Nurture Plays A More Dominant Role In Human’s Development Than Nature
Humans are unique and intricate creatures and their development is a complex process. It is this process that leads people to question, is a child’s development influenced by genetics or their environment? This long debate has been at the forefront of psychology for countless decades now and is better known as “Nature versus Nurture”. The continuous controversy on whether or not children develop their psychological attributes based on genetics (nature) or the way in which they have been raised (nurture) has pondered the minds of psychologists for years. Through thorough experiments, studies, and discussions however, it is easy to see that nurture is far more important in the development of a human than nature.
The Nature versus Nurture argument can be traced back many millenniums ago. In 350 B.C., philosophers asked the same question on human behaviour. Plato and Aristotle were two philosophers that each had two diverse views on the matter. Plato believed that knowledge and behaviour were due to inherent factors, but environmental factors still played a role in the equation. Conversely, Aristotle had different views. He believed in the idea of “Tabula Rasa”.
The Blank Slate theory supported the nurture side of the argument and believed that everyone was born with a ‘Tabula Rasa’, Latin for ‘Blank Slate’. He proposed that “people learn and acquire ideas from external forces or the environment”. In other words, he believed that the mind is a blank slate and it is our experiences that write on these slates. This theory concluded that as humans, we are born with minds empty of ideas and at birth we have no knowledge or awareness of what we should act like. Thus, it seems self evident that things such as personality, intellect, sexuality, phobias and habits are all created new and that thoughts are created firstly by the introduction different variables to ones life and secondly through reflection on that experience.
However, the questions remain: how much of our personality and development is a result of our childhood? The "Little Albert" experiment was a famous psychology experiment conducted by behaviourist John B. Watson. In the past, Russian physiologist, Ivan Pavlov, conducted a variety of experiments demonstrating classical conditioning of dogs. This made Watson curious and he was interested in taking Pavlov’s experiment further as he wanted to show that emotional reactions could also be conditioned in people. The experiment consisted of an infant and a white rat, to which he initially shown no sign of fear to. When the rat was initially placed alongside the child better known as “Little Albert”, he appeared fascinated and undaunted by the creature. However, when the researchers paired the rat with a loud noise, Albert got scared. In effect, from that point on, Albert would immediately begin to cry at the simple sight of the rat, even though the noise was gone. After Albert was taught to fear the rat, Watson continued the experiment and...
Loading: Checking Spelling0%
The Scarlet Letter Essay: How nature plays a role in the novel787 words - 3 pages Overlooked in many books, nature plays a huge part in the novel The Scarlet Letter. It plays its own character that seems to show emotions as well as its own likes and dislikes. It is where Hester and Dimmesdale first committed their sin and it also seems to be the first...
The Role of Nature vs Nurture631 words - 3 pages The Role of Nature vs Nurture "We used to think our fate was in our stars. Now, we know, in large part, that our fate is in our genes." ---James Watson While social research has been steady and ongoing, our biological knowledge has advanced disproportionately in recent times. As we discover more about the role of genes in pre-determining who we are, the nature versus nurture debate seems headed for a tilt of the biological over the...
Nature vs Nurture: Do Genes Or Environment Matter More?993 words - 4 pages What makes us who we are? Does the answer lie in our genes, our environment, or in the way we are raised? For years, there has been an on-going debate between nature and nurture. T.H. White, author of The Once and Future King, explores the debate through many of the book’s characters. The issue clearly appears in the relationship of Queen Morgause and her sons, the Orkney brothers. The debate caused people to pick a side, to pick nature over...
Nature vs Nurture: Do Genes Or Environment Matter More?1286 words - 5 pages Nature versus nurture has emerged as one of the most heated debates in the 21st century. It is more aligned towards the internal and external factors that comprise human beings behavior. The internal factors are innate and perceived to be genetically revolved as opposed to the external factors that are influenced by the environment and individuals’ experiences. However, scholars in different fields have researched on the relationship between...
Consider the arguments both for and against the contention that gender is a product of nurture rather than nature2014 words - 8 pages Consider the arguments both for and against the contention that gender is a product of nurture rather than natureSociologists use the term sex when referring to biological differences between male and female bodies whereas gender is used to explain the social construction of masculinity and femininity. The distinction between sex and gender is important as many differences between males and females are not just biological. The...
Nature vs nurture by bret lane. a research paper about whether alcoholism is more related to environmental factors or genetics1525 words - 6 pages Alcoholism can affect anyone. It has enormous costs as it pertains to societies, families, and individuals. It is not prejudicial towards any race, color, sex, religion, or economic level. Researchers are continually seeking answers to the long-standing nature versus nurture debate. Different views are split between a biological basis and a psychological basis. Some scientists debate that genetics are more to blame for alcoholism, while others...
