The Nature Versus Nurture Debate

There are many controversial psychology studies in the world today; however, I would like to use this opportunity to discuss nature vs. nurture. The debate of nature vs. nurture often arises when trying to determine if human behavior is a result of something we are biologically born with and are naturally instinctive to which is the nature part of the debate or if human behavior is a result of the environment someone has grown up in and the learned behaviors they have experienced which is the nurture part of the debate. The problem with nature vs. nurture is that even with many, many studies which have been conducted, it’s still proven to be quite difficult to argue in favor or nature or in favor of nurture with neither one showing more supremely than the other (RETTEW, 2017). For example, The Human Genome Project was launched in 1990 and the entire decade was titled as the “Decade of the Brain.”. Neuroscience research became larger and many new psychiatric medications came to be and were used much more often than ever before. Also, during this time, the type of research design that had the most relevance to nature-nurture questions became most common. This study was known as the twin study, which allowed researchers to calculate the degree to which a variable of interest (intelligence, height, anxiety level, etc.) could be attributed to genetic versus environmental factors. From this test, a continual study that is relative to behavioral variables was that both genetic and environmental influences were important, even at close to a 50/50 split in terms of magnitude (RETTEW, 2017).

The debate on nature vs. nurture has gone back thousands of years and is still on-going today so to understand both nature and nurture more clearly, it is important to first look at what each one means in greater detail. Concerning nature, it is something that is pre-existent and is heavily influenced by genetic inheritance and biological factors. Factually speaking, several physical characteristics that are obtained biologically and determined by genetic inheritance are the color of eyes, whether hair is straight or curly, the pigment of skin as well as certain diseases (MCLEOD, 2015). In nature, it is thought that the characteristics of the human species as a whole are a product of evolution and the individual differences in species are due to each person’s unique genetic code (MCLEOD, 2015). The coding of genes in each human cell is what determines the different traits that person has in particularly the physical characteristics mentioned above like the eye color, hair color, ear size, and height (SINCERO, n.d.).

Now we will take a look a deeper look at nurture. Nurture explains that genetic influence over abstract traits may exist; however, the theory is that environmental factors are the real creators of our behavior. For example, the belief by John Watson is that the conditioning can be used to be able to introduce a new behavior to a child or in effort to alter an unlikely behavior being demonstrated by the child. John Watson proposed environmental learning as the primary side in the nature vs nurture debate and he advised that he could train a baby randomly chosen in a group of 12 infants, to become any type of specialist he wanted. He felt he could train an infant this way in spite of the child's potentialities, talents or race (SINCERO, n.d.). Generally speaking, nurture is taken as the influence from external factors after conception. For example, the effect of the product of exposure, experience and learning on an individual (MCLEOD, 2015). From a naturalist stand point, it is thought that the psychological characteristics and behavioral differences that evolve from infancy and childhood are the results of learning. The belief is that it’s how you are raised (nurture) regulates the psychologically significant degrees of child development and that the process of maturing applies only to the biological aspects of life (MCLEOD, 2015). The belief of nurture is that when an infant forms an attachment, the infant is responding to the love and attention it has been provided and that the language the infant develops comes from repeating the speech of others. It is also understood that in nurture, the cognitive development depends on the level of stimulation in the environment (MCLEOD, 2015) The term “nurture” has been defined in the past as the care given to children by the parents, with the mother taking on the primary role. Now, this term is defined by some as the environmental (non-genetic) factor of a person’s environment. This new definition of “nurture” now includes and has been expanded to include, not just a person’s family upbringing, but also everything else they experience in daily life including advertisements, media, education, peer influences, and home environments (STAFF, 2015).

Equally important, is to understand the history of the nature vs. nurture debate and therefore it’s worth looking into a few of the more prominent and influential philosophers and the historical backgrounds regarding this debate. The actual term nature-nurture comes from Sir Francis Galton's 1874 publication of English Men of Science: Their Nature and Nurture, in which he debated that intelligence and character traits came from hereditary factors. In this work he discussed the influence of genetics and that the environment has on a person's development and he separates the two under separate distinct heads in which the innumerable elements of which personality is composed. Galton believed that nature is the only thing a man brings with himself into the world and that nurture is every influence that affects him after his birth (THE NEATURE VERSUS NUTURE DEBATE OR CONTROVERSY , n.d.). He even went as far as stating that human society could be improved by “better breeding” (MCLEOD, 2015).

Another influential philosopher in the nature vs. nurture debate was John Locke who took an opposite stance on Galton’s beliefs. John Locke is a well-known philosopher for the theory that children are born a “blank slate” with their traits developing entirely from their own experiences and findings (RETTEW, 2017). He took the stance that the human mind at birth is a complete, but receptive, blank slate in which experience imprints knowledge (THE NEATURE VERSUS NUTURE DEBATE OR CONTROVERSY , n.d.). The French philosopher René Descartes, from the 17th century held an opinion that we all, as people, possess certain ideas that we were born with that underpin our approach to the world (THE NEATURE VERSUS NUTURE DEBATE OR CONTROVERSY , n.d.). Contrarily, the British philosophers Thomas Hobbes and John Locke believed the role of experience fully contributed to behavioral development (THE NEATURE VERSUS NUTURE DEBATE OR CONTROVERSY , n.d.).

