Research on nature versus nurture

The nature versus nurture debate has been a classic controversy among experts for centuries. Nature versus nurture is a debate about how children learn and develop. Throughout the history of the debate, there has been no clear conclusion to the dispute, but there are many theories. Both sides of this controversy, nature and nurture, have been explored thoroughly among researchers, and a great deal of evidence has been found for both theories. The nature side of the debate argues that a person behavior is based on what he is born with genetically. Defending this side of the debate would be to establish that a person’s environment plays no role in determining his intellectual ability. The nurture side argues that a person’s environment plays a large role. The purpose of this paper is to give a better understanding of the history of the debate and to provide a better understanding of the two sides.

During the early 17th century, French philosopher, Rene Descartes presented his idea that people possess certain inborn ideas that “enduringly underpin people’s approach to the world” (Gomez,2005). In contrast, Thomas Hobbes emphasized that it is the experiences of the individual that contributes to behavioral development. In light of these ideas, Carl Jung elaborated on both perspectives and believed that human behavior is influenced by “experiences of the individual and by an innate “collective unconscious” that is present in all humans with certain proclivities and tendencies”(Gomez,2005). Interestingly enough, psychologist, B.F. Skinner stated that the development of human behavior was based on previous consequences. More specifically, his entire line reasoning was that if a behavior was previously rewarded then the likelihood of that behavior to reoccur would be great and vice versa (Gomez,2005).

Nature vs. Nurture

The topic of Nature versus Nurture has been debated by psychologists for years. They have been trying to decide which one has a greater impact on a person’s behavior and development or are we influenced by both. The perennial debate about nature and nurture–which is the more potent shaper of the human essence?–is perennially rekindled. It flared up again in the London Observer of Feb. 11, 2001. (Ridley, 2003).

Nature and culture are classical opposites, or complements. By nature we are “born that way”; by nurture we learn to become civilized. (Holmes, 2003). So basically how much of our intelligence, behavior and personality is determined by our DNA and how much is determined by life experiences. The Nature theorists believe genetics determine personality. The Nurture theorists believe experiences they have in life and people who influence them determine what is written upon the slate. Genetics may play a role in deciding personality traits, but ultimately environmental factors determine who we become. (McEntire,2006).

Nature refers to heredity: the genetic makeup or “genotypes” (i.e., information encoded in DNA) an individual carries from the time of conception to the time of death. Children are born with a set of traits that is predetermined and not influenced by the environment around them. Nurture, by contrast, refers to various external or environmental factors to which an individual is exposed from conception to death. These environmental factors involve several dimensions. For example, they include both physical environments (e.g., secondhand smoking and prenatal nutrition) and social environments (e.g., the media and peer pressure). Also, environmental factors vary in their immediacy to the individual; they involve multiple layers of forces, ranging from most immediate (e.g., families, friends, and neighborhoods) to larger contexts (e.g., school systems and local governments) to macro factors (e.g., international politics and global warming). To complicate matters even further, the factors in each of these layers influence and are influenced by elements within and outside of these layers. For example, the kind of peers a child is exposed to may depend on his or her parents’ view of what ideal playmates are like, the local government’s housing policies, and the history of race relations. (Hereditary vs. Environment, ‘2010). There is a myth that if a behavior or characteristic is genetic, it cannot be changed. Genes do not fix behavior.Rather, they establish a range of possible reactions to the range of possible experiences that environments can provide. Environments also can affect whether the full range of gene reactivity is expressed. Thus, how people behave or what their measured IQs turn out to be or how quickly they learn depends on the nature of their environments and on their genetic endowments bestowed at conception. (Weinberg, R. (1989).

Twin studies were very important in the debate of Nature vs. Nurture. Numerous researchers have studied the personalities of twins who were raised together and who were raised separately. The findings were even though they were raised apart, they still had similar personalities. English anthropologist Francis Galton (1822’1911), a cousin of Charles Darwin, conducted some of the first reported twin studies. Advancing his cousin’s theories of evolution, he performed twin studies in 1876 to investigate the extent to which the similarity of twins changes over the course of development. He is considered the originator of the field of medical genetics because of his considerable contributions to the nature-versus-nurture debate and the research methods he developed for evaluating heritability. (Rolston,2003).

A very significant portion of studying heredity and environmental effects on human traits and psychopathology is devoted to adoption studies. Adoption studies are important because they include two sets of factors that may account for differences in behavior, personality, and psychopathology: biological parents and environmental parents. Of course, any links between the biological parents and the child that is given away is usually explained by genetics, and any links between the adoptive, or environmental parents, to the adopted child is usually attributed to environment (Haimowitz,2010). There were many adoption studies that focused on schizophrenia and infant shyness, trying to prove if these two things passed on through their mothers or were developed behaviors. The findings were that it doesn’t matter what specific environment a child is raised in; if its parent or parents suffer from a mental disorder, the risk for suffering from the same disorder will be equal regardless of if the child was raised with its biological parents or with its adoptive parents. One significant conclusion was made in this study that was based on the fact that biological mothers rated high in shyness, and their adopted babies were also shy. This strengthens the possibility of a genetic link overshadowing family environment, but of course further research must be done (Daniels & Plomin, 1985).

In the debate of Nature versus Nurture, I believe both play key parts in human development. My parents divorced a year after I was born, so mother raised me as a single parent until the age of ten. Most things I have incorporated in my life are from my mother. I have become like her in so many ways. I look just like her, almost the same height. She passed on her love of reading, among other things. Now when I was ten, my parents remarried, that’s when I noticed one of the traits my father had passed on to me. Then we all found out where my stubbornness came from. I know Nature plays a big role, because even with my dad not in the picture, for my early developing years, what he did pass on was through his genes. Now if environment didn’t play apart, I would be exactly like my parents. I have many of their characteristics, such as, I’m strong willed but, my parents are very outspoken, no matter the situation but, I tend to speak up in a more comfortable setting. My parents shaped my development by instilling me with values, attending church, sending me to private schools and, keeping me actively involved in extracurricular activities. All of these things have made me into who I am today. I make choices every day that are based on the values I learned from my parents.

In conclusion, this debate will be ongoing. Both sides have proved major points when trying to explain whether Nature or Nurture is the key to human development. Psychologist will continue to argue their points, but more are starting to agree that the two go hand in hand. If we base our behavior on genetics, children who have parents that are criminals or are alcoholics will eventually do the same. If environment was the key to our behavior, all our actions are would determined by our learning experiences. If that were the case, everyone who grew up in a positive environment would be model citizens and those who grew up in a negative environment would all be criminals. Nature and Nurture both play a role in how a person’s personality develops.