The Role Race Plays in the Development of the Utopian Societies Featured in Toni Morrison’s Paradise2298 words - 9 pages A paradise is an imaginary place, one where there is eternal happiness and everlasting beauty, where beings work together and for one another, and where feelings of love, unity, and respect are encouraged and celebrated. This serene and safe space tends to be associated with religious connotations, such as Heaven or Eden, for it is believed to have been created by a god or higher being. There are numerous beliefs and various religions that...
Describe the way in which personality and identity develop and explain the role of Nature and nurture in the process.1017 words - 4 pages There are some traits that we all possess to some extent, such as caring, kindness, helpfulness or leadership.However different they may be in other respects, most personality theories share the basic assumption that personality is something that 'belongs' to the individual:' the appropriate unit of analysis for personality is the person' (Hampson, 1995) (1) To the extent that each of us 'has' a personality that's stable and relatively...
Love-in-idleness: Topic assigned was describe one idea that Shakespeare used on more than one level in any one of his plays.1029 words - 4 pages Shakespeare used the word love-in-idleness on two different levels in the play "A Midsummer Night's Dream". On the superficial level love-in-idleness is the name of the love potion that Oberon and Puck put into Titania, Lysander, and Demetrius's eyes. After this potion is administered the person who receives it falls in love with the first...
This is a critical lens response to the quote literature opens a dark window on the soul, revealing more about what is bad in human nature than what is good563 words - 2 pages "Literature opens a dark window on the soul, revealing more about what is bad in human nature than what is good." This quote means that literature will show all sides to a person not just their good side. It will show how evil a person maybe even though they may seem nice. I would have to agree with this quote because in the play Macbeth by William Shakespeare....
The Role Socioeconomic Status, Cultural Context, and Ethnicity Plays on Development643 words - 3 pages Today, more than ever, socioeconomic status, cultural context and ethnicity play a large role in human development. Without these factors we would not be able to function in society. These factors reflect how a person communicates and socializes with other people, and how a person is accepted in society. They help us make decisions in life. Each...
Nature vs. Nurture in Psychology
by Saul McLeod updated 2015
The nature vs. nurture debate within psychology is concerned with the extent to which particular aspects of behavior are a product of either inherited (i.e., genetic) or acquired (i.e., learned) characteristics.
Nature is what we think of as pre-wiring and is influenced by genetic inheritance and other biological factors. Nurture is generally taken as the influence of external factors after conception, e.g., the product of exposure, experience and learning on an individual.
The nature-nurture debate is concerned with the relative contribution that both influences make to human behavior.
Nature Nurture Debate in Psychology
It has long been known that certain physical characteristics are biologically determined by genetic inheritance. Color of eyes, straight or curly hair, pigmentation of the skin and certain diseases (such as Huntingdon’s chorea) are all a function of the genes we inherit. Other physical characteristics, if not determined, appear to be at least strongly influenced by the genetic make-up of our biological parents.
Height, weight, hair loss (in men), life expectancy and vulnerability to specific illnesses (e.g., breast cancer in women) are positively correlated between genetically related individuals. These facts have led many to speculate as to whether psychological characteristics such as behavioral tendencies, personality attributes, and mental abilities are also “wired in” before we are even born.
Those who adopt an extreme hereditary position are known as nativists. Their basic assumption is that the characteristics of the human species as a whole are a product of evolution and that individual differences are due to each person’s unique genetic code. In general, the earlier a particular ability appears, the more likely it is to be under the influence of genetic factors.
Characteristics and differences that are not observable at birth, but which emerge later in life, are regarded as the product of maturation. That is to say, we all have an inner “biological clock” which switches on (or off) types of behavior in a pre-programmed way.
The classic example of the way this affects our physical development are the bodily changes that occur in early adolescence at puberty. However, nativists also argue that maturation governs the emergence of attachment in infancy, language acquisition and even cognitive development as a whole.
At the other end of the spectrum are the environmentalists also known as empiricists (not to be confused with the other empirical / scientific approach). Their basic assumption is that at birth the human mind is a tabula rasa (a blank slate) and that this is gradually “filled” as a result of experience (e.g., behaviorism).
From this point of view, psychological characteristics and behavioral differences that emerge through infancy and childhood are the results of learning. It is how you are brought up (nurture) that governs the psychologically significant aspects of child development and the concept of maturation applies only to the biological.
For example, when an infant forms an attachment it is responding to the love and attention it has received, language comes from imitating the speech of others, and cognitive development depends on the degree of stimulation in the environment and, more broadly, on the civilization within which the child is reared.
Examples of an extreme nature positions in psychology include Bowlby's (1969) theory of attachment, which views the bond between mother and child as being an innate process that ensures survival. Likewise, Chomsky (1965) proposed language is gained through the use of an innate language acquisition device. Another example of nature is Freud's theory of aggression as being an innate drive (called Thanatos).