Nature vs. nurture is a continual debate that is concerned with the extent to which particular aspects of behavior are a result of either nature, meaning an aspect was inherited and/or genetic or nurture meaning something was acquired and/or learned. The issue that arises is trying to resolve the question of if humans are born with the behaviors we possess or do we behave based on our life experiences and environments. Currently, we know that both nature and nurture play important roles in human development, but we do not yet know whether we are developed more so due to nature or more so due to nurture (SINCERO, n.d.). The nature vs. nurture debate goes on and on, but it is a known fact that we have traits that are predetermined by our genes, but we also still have the ability to choose who we want to be as we travel through our lifetime. (SINCERO, n.d.). I would completely agree that we are born with certain traits, characterizations, DNA make-up that are our beginning. That start the mold if you will. However, I fully believe that nurture soon outweighs the impact of nature. I am a firm believer that a child learns what he/she lives; in other words, their environment in which they live is what they will learn and become. Dorothy Law Nolte, Ph.D., wrote Children Learn What They Live. This study explains the various attributes and characterizations that if a child grows up with what they result would be. This is something my parents always lived by in our home and we have seen it proven out in myself and my brother. In Jesse Prinze’s book called Beyond Human Nature he identifies as an unabashed “nurturist.” and is committed to demonstrating that, while biological explanations can contribute to psychology. In many cases, we achieve more from looking at other influences. More proof is that our interactions with our environment—our upbringing, early experiences, culture—have a lot more to do with the way we think, learn language, acquire knowledge, choose sexual partners, and make moral judgments than anything that is hardwired into us. Prinz’s particular approach to these issues is directly achieved from the Scottish philosopher David Hume (HERRITT, 2012).

As further evidence of nurture, I refer to psychologist George W. Holden at Southern Methodist University in Dallas who believes that the way a child matures can be determined in large part by the day-to-day decisions made by the parents who raise that child. Holden says. "Effective parents are taking nature into account in their nurturing. It's a slightly different twist. Parental guidance is key Child development researchers largely have ignored the importance of parental "guidance,". Holden states that effective parents observe, recognize and assess their child's individual genetic characteristics, then cultivate their child's strengths. "It's been said that parents are the 'architect' or the 'conductor' of a child's development. There are lots of different synonyms, but the terms don't capture the essence that parents are trying to 'guide,'" Holden says. Some parents have more refined goals -- like wanting their child to be an athlete or to have a particular career. Some have more general goals -- such as not wanting their child to become a criminal. Holden describes and explains his theory and research in the article titled "Childrearing and Developmental Trajectories: Positive Pathways, Off-ramps, and Dynamic Processes" in the current issue of the journal Child Development Perspectives. The theory is also described in his child psychology textbook, "Parenting, A Dynamic Perspective," published by Sage Publications Inc., 2010 (UNIVERSITY, 2010). Another example that fully supports the nurture theory is that a native language is completely determined by a child’s environment. Studies show that children from all types of cultures and backgrounds can learn any language with equal facility (STAFF, 2015). More evidence to support the nurture theory is a study by Barbara Fredrickson and her colleagues at the University of North Carolina and the University of Michigan who show the benefits of taking a nurturing stance toward ourselves. This study found that people randomly assigned to a program has taught them to do brief loving-kindness meditations about themselves and others have experienced an increase in positive emotions and in positive psychological resources such as a greater sense of purpose in life, more social support, and decreased illness. These increased personal resources were associated with more life satisfaction and fewer depressing atmospheres. (PHD, 2015). When it comes to the evidence in creating conditions that nurture is the prosocial behavior of society’s wellbeing is overwhelmingly obvious. We not only know how to help parents and teachers become more nurturing and we have solid evidence that this nurturing affects children’s behavior (PHD, 2015). For example, in The Nurture Effect, numerous family and school programs are in place to help parents and teachers nurture children’s skills and prevent them from developing problems as diverse as delinquency, depression, academic failure, and drug abuse. One program, the Nurse Family Partnership, provides support to poor, first-time mothers during their pregnancy and through the first two years of the baby’s life. This program helps them give birth to healthy infants, become skilled and patient with their children, get better education and better jobs, and raise children with more social and emotional skills. In the first study evaluating the Nurse Family Partnership, children whose mothers at age 15 that have received the program exhibited half the level of delinquency as children whose mothers did not receive the program. The Good Behavior Game is another program that helps elementary school students develop self-regulation and the cooperation skills that nurture their social and academic success even into adulthood. Small teams of children earn simple rewards for working cooperatively in class, such as fun things kids love to do, like making silly sounds for ten seconds. One study showed that children who played this game in first or second grade were less likely to smoke or get arrested by middle school. By young adulthood they also had fewer problems with drugs, criminal behavior, or suicide and were more likely to graduate high school and attend college. Tested and effective family and school programs like this exist to help children and adolescents at every age. Encouraging the use of these nurturing programs widely and effectively will result on having lower levels of crime, academic failure, and mental illness than ever seen before (PHD, 2015). It is understood that the environmental factors often have a significant effect on whether or not you develop the health problems that run in your family (Nature vs. Nurture Theory: Is It In Our Genes or Our Environment?, 2018). For example, the environment can provide a helping hand, and possibly decrease your risk in getting an illness from your family are. For example, if someone is at risk for heart disease or for diabetes, eating a healthy diet and obtaining a solid exercise life will help reduce the risks of these illnesses. Examples of negative health environmental issues that can affect the genetic likelihood of obtaining an illness are having exposure to community violence that increases the like hood of anxiety, obtaining depression and negative behaviors, and when children are introduces to secondhand smoke, may develop cancers more often then those who do not have that direct experience.

In conclusion, the controversy between nature vs. nurture has been present in the psychology field for years. While, I do believe both nature and nurture play a role in one’s life, more of my primary focus would be towards nurture as proven by my real life experience growing up as well as the numerous studies and tests stated herein. 1202124244.htm