good thesis statement for nature vs nurture

Put a stop to deadline pressure, and have your homework done by an expert.

How To Write A Winning Nature Vs Nurture Essay

When you are faced with the task of writing an essay, the first thing is organizing your thoughts and ideas. At times, it is possible to get overwhelmed by the ideas you need to work on. As such, getting organized will help you to put aside clutter and craft a winning essay. But how do you do it?

In this post, we are going to look at how to write a winning nature vs nurture essay. It is a comparative essay, and a common type of write-up to expect in your college studies. We will give a step by step account of how to work on such an essay from the beginning to the end.

Develop an Outline of Your Nature vs Nurture Essay

The first step when writing a nature vs. nurture debate essay is creating an outline that should guide you from the beginning to the end. Besides, it will also guide you on the information to look for at different stages. See the example of an outline below:

Introduction Background info Arguments that will be explained in the essay Thesis statement Body: 1 st Paragraph Nature Genetic makeup Why genetic predisposition is not a child’s destiny Simply because a child is talented does not mean that he/she is going to be automatically great Body: 2 nd Paragraph Nurture How the environment affects a child’s growth Parents and children growth: They provide kids with the best environment for growth Body: 3 rd Paragraph Nature vs nurture: Establish which is better Why the environment is the main determinant of growth The environment that a kid grows in is what makes him/her Ask yourself: which is an example of the influence of nature and nurture? Conclusion Restate the thesis statement and your argument (do not add new ideas at this point)

How to Write a Great Introduction

To write a great nature vs nurture child development essay introduction, it is important to do ample research. Here, you need to understand nature, nurture, and the strengths of each. Within the first one or two paragraphs, make sure to state your nature vs nurture essay thesis statement. That is your personal stand on the argument. Here is a good example of nature vs nurture essay thesis:

“Nature has a significant impact on a child’s development; however, it is nurture that has a greater impact on growth and development.”

Writing The Body Of Your Nature And Nurture Essay

When planning your essays on nature vs nurture type in college, the main arguments are delivered in the body. Therefore, all the ideas that you will bring out should be carefully interwoven with the main argument (your thesis statement). Besides, you should also bring out the arguments on both sides of the nature vs nurture essay.

After looking at each component, go ahead, and convincingly contrast the two. That is what will determine whether your thesis statement was right or wrong. At this point, make sure to use multiple nature vs nurture examples to support your arguments. Make sure that these examples of nature vs nurture are supported by reliable resources to give your argument more weight.

In addition to the examples, you should also use nature vs. nurture theory to demonstrate the strength of each. When you interweave the theories of nature vs nurture essay psychology well, your write-up will become interesting to the reader. Here are some useful tips to follow when writing the body of your nurture essay.

• One argument per paragraph
• Stay focused on the main point
• Ensure every paragraph refers to the thesis statement
• Make the body logical

Writing Conclusion Of Your Essay On Nature Vs Nurture

At the end of your behavior assignments nature vs nurture essay, you need to conclude the argument developed in the paper. Here, you need to summarize the main points stated in the nature vs nurture essay. Here is what to include in the conclusion:

• Restate the thesis statement
• Sum the entire argument in a single argument
• Do not introduce new arguments at this point

When you are faced with a nature vs nurture essay, the secret to getting it right is being organized and doing thorough research on the topic. Make sure to follow the outline provided in this post. If still unsure of how to go about it, make sure to seek help or advice from your department or experts.

Get Nature vs Nurture Essay Examples and Help Today

Now that you have an idea of how to write a nature vs nurture essay, you can get help with your work from our top tier assignment service. Our writers will expertly write any type of essay, and your teachers will not be disappointed. We offer everything, from 24 hour customer support, to additional edits and revisions, all to make you satisfied with our work. So now you can pay people to do your homework , and your nature vs nurture essay will be safe with us.

Get on top of your homework.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

80 Nature vs Nurture Essay Topics & Examples

Have some suggestions and questions about nature vs nurture? On this page, find research and essay topics to explore a particular aspect of the discussion.

📑 Aspects to Cover in a Nature vs Nurture Essay

🏆 best nature vs nurture essay topics & essay examples, 📌 most interesting nurture vs nature topics to write about, 👍 good nature vs nurture topics, ❓ questions about nature vs nurture.

What affects human development: nature or nurture? Are gender roles and differences come naturally, or does society impose them? What can be argued about the personalities of identical twins? Explore any of the issues with us! Our IvyPnada team has prepared nurture vs nature topics to write about. Check essay examples via the links as well.

At first glance, a nature vs nurture essay seems to be easy. However, a limited view of the subject matter may cost you marks, which is why it is crucial to offer a well-rounded account of the debate. Here are some of the aspects that you might want to include in your essay on nature vs nurture.