In contrast Bandura's (1977) social learning theory states that aggression is a learned from the environment through observation and imitation. This is seen in his famous Bobo doll experiment (Bandura, 1961). Also, Skinner (1957) believed that language is learnt from other people via behavior shaping techniques.
In practice, hardly anyone today accepts either of the extreme positions. There are simply too many “facts” on both sides of the argument which are inconsistent with an “all or nothing” view. So instead of asking whether child development is down to nature or nurture the question has been reformulated as “How much?” That is to say, given that heredity and environment both influence the person we become, which is the more important?
This question was first framed by Francis Galton in the late 19th century. Galton (himself a relative of Charles Darwin) was convinced that intellectual ability was largely inherited and that the tendency for “genius” to run in families was the outcome of a natural superiority.
This view has cropped up time and again in the history of psychology and has stimulated much of the research into intelligence testing (particularly on separated twins and adopted children). A modern proponent is the American psychologist Arthur Jenson. Finding that the average I.Q. scores of black Americans were significantly lower than whites he went on to argue that genetic factors were mainly responsible even going so far as to suggest that intelligence is 80% inherited.
The storm of controversy that developed around Jenson’s claims was not mainly due to logical and empirical weaknesses in his argument. It was more to do with the social and political implications that are often drawn from research that claims to demonstrate natural inequalities between social groups.
Galton himself in 1883 suggested that human society could be improved by “better breeding.” In the 1920’s the American Eugenics Society campaigned for the sterilization of men and women in psychiatric hospitals. Today in Britain many believe that the immigration policies are designed to discriminate against Black and Asian ethnic groups. However the most chilling of all implications drawn from this view of the natural superiority of one race over another took place in the concentration camps of Nazi Germany.
For many environmentalists there is a barely disguised right-wing agenda behind the work of the behavioral geneticists. In their view, part of the difference in the I.Q. scores of different ethnic groups are due to inbuilt biases in the methods of testing. More fundamentally, they believe that differences in intellectual ability are a product of social inequalities in access to material resources and opportunities. To put it simply children brought up in the ghetto tend to score lower on tests because they are denied the same life chances as more privileged members of society.
Now we can see why the nature-nurture debate has become such a hotly contested issue. What begins as an attempt to understand the causes of behavioral differences often develops into a politically motivated dispute about distributive justice and power in society. What’s more, this doesn’t only apply to the debate over I.Q. It is equally relevant to the psychology of sex and gender, where the question of how much of the (alleged) differences in male and female behavior is due to biology and how much to culture is just as controversial.
However, in recent years there has been a growing realization that the question of “how much” behavior is due to heredity and “how much” to the environment may itself be the wrong question. Take intelligence as an example. Like almost all types of human behavior, it is a complex, many-sided phenomenon which reveals itself (or not!) in a great variety of ways. The “how much” question assumes that the variables can all be expressed numerically and that the issue can be resolved in a quantitative manner. The reality is that nature and culture interact in a host of qualitatively different ways.
It is widely accepted now that heredity and the environment do not act independently. Both nature and nurture are essential for any behavior, and it cannot be said that a particular behavior is genetic and another is environmental. It is impossible to separate the two influences as well as illogical as nature and nurture do not operate in a separate way but interact in a complex manner.
Instead of defending extreme nativist or nurturist views, most psychological researchers are now interested in investigating how nature and nurture interact. For example, in psychopathology, this means that both a genetic predisposition and an appropriate environmental trigger are required for a mental disorder to develop. Therefore, it makes more sense to say that the difference between two people’s behavior is mostly due to hereditary factors or mostly due to environmental factors.
This realization is especially important given the recent advances in genetics. The Human Genome Project, for example, has stimulated enormous interest in tracing types of behavior to particular strands of DNA located on specific chromosomes. Newspaper reports announce that scientists are on the verge of discovering (or have already discovered) the gene for criminality, for alcoholism or the “gay gene.”
If these advances are not to be abused, then there will need to be a more general understanding of the fact that biology interacts with both the cultural context and the personal choices that people make about how they want to live their lives. There is no neat and simple way of unraveling these qualitatively different and reciprocal influences on human behavior.
View the complete article as a PDF document
Bandura, A. Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1961). Transmission of aggression through the imitation of aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 575-582
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment. Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Loss. New York: Basic Books.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. MIT Press.
Galton, F. (1883). Inquiries into human faculty and its development. London: J.M. Dent & Co.
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. Acton, MA: Copley Publishing Group.
How to reference this article:
McLeod, S. A. (2015). Nature vs nurture in psychology. Retrieved from www.simplypsychology.org/naturevsnurture.html