Contribution saw the nurturist shift, induced by three

Contribution to the Nature
Nurture Debate  

would dispute the critical contributions of the PPCT model to the enduring
“nature-nurture” debate and provided insight into the development of a unified
theory of human development (Sameroff, 2010). 
Before 1970, the main concerns of many researchers in the field of human
development were to discover the extent of nature and nurture’s specific
influences. The 1980’s however, saw the nurturist shift, induced by three
advances in the social science – the war on poverty, the concept of a social
ecology, and cultural deconstruction. Where behaviourist research focused on
proximal connections between reinforcements and performance, scientists in
other social disciplines were arguing that economic circumstance was a major
constraint on the availability of reinforcements, such that the developmental
environments of the poor were deprived in contrast with those of the affluent. Bronfenbrenner’s’
model offered a more differentiated model than provided by economics alone. Bronfenbrenner
(1977) identified the distal influences of family, school, work, and culture on
the availability of reinforcements to the child, providing a more comprehensive
empirical model for predicting individual differences in development. The
emphasis here was on studying how people adapt to their changing environments
where they grow and live (Clarke-Steward et al., 1985).  His contextual model delineated the ways in
which dimensions of experience can augment or constrain human development and
the consideration of this in research will advance our understanding of what
makes humans human.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

was also among the first theoreticians to underscore the need to take into
account both the complex, reciprocal and subtle interactions among each
individual’s biological and personal characteristics and also the significant
social and ecological contexts that influence development (Rosa & Tudge,
2013). Hehe identified the intricate interrelations between person, process,
context, and time, arguing that more important than the various ecological
systems per se, is the transactions and synergies among them. Furthermore, in
its final adaption, process was
introduced to the model. He discussed proximal processes as a medium through
which human develops. That is, progressively complex interactions between human
and other people as well as objects and the immediate environment. Sentence of two


of the most enduring contributions this bioecological model has made to the
developmental field was having the idea that the human life span is marked by
the presence of relative plasticity. This element, time, was highlighted
increasingly during the 1980s, until being formally attached to the PPCT model
in the final phase of the theory’s development, comprising three different
layers(micro-, meso-, and macrotime).  Bronfenbrenner
stressed that human development involves both continuity and change (1975, 1978,
1979), which signifies continuity both in the person and in the environment
(1975). This is a significant contribution to the field of developmental
research as he understood how increasingly complex proximal and distal
ecological systems, including historical time, influence and expand human
development throughout the life span (Tudge, Mokrova, Hatfield, & Karnik,
2009). He also identified the key role played by temporal variables (both in
ontogenesis and throughout history) in developmental processes, highlighting
the need for researchers to carry out longitudinal studies, ultimately
transforming the generalizability of many of the findings in developmental
research. He also asserted that time ordered variation within the individual
must be assessed in order to obtain valid information about the developmental