• The importance of the topic. The debate on what influences one’s personality, intelligence, and character is among the most prominent ones in psychology and other social sciences. Your task is to reflect this and to attempt to justify why the debate is so important. What could be done if it were resolved one day? How does the dispute affect other subject fields and topics in psychology? How would the resolution help the study of psychology and human behavior to move forward? Would it help to prove certain theories or refute the others, and what would be the effect on professional practice?
• The origins of the debate. While you explore the first aspect, you might stumble upon the history of the nature vs nurture debate. Covering this theme in your essay could also earn you some extra marks. Merely summarizing historical facts is not enough, though, because your tutor is probably aware of them already. Instead, you should focus on why the debate started. Were there any developments in psychology that prompted it?
• Prominent views. It is hard to omit the opinions expressed by famous scholars while writing an essay on this subject. John Locke, John B. Watson, Calvin Hall, and other authors had all shared ideas on the issue. If you need more names, try searching sample essays on nature and nurture online since most of them point out the key names. This might also help you to identify possible nature vs nurture essay titles.
• Results of research studies. Research evidence is among the key nature vs nurture essay topics because there were many attempts to prove one or the other view. Examples of such studies may be cited in your textbook, so it should be the first point of your research. Your school’s library and Google Scholar might also give you more information. If you find any sources online, make sure that they are of academic quality, or you might lose marks.
• Your personal experience and thoughts. Because the controversy is so prominent, nearly all people who study psychology or social studies have an opinion on it. If the instructions don’t prevent you from doing this, you should share your thoughts on the debate between nature and nurture. Support your opinion with credible research evidence and link it to the work of other scholars. If you believe that the environment is more important than genes, why is that? What other theorists supported this view, and why did they? Your opinion, supported by relevant facts and views, may become an excellent nature vs nurture essay thesis.
• Suggestions for further research. Try to think about what could be done to resolve the debate once and for all. What are the main gaps in studies on nature vs nurture and how could they be addressed by scholars?

Covering all of the themes above will help you to produce an outstanding essay. Make sure to check our website for a nature vs nurture essay prompt, titles, and other useful materials!

