
Limited Exploration of Specific Genetic and Environmental Factors: Whereas the sources may share information on the intricate nature versus nature discussion, they can still find it difficult to trace the exact gene variants or environmental factors involved in mental disorders. The research of the future could be more successful if it takes place into the investigation of these factors so that their influence on their mental health is revealed.
Challenges in Coparenting Research: Smith (2019) illustrates the lack of accurate measurement tools and the understanding of the connection between coparenting dynamics and child mental health outcomes. The lack of research in this dimension of the literature shows us the need for further investigation to develop refined conceptualizations and measurement tools when measuring co-parenting relations.
Although they fall short of their aims in some ways, nevertheless, the sources are credible as they are based on a systematic and detailed review of the literature and also through their contribution to research on mental health. Every source is characterized by an assessed argument, which is equally sustained by empirical data, theory, and interdisciplinary point of view. However, some sources may not be as generalizable as others or need to have adequate methodology. These research sources still offer vital evidence that helps present a deeper, more nuanced view of the nature versus nurture debate in mental health.
The experience of carrying this project out was very useful in terms of bringing attention to knowledge of genetic and environmental variables that underlie mental health outcomes. One of the project’s advantages is that it offers a thorough analysis of many different sources, including empirical research, theoretical frameworks, and interdisciplinary approaches. Through comparing outcomes across several studies, the project is able to provide a complete picture of the nature versus nurture controversy with regard to mental health that clearly shows that genetic predispositions and environmental conditions run a complex course.
However, the project also has its limitations. Despite the complications arising from the wide range of sources being considered, I struggled to focus adequately into each study’s findings while adhering to the word count limit in which, some finer points can get passed through, and there, some aspects of the nature versus nurture concept could be ignored. Besides, the main focus was on secondary information that hinders the chance for fieldwork or the use of primary source materials. Following the next version of this project, it would be better to use a targeted approach, which can be used as an instrument for making an in-depth analysis of the factors of nature versus nurture in mental health.
Moreover, through this literature review, I have experienced a personal transformation of my views about this issue, and now I understand how complex it is when it comes to the matter of mental health. At the beginning of my mental health studies, the perspective that I had was rather rudimentary; I used to only think that mental disorders were caused by either genetic issues or environmental factors. Via the course of this project, I have got to know the variety of problems related to mental health that are caused by the complex interaction of biological, psychological, and social forces.
In addition, I have grown more aware of the complexity of the nature versus nurture argument to the extent of a more comprehensive perspective. Instead of regarding genetics and environment as a clash of forces, I now understand them as integrative characteristics of a system. Genetic inheritance can sometimes be amended by the variables of environmental strain, past and present experiences, and social factors that may influence the individual’s probability of developing mental disorders. These district dynamics emphasize that the biopsychosocial model is used for the reason of mental health, which is done by considering biological, psychological, and social factors as a whole.
Indeed, this particular project has provided me with the opportunity to broaden my view of mental health research as an interdisciplinary effort and the significance of incorporating different standpoints to acquire a deepened understanding of complex entities. Stepping ahead, I intend to utilize the knowledge learned from this field in my future work in mental health promotion, research, and healthcare, with the awareness that equal attention should be given to both genetic and environmental components of good health.
In summary, the project presented the close relationship between genetic and environmental aspects of mental health outcomes using a wide range of sources from credible views. Leading findings are the revelation of the nature of mental illnesses, which are normally caused by both genetic predisposition and environmental factors. Genetics of people does play a significant role in determining their susceptibility to certain genetic conditions. Still, environmental factors also have noteworthy contributions in determining one’s mental health state, thus showing that it is a combination of nature and nurture that better illuminates our understanding of mental health issues. This research adds to the already existing knowledge by reviewing the results from different studies and presenting a generalized viewpoint on the nature versus nurture controversy in mental well-being. An examination of various study strategies and types of sources gives a comprehension of the matter’s intricacy and research on mental health; this calls for the involvement of various disciplines and a holistic view of mental disorders.
Nonetheless, the project also has some drawbacks. Since the research was confined to the given scope of the topic and the limited word count, there were other options than a more in-depth analysis of certain aspects of the nature versus nurture debate. Moreover, the over-reliance on secondary sources negatively affected the opportunity to do original research or even add some firsthand or direct perspectives. Some drawbacks of this study include a need for more focus and a secondary nature of collected data. Subsequent research could use a targeted approach and even conduct primary research to improve the quality of the analysis. Thus, moving forward, there are many directions for further research to undertake. Such longitudinal studies will be able to provide important insights into how gene-environment interactions affect mental health outcomes in the long term, as well as in identifying various developmental trajectories and risk factors.
Avella, J. T., Kebritchi, M., Nunn, S. G., & Kanai, T. (2016). Learning analytics methods, benefits, and challenges in higher education: A systematic literature review. Online Learning, 20(2), 13-29. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1105911
Booth, A., Sutton, A., Clowes, M., & Martyn-St James, M. (2021). Systematic approaches to a successful literature review.
Cooper, B. (2018). Nature, nurture and mental disorder: old concepts in the new millennium. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 178(S40), s91-s101. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-british-journal-of-psychiatry/article/nature-nurture-and-mental-disorder-old-concepts-in-the-new-millennium/8F42D49F229A5FB8866F00A155C927B7
Cooper, C., Booth, A., Varley-Campbell, J., Britten, N., & Garside, R. (2018). Defining the process to literature searching in systematic reviews: a literature review of guidance and supporting studies. BMC medical research methodology, 18, 1-14.
Dover, K. R. (2023, December 31). Mental Health in Families: Nature vs. Nurture?. Restore Mental Health. Retrieved from https://restore-mentalhealth.com/mental-nature-vs-nurture/
Izydorczyk, B., & Sitnik-Warchulska, K. (2018). Sociocultural appearance standards and risk factors for eating disorders in adolescents and women of various ages. Frontiers in psychology, 9, 329735. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00429
Jones, T. M., Nurius, P., Song, C., & Fleming, C. M. (2018). Modeling life course pathways from adverse childhood experiences to adult mental health. Child abuse & neglect, 80, 32-40.
Montag, C., Hahn, E., Reuter, M., Spinath, F. M., Davis, K., & Panksepp, J. (2016). The role of nature and nurture for individual differences in primary emotional systems: evidence from a twin study. PloS one, 11(3), e0151405. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0151405
Rutter, M. (2002). The interplay of nature, nurture, and developmental influences: the challenge ahead for mental health. Archives of General Psychiatry, 59(11), 996-1000. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.59.11.996 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/article-abstract/206924
Smith, A. F. (2019). Family Processes and Child Mental Health: Unpacking Nature from Nurture (Doctoral dissertation, University of Sussex). https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Amelia-Smith-5/publication/335883537_Family_Processes_and_Child_Mental_Health_Unpacking_Nature_from_Nurture/links/5d820586299bf1996f74e887/Family-Processes-and-Child-Mental-Health-Unpacking-Nature-from-Nurture.pdf
Ward, L. (2019). John Locke’s influence on Rousseau. In The Rousseauian Mind (pp. 65-75). Routledge.
Wermter, A. K., Laucht, M., Schimmelmann, B. G., Banaschweski, T., Sonuga-Barke, E. J., Rietschel, M., & Becker, K. (2010). From nature versus nurture, via nature and nurture, to gene× environment interaction in mental disorders. European child & adolescent psychiatry, 19, 199-210. From nature versus nurture, via nature and nurture, to gene × environment interaction in mental disorders | European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (springer.com)