• Nature vs. Nurture In most cases, nature determines the physical characteristics which in effect influence the behavior of an individual. These are traits which largely determined by the socio-cultural environmental factors or the way the individuals are socialized […]
• As Nature Made Him: Summary and Analysis As aforementioned, the author of this book provides useful analysis of this aspect of personality. One of the greatest questions that readers get answer from this book is the question of nature vs.nurture in sexuality […]
• Human Development: Nature or Nurture? With studies and theories carried out to examine the impact of nature on the personal development and personality traits, heredity is an important factor in the development.
• Nature vs. Nurture: “In Cold Blood” by Truman Capote Thus, by contrasting Dick’s nurturing in love and affection and the conditions of his blissful childhood and adolescence with the details of a horrible crime committed by him and his attitude to it, the author […]
• Physical and Mental Wellbeing: Nature Versus Nurture In conclusion, the debates on nature versus nurture reveal that both innate health conditions and external factors shape the outcomes for physical and mental wellbeing of an individual.
• Nature Versus Nurture and Learning Among Children Of much concern among modern researchers is the determination of the degree of influence of nature and nurture on the development of a child and the provision of learning experiences.
• Violent Behavior: Nature vs. Nurture Considering this circumstance, the shifts in one’s attitudes are likely to be ascribed to the modifications in conditions, which can be reported by families with children.
• “Nature” Versus “Nurture”: Effects on Child Development Consequently, a child’s behavior cannot be viewed as solely attributable to the genetic composition of the parents and the hereditary characteristics.
• Nature vs. Nurture: New Science Stirs Debate How Behavior Is Shaped A prime example of this nature of debates is the debate on whether nature or nurture has a greater bearing on the development of the diverse individual behavioral differences that exist.
• Alcoholism-Nature vs. Nurture Debate The analysis on physiological physiology regarding alcohol shows that, alcohol displays feelings of superiority and fearless behavior and also, it reduces an individual’s fear.
• The Relationship Between Nature and Nurture on the Intelligence
• The Controversies Surrounding the Topic of Nature Versus Nurture
• The Nurture Side of the Dichotomy Nature Versus Nurture
• The Formula For Fruition: The Age Old Debate of Nature Versus Nurture by Kendra Cherry
• The Meaning of Nature and Nurture in Psychology
• The Role of Nature vs. Nurture in Violent Behavior
• Influence of Nature Versus Nurture on Child Development
• The Role of Nature and Nurture: Adolescence Eating Disorders
• The Nature vs. Nurture Debate in Learning More About Alcoholism
• The Psychological Argument Between Nature vs. Nurture
• The Role of Nature and Nurture in Human Development
• The Influence of Nature Versus Nurture on an Individual Human Behavior
• Use of Nature and Nurture Based Studies on Epigenetics
• The Impact of Nature and Nurture on Huck’s and Finn’s Personality and Behavior in the Adventure of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
• The Correlation Between Nature and Nurture in the Personal Development
• Role of Nature and Nurture in Language Development
• Personality, Behavior, and the Significance of Nature vs. Nurture
• The Disputes Concerning the Popular Nature vs. Nurture Argument
• Understanding the Role of Nature Versus Nurture in Alcohol Addiction
• Wild Child vs. Nature and Nurture
• The Importance of Nature Verses Nurture in Shaping Behavior and Personality
• The Differences Between Boys and Girls from Combination Between Nature and Nurture
• The Role of Nature and Nurture in Human Homosexuality
• The Nature Versus Nurture Debate in the Blasphemy of Talking Politics During Bach Year, an Article by Susan McClary
• What Roles Do Nature and Nurture Play on Children’s
• What Differentiates the Entrepreneurs From Non-Entrepreneurs on Nature and Nurture
• The Source of Violence: Nature vs. Nurture
• Gender and Socialization: Nature or Nurture
• How Nature and Nurture Affects the Pies in Adolescence and Adulthood
• The Debate Between Criminal Nature and Criminal Nurture: William Sheldon Theory
• The Nurture and Care From Nature and the Damage Caused by Humans to Our Environment
• The Evolutionary Theory of Nature vs. Nurture
• The Personality and Biology Differences in Nature Versus Nurture and Man Versus Woman Situations in Daily Life
• The Importance of Twin Studies in the Nature Versus Nurture Debate
• The Scientific and Cultural Debate of Nature vs. Nurture
• The Issue of Nature Versus Nurture in the Development of Serial Killers
• The Role of Nature vs. Nurture, Culture and Gender, and Family
• What Makes a Monster Nature vs. Nurture in Mary Shelleys Frankenstein
• The Theme of Nature Versus Nurture in Shelly’s Frankenstein
• The Psychology Field of Study About Nature and Nurture
• How Children Develop and the Interplay of Nature vs. Nurture?
• How Nature vs. Nurture Affect Human Development?
• Homosexuality: Nature vs. Nurture?
• How Do Nature vs. Nurture Work Together Example?
• How Does Nature vs. Nurture Affect Human Behavior?
• Why Is Nature vs. Nurture Called a False Debate?
• Nature vs. Nurture: Do Our Genes Affect Our Personalities?
• Nature vs. Nurture: Which Has a More Significant Influence on Child Development?
• How Do You Argue Nature vs. Nurture?
• Nature vs. Nurture: Who’s to Blame for Acts of Violence?
• How Does Nature vs. Nurture Affect Intelligence?
• Nature vs. Nurture: Which Is the Origin of Virtue?
• How Does Shelley Represent the Nature vs. Nurture Debate?
• Nature vs. Nurture: Which Determines Personality?
• What Are Examples of Nature vs. Nurture?
• Nature vs. Nurture: What Does Matter More?
• What Is Stronger Nurture vs. Nature?
• Why Nurture Is Better Than Nature?
• How Does the Nature vs. Nurture Debate in May Affect the Physical?
• What Is Nature vs. Nurture in Child Development?
• How Nature vs. Nurture Influence Substance Abuse?
• Twin Studies: What Can They Tell Us About Nature vs. Nurture?
• How Does Nature vs. Nurture Affect the Development of Social-Emotion Attributes?
• Who Won Nature vs. Nurture?
• How Nature vs. Nurture Apply the Principles of Life?
• What Is the Difference Between Nature vs. Nurture in Child Development?
• What Is the Main Idea of Nature vs. Nurture?
• Is Nature vs. Nurture Misleading?
• Nature vs. Nurture: What Impacts a Child’s IQ?
• How Does Nature vs. Nurture Affect Human Development?
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, March 2). 80 Nature vs Nurture Essay Topics & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/nature-vs-nurture-essay-examples/

"80 Nature vs Nurture Essay Topics & Examples." IvyPanda , 2 Mar. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/nature-vs-nurture-essay-examples/.

IvyPanda . (2024) '80 Nature vs Nurture Essay Topics & Examples'. 2 March.

IvyPanda . 2024. "80 Nature vs Nurture Essay Topics & Examples." March 2, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/nature-vs-nurture-essay-examples/.

1. IvyPanda . "80 Nature vs Nurture Essay Topics & Examples." March 2, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/nature-vs-nurture-essay-examples/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "80 Nature vs Nurture Essay Topics & Examples." March 2, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/nature-vs-nurture-essay-examples/.

• Cognitive Development Essay Ideas
• Emotional Development Questions
• Human Development Research Ideas
• Developmental Psychology Essay Ideas
• Child Development Research Ideas
• Moral Development Essay Topics
• Lifespan Development Essay Titles
• Literacy Development Titles
• Personality Development Ideas
• Social Development Essay Topics
• Human Nature Essay Titles
• Academic Achievements Research Topics
• Bioethics Titles
• Emotional Intelligence Paper Topics
• Genetics Research Ideas

• Type 2 Diabetes
• Heart Disease
• Digestive Health
• Multiple Sclerosis
• Diet & Nutrition
• Supplements
• Health Insurance
• Public Health
• Patient Rights
• Caregivers & Loved Ones
• End of Life Concerns
• Health News
• Thyroid Test Analyzer
• Doctor Discussion Guides
• Hemoglobin A1c Test Analyzer
• Lipid Test Analyzer
• Complete Blood Count (CBC) Analyzer
• What to Buy
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Medical Expert Board

What Are Nature vs. Nurture Examples?

How is nature defined, how is nurture defined, the nature vs. nurture debate, nature vs. nurture examples, what is empiricism (extreme nurture position), contemporary views of nature vs. nurture.

Nature vs. nurture is an age-old debate about whether genetics (nature) plays a bigger role in determining a person's characteristics than lived experience and environmental factors (nurture). The term "nature vs. nature" was coined by English naturalist Charles Darwin's younger half-cousin, anthropologist Francis Galton, around 1875.

In psychology, the extreme nature position (nativism) proposes that intelligence and personality traits are inherited and determined only by genetics.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, the extreme nurture position (empiricism) asserts that the mind is a blank slate at birth; external factors like education and upbringing determine who someone becomes in adulthood and how their mind works. Both of these extreme positions have shortcomings and are antiquated.

This article explores the difference between nature and nurture. It gives nature vs. nurture examples and explains why outdated views of nativism and empiricism don't jibe with contemporary views. 

Thanasis Zovoilis / Getty Images

In the context of nature vs. nurture, "nature" refers to genetics and heritable factors that are passed down to children from their biological parents.

Genes and hereditary factors determine many aspects of someone’s physical appearance and other individual characteristics, such as a genetically inherited predisposition for certain personality traits.

Scientists estimate that 20% to 60% percent of temperament is determined by genetics and that many (possibly thousands) of common gene variations combine to influence individual characteristics of temperament.

However, the impact of gene-environment (or nature-nurture) interactions on someone's traits is interwoven. Environmental factors also play a role in temperament by influencing gene activity. For example, in children raised in an adverse environment (such as child abuse or violence), genes that increase the risk of impulsive temperamental characteristics may be activated (turned on).

Trying to measure "nature vs. nurture" scientifically is challenging. It's impossible to know precisely where the influence of genes and environment begin or end.

How Are Inherited Traits Measured?

“Heritability”   describes the influence that genes have on human characteristics and traits. It's measured on a scale of 0.0 to 1.0. Very strong heritable traits like someone's eye color are ranked a 1.0.

Traits that have nothing to do with genetics, like speaking with a regional accent ranks a zero. Most human characteristics score between a 0.30 and 0.60 on the heritability scale, which reflects a blend of genetics (nature) and environmental (nurture) factors.

Thousands of years ago, ancient Greek philosophers like Plato believed that "innate knowledge" is present in our minds at birth. Every parent knows that babies are born with innate characteristics. Anecdotally, it may seem like a kid's "Big 5" personality traits (agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, neuroticism, and openness) were predetermined before birth.

What is the "Big 5" personality traits

The Big 5 personality traits is a theory that describes the five basic dimensions of personality. It was developed in 1949 by D. W. Fiske and later expanded upon by other researchers and is used as a framework to study people's behavior.

From a "nature" perspective, the fact that every child has innate traits at birth supports Plato's philosophical ideas about innatism. However, personality isn't set in stone. Environmental "nurture" factors can change someone's predominant personality traits over time. For example, exposure to the chemical lead during childhood may alter personality.

In 2014, a meta-analysis of genetic and environmental influences on personality development across the human lifespan found that people change with age. Personality traits are relatively stable during early childhood but often change dramatically during adolescence and young adulthood.

It's impossible to know exactly how much "nurture" changes personality as people get older. In 2019, a study of how stable personality traits are from age 16 to 66 found that people's Big 5 traits are both stable and malleable (able to be molded). During the 50-year span from high school to retirement, some traits like agreeableness and conscientiousness tend to increase, while others appear to be set in stone.

Nurture refers to all of the external or environmental factors that affect human development such as how someone is raised, socioeconomic status, early childhood experiences, education, and daily habits.

Although the word "nurture" may conjure up images of babies and young children being cared for by loving parents, environmental factors and life experiences have an impact on our psychological and physical well-being across the human life span. In adulthood, "nurturing" oneself by making healthy lifestyle choices can offset certain genetic predispositions.

For example, a May 2022 study found that people with a high genetic risk of developing the brain disorder Alzheimer's disease can lower their odds of developing dementia (a group of symptoms that affect memory, thinking, and social abilities enough to affect daily life) by adopting these seven healthy habits in midlife:

• Staying active
• Healthy eating
• Losing weight
• Not smoking
• Reducing blood sugar
• Controlling cholesterol
• Maintaining healthy blood pressure

The nature vs. nurture debate centers around whether individual differences in behavioral traits and personality are caused primarily by nature or nurture. Early philosophers believed the genetic traits passed from parents to their children influence individual differences and traits. Other well-known philosophers believed the mind begins as a blank slate and that everything we are is determined by our experiences.

While early theories favored one factor over the other, experts today recognize there is a complex interaction between genetics and the environment and that both nature and nurture play a critical role in shaping who we are.

Eye color and skin pigmentation are examples of "nature" because they are present at birth and determined by inherited genes. Developmental delays due to toxins (such as exposure to lead as a child or exposure to drugs in utero) are examples of "nurture" because the environment can negatively impact learning and intelligence.

In Child Development

The nature vs. nurture debate in child development is apparent when studying language development. Nature theorists believe genetics plays a significant role in language development and that children are born with an instinctive ability that allows them to both learn and produce language.

Nurture theorists would argue that language develops by listening and imitating adults and other children.

In addition, nurture theorists believe people learn by observing the behavior of others. For example, contemporary psychologist Albert Bandura's social learning theory suggests that aggression is learned through observation and imitation.

In Psychology

In psychology, the nature vs. nurture beliefs vary depending on the branch of psychology.

• Biopsychology:  Researchers analyze how the brain, neurotransmitters, and other aspects of our biology influence our behaviors, thoughts, and feelings. emphasizing the role of nature.
• Social psychology: Researchers study how external factors such as peer pressure and social media influence behaviors, emphasizing the importance of nurture.
• Behaviorism: This theory of learning is based on the idea that our actions are shaped by our interactions with our environment.

In Personality Development

Whether nature or nurture plays a bigger role in personality development depends on different personality development theories.

• Behavioral theories: Our personality is a result of the interactions we have with our environment, such as parenting styles, cultural influences, and life experiences.
• Biological theories: Personality is mostly inherited which is demonstrated by a study in the 1990s that concluded identical twins reared apart tend to have more similar personalities than fraternal twins.
• Psychodynamic theories: Personality development involves both genetic predispositions and environmental factors and their interaction is complex.

In Mental Illness

Both nature and nurture can contribute to mental illness development.

For example, at least five mental health disorders are associated with some type of genetic component ( autism ,  attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) ,  bipolar disorder , major depression, and  schizophrenia ).

Other explanations for mental illness are environmental, such as:

• Being exposed to drugs or alcohol in utero 
• Witnessing a traumatic event, leading to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)
• Adverse life events and chronic stress during childhood

In Mental Health Therapy

Mental health treatment can involve both nature and nurture. For example, a therapist may explore life experiences that may have contributed to mental illness development (nurture) as well as family history of mental illness (nature).

At the same time, research indicates that a person's genetic makeup may impact how their body responds to antidepressants. Taking this into consideration is important for finding the right treatment for each individual.

 What Is Nativism (Extreme Nature Position)?

Innatism emphasizes nature's role in shaping our minds and personality traits before birth. Nativism takes this one step further and proposes that all of people's mental and physical characteristics are inherited and predetermined at birth.

In its extreme form, concepts of nativism gave way to the early 20th century's racially-biased eugenics movement. Thankfully, "selective breeding," which is the idea that only certain people should reproduce in order to create chosen characteristics in offspring, and eugenics, arranged breeding, lost momentum during World War II. At that time, the Nazis' ethnic cleansing (killing people based on their ethnic or religious associations) atrocities were exposed.

Philosopher John Locke's tabula rasa theory from 1689 directly opposes the idea that we are born with innate knowledge. "Tabula rasa" means "blank slate" and implies that our minds do not have innate knowledge at birth.

Locke was an empiricist who believed that all the knowledge we gain in life comes from sensory experiences (using their senses to understand the world), education, and day-to-day encounters after being born.

Today, looking at nature vs. nature in black-and-white terms is considered a misguided dichotomy (two-part system). There are so many shades of gray where nature and nurture overlap. It's impossible to tease out how inherited traits and learned behaviors shape someone's unique characteristics or influence how their mind works.

The influences of nature and nurture in psychology are impossible to unravel. For example, imagine someone growing up in a household with an alcoholic parent who has frequent rage attacks. If that child goes on to develop a substance use disorder and has trouble with emotion regulation in adulthood, it's impossible to know precisely how much genetics (nature) or adverse childhood experiences (nurture) affected that individual's personality traits or issues with alcoholism.

Epigenetics Blurs the Line Between Nature and Nurture

"Epigenetics " means "on top of" genetics. It refers to external factors and experiences that turn genes "on" or "off." Epigenetic mechanisms alter DNA's physical structure in utero (in the womb) and across the human lifespan.

Epigenetics blurs the line between nature and nurture because it says that even after birth, our genetic material isn't set in stone; environmental factors can modify genes during one's lifetime. For example, cannabis exposure during critical windows of development can increase someone's risk of neuropsychiatric disease via epigenetic mechanisms.

Nature vs. nurture is a framework used to examine how genetics (nature) and environmental factors (nurture) influence human development and personality traits.

However, nature vs. nurture isn't a black-and-white issue; there are many shades of gray where the influence of nature and nurture overlap. It's impossible to disentangle how nature and nurture overlap; they are inextricably intertwined. In most cases, nature and nurture combine to make us who we are. 

Waller JC. Commentary: the birth of the twin study--a commentary on francis galton’s “the history of twins.”   International Journal of Epidemiology . 2012;41(4):913-917. doi:10.1093/ije/dys100

The New York Times. " Major Personality Study Finds That Traits Are Mostly Inherited ."

Medline Plus. Is temperament determined by genetics?

Feldman MW, Ramachandran S. Missing compared to what? Revisiting heritability, genes and culture .  Phil Trans R Soc B . 2018;373(1743):20170064. doi:10.1098/rstb.2017.0064

Winch C. Innatism, concept formation, concept mastery and formal education: innatism, concept formation and formal education .  Journal of Philosophy of Education . 2015;49(4):539-556. doi:10.1111/1467-9752.12121

Briley DA, Tucker-Drob EM. Genetic and environmental continuity in personality development: A meta-analysis .  Psychological Bulletin . 2014;140(5):1303-1331. doi:10.1037/a0037091

Damian RI, Spengler M, Sutu A, Roberts BW. Sixteen going on sixty-six: A longitudinal study of personality stability and change across 50 years .  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology . 2019;117(3):674-695. doi:10.1037/pspp0000210

Tin A, Bressler J, Simino J, et al. Genetic risk, midlife life’s simple 7, and incident dementia in the atherosclerosis risk in communities study .  Neurology . Published online May 25, 2022. doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000200520 

Levitt M. Perceptions of nature, nurture and behaviour .  Life Sci Soc Policy . 2013;9(1):13. doi:10.1186/2195-7819-9-13

Ross EJ, Graham DL, Money KM, Stanwood GD. Developmental consequences of fetal exposure to drugs: what we know and what we still must learn . Neuropsychopharmacology. 2015 Jan;40(1):61-87. doi: 10.1038/npp.2014.14

World Health Organization. Lead poisoning .

Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models .  The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1961; 63 (3), 575–582 doi:10.1037/h0045925

Krapfl JE.  Behaviorism and society .  Behav Anal.  2016;39(1):123-9. doi:10.1007/s40614-016-0063-8

Bouchard TJ Jr, Lykken DT, McGue M, Segal NL, Tellegen A. Sources of human psychological differences: the Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart . Science. 1990 Oct 12;250(4978):223-8. doi: 10.1126/science.2218526

National Institutes of Health.  Common genetic factors found in 5 mental disorders .

Franke HA. Toxic Stress: Effects, Prevention and Treatment . Children (Basel). 2014 Nov 3;1(3):390-402. doi: 10.3390/children1030390

Pain O, Hodgson K, Trubetskoy V, et al.  Identifying the common genetic basis of antidepressant response .  Biol Psychiatry Global Open Sci . 2022;2(2):115-126. doi:10.1016/j.bpsgos.2021.07.008

National Human Genome Research Institute. Eugenics and Scientific Racism .

OLL. The Works of John Locke in Nine Volumes .

Toraño EG, García MG, Fernández-Morera JL, Niño-García P, Fernández AF. The impact of external factors on the epigenome:  in utero  and over lifetime .  BioMed Research International . 2016;2016:1-17. doi:10.1155/2016/2568635

Smith A, Kaufman F, Sandy MS, Cardenas A. Cannabis exposure during critical windows of development: epigenetic and molecular pathways implicated in neuropsychiatric disease .  Curr Envir Health Rpt . 2020;7(3):325-342. doi:10.1007/s40572-020-00275-4

By Christopher Bergland Bergland is a retired ultra-endurance athlete turned medical writer and science reporter. He is based in Massachusetts.

Essay Sample: Nature Versus Nurture

26 March, 2020

7 minutes read

Author:  Kate Smith

This sample is a great example of the compare and contrast essay writing. It presents two points of view on what influences the development of a personality the most - genetics or environmental factors. Don't hesitate to read it to see what such a type of essay should look like when written professionally!

Nature and nurture is a hotly contested argument concerning what influences the behavior and personality attributes of individuals. Nature is entirely dependent on the genetic combination of an individual which dictates their character and appearance. On the other hand, nurture is dependent on the environmental factors that an individual gets exposed to which end up shaping his or her personality. Nature and nurture influence individuals to a certain extent because individuals get exposed to both of them in one way or the other dictating their development process.

Nature principle holds that biological characteristics of individuals get inherited from the genetic makeup in their lineage. Character traits such as height, weight, vulnerability to certain illnesses and skin complexion are inherited and determined by the genetic combination of individuals. Such biological combination is usually similar amongst individuals who are blood relatives, and for this reason, they tend to have almost a uniform genetic combination. Moreover, other behavioral, mental and personality attributes are also a reflection of our genetic makeup and usually inherited from individuals’ close blood relatives (Kong et al. 2018). Through the traits, it is easier to identify closely related individuals just by looking at their appearance and conduct.

Besides, specific characteristics do not become evident during birth, and when a person reaches a certain age, for instance, during puberty, that is when the hidden attributes begin showing up. The biological clock guides such characteristics, and when the right time comes, the physical and behavioral attributes mature and become conspicuous. Such traits get programmed in a way that for them to grow visible, they will take a certain period to develop. Moreover, they are also dependent on other biological factors within our bodies for them to manifest. However, the traits still maintain the genetic combination and the similarity of a specific lineage.

Note that our company provides academic writing help. You can buy a narrative essay (or any other type) written from scratch by our  essay writer .

On the contrary, through nurture, an individual acquires specific attributes from the environment that surrounds them. When a child is born, for instance, its mind is black and empty. It is through its interaction with the surrounding and the people around it that will make the infant acquire some of their traits through learning, observation and aping their conducts. In other words, nurturing is dependent on the environment, experience, and learning as the individual interacts with the environment with time (Vazsonyi, Roberts, Huang & Vaughn, 2015). The way an individual was nurtured or brought up will influence their aspect of child development. Maturation will only affect biological development. The environment plays a vital role in the development process.

Similarly, the type of relationships also plays a crucial role in the nurturing, especially during child development. For instance, an infant develops an emotional attachment to its parents because of the love and affection it receives. Moreover, children who are given proper care and affection will reciprocate the same while growing up. On the contrary, infants who receive harsh treatment from their parents will develop withdrawal symptoms while growing up. Also, the infants also try and learn how and what to talk by studying the speech of those around them. The cognitive development comes from the exposer that the infant receives and conditions surrounding it.

Correspondingly, certain traits are acquired based on what an individual went through. Children who got abused or molested when growing up develop specific antisocial characteristics, for instance, being high tempered, harsh and develops particular disorders. For example, bipolar disorders manifest because an individual underwent harsh treatment which affects their psychological stability after that. Some of them become abusers and molesters in their future relationships as a way of imitating and justifying what they experienced while growing up. Imitation is a way of implementing what the individual has learned during the nurturing process by putting the lessons into practice.

Striking a Balance

However, after careful analysis, psychologists have discovered that both nature and nurture are responsible for the development of an individual. Both factors interact with each other and play a crucial role in shaping up the conduct of an individual (Lux, 2014). For example, in psychopathology, it is argued that both hereditary factors and environmental conditions contribute to the development of mental disorders in individuals. The biological combinations of people closely interact with the socio-cultural set up surrounding them. Individuals are now left to make their own choices in dictating what is suitable for them and what should be left out. Nature and nurture complement each other in shaping an individual.

Conclusively, nature and nurture are broiling discussion, and both sides have valid points to justify their stands. Nature is purely based on the fact that genetic makeup influence how an individual behaves and thinks. Similarly, the natives hold that genetic factors dictate factors such as the appearance, particular illness, and intelligence levels. On the contrary, individuals who believe in nurturing hold that environmental factors are majorly involved in the development process of individuals. Children acquire traits through learning from the people surrounding them and will try to imitate the behavior after that. However, psychologists are trying their level best to strike a balance between the two school of thoughts since both sides hold valid arguments, but both nurture and nature interact with each other during the development process. Nature and nurture cannot get treated in isolation.

Lux, V. (2014). Nature and nurture.  Encyclopedia of Critical Psychology , 1225-1231.

Kong, A., Thorleifsson, G., Frigge, M. L., Vilhjalmsson, B. J., Young, A. I., Thorgeirsson, T. E., … & Gudbjartsson, D. F. (2018). The nature of nurture: Effects of parental genotypes.  Science ,  359 (6374), 424-428.

Vazsonyi, A. T., Roberts, J. W., Huang, L., & Vaughn, M. G. (2015). Why focusing on nurture made and still makes sense: The biosocial development of self-control.  The Routledge international handbook of biosocial criminology , 263-280.

A life lesson in Romeo and Juliet taught by death

Due to human nature, we draw conclusions only when life gives us a lesson since the experience of others is not so effective and powerful. Therefore, when analyzing and sorting out common problems we face, we may trace a parallel with well-known book characters or real historical figures. Moreover, we often compare our situations with […]

Ethical Research Paper Topics

Writing a research paper on ethics is not an easy task, especially if you do not possess excellent writing skills and do not like to contemplate controversial questions. But an ethics course is obligatory in all higher education institutions, and students have to look for a way out and be creative. When you find an […]

Art Research Paper Topics

Students obtaining degrees in fine art and art & design programs most commonly need to write a paper on art topics. However, this subject is becoming more popular in educational institutions for expanding students’ horizons. Thus, both groups of receivers of education: those who are into arts and those who only get acquainted with art […]

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

The Nature vs. Nurture Debate

Genetic and Environmental Influences and How They Interact

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Verywell / Joshua Seong

• Definitions
• Interaction
• Contemporary Views

Nature refers to how genetics influence an individual's personality, whereas nurture refers to how their environment (including relationships and experiences) impacts their development. Whether nature or nurture plays a bigger role in personality and development is one of the oldest philosophical debates within the field of psychology .

Learn how each is defined, along with why the issue of nature vs. nurture continues to arise. We also share a few examples of when arguments on this topic typically occur, how the two factors interact with each other, and contemporary views that exist in the debate of nature vs. nurture as it stands today.

Nature and Nurture Defined

To better understand the nature vs. nurture argument, it helps to know what each of these terms means.

• Nature refers largely to our genetics . It includes the genes we are born with and other hereditary factors that can impact how our personality is formed and influence the way that we develop from childhood through adulthood.
• Nurture encompasses the environmental factors that impact who we are. This includes our early childhood experiences, the way we were raised , our social relationships, and the surrounding culture.

A few biologically determined characteristics include genetic diseases, eye color, hair color, and skin color. Other characteristics are tied to environmental influences, such as how a person behaves, which can be influenced by parenting styles and learned experiences.

For example, one child might learn through observation and reinforcement to say please and thank you. Another child might learn to behave aggressively by observing older children engage in violent behavior on the playground.

The Debate of Nature vs. Nurture

The nature vs. nurture debate centers on the contributions of genetics and environmental factors to human development. Some philosophers, such as Plato and Descartes, suggested that certain factors are inborn or occur naturally regardless of environmental influences.

Advocates of this point of view believe that all of our characteristics and behaviors are the result of evolution. They contend that genetic traits are handed down from parents to their children and influence the individual differences that make each person unique.

Other well-known thinkers, such as John Locke, believed in what is known as tabula rasa which suggests that the mind begins as a blank slate . According to this notion, everything that we are is determined by our experiences.

Behaviorism is a good example of a theory rooted in this belief as behaviorists feel that all actions and behaviors are the results of conditioning. Theorists such as John B. Watson believed that people could be trained to do and become anything, regardless of their genetic background.

People with extreme views are called nativists and empiricists. Nativists take the position that all or most behaviors and characteristics are the result of inheritance. Empiricists take the position that all or most behaviors and characteristics result from learning.

Examples of Nature vs. Nurture

One example of when the argument of nature vs. nurture arises is when a person achieves a high level of academic success . Did they do so because they are genetically predisposed to elevated levels of intelligence, or is their success a result of an enriched environment?

The argument of nature vs. nurture can also be made when it comes to why a person behaves in a certain way. If a man abuses his wife and kids, for instance, is it because he was born with violent tendencies, or is violence something he learned by observing others in his life when growing up?

Nature vs. Nurture in Psychology

Throughout the history of psychology , the debate of nature vs. nurture has continued to stir up controversy. Eugenics, for example, was a movement heavily influenced by the nativist approach.

Psychologist Francis Galton coined the terms 'nature versus nurture' and 'eugenics' and believed that intelligence resulted from genetics. Galton also felt that intelligent individuals should be encouraged to marry and have many children, while less intelligent individuals should be discouraged from reproducing.

The value placed on nature vs. nurture can even vary between the different branches of psychology , with some branches taking a more one-sided approach. In biopsychology , for example, researchers conduct studies exploring how neurotransmitters influence behavior, emphasizing the role of nature.

In social psychology , on the other hand, researchers might conduct studies looking at how external factors such as peer pressure and social media influence behaviors, stressing the importance of nurture. Behaviorism is another branch that focuses on the impact of the environment on behavior.

Nature vs. Nurture in Child Development

Some psychological theories of child development place more emphasis on nature and others focus more on nurture. An example of a nativist theory involving child development is Chomsky's concept of a language acquisition device (LAD). According to this theory, all children are born with an instinctive mental capacity that allows them to both learn and produce language.

An example of an empiricist child development theory is Albert Bandura's social learning theory . This theory says that people learn by observing the behavior of others. In his famous Bobo doll experiment , Bandura demonstrated that children could learn aggressive behaviors simply by observing another person acting aggressively.

Nature vs. Nurture in Personality Development

There is also some argument as to whether nature or nurture plays a bigger role in the development of one's personality. The answer to this question varies depending on which personality development theory you use.

According to behavioral theories, our personality is a result of the interactions we have with our environment, while biological theories suggest that personality is largely inherited. Then there are psychodynamic theories of personality that emphasize the impact of both.

Nature vs. Nurture in Mental Illness Development

One could argue that either nature or nurture contributes to mental health development. Some causes of mental illness fall on the nature side of the debate, including changes to or imbalances with chemicals in the brain. Genetics can also contribute to mental illness development, increasing one's risk of a certain disorder or disease.

Mental disorders with some type of genetic component include autism , attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), bipolar disorder , major depression , and schizophrenia .

Other explanations for mental illness are environmental. This includes being exposed to environmental toxins, such as drugs or alcohol, while still in utero. Certain life experiences can also influence mental illness development, such as witnessing a traumatic event, leading to the development of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Nature vs. Nurture in Mental Health Therapy

Different types of mental health treatment can also rely more heavily on either nature or nurture in their treatment approach. One of the goals of many types of therapy is to uncover any life experiences that may have contributed to mental illness development (nurture).

However, genetics (nature) can play a role in treatment as well. For instance, research indicates that a person's genetic makeup can impact how their body responds to antidepressants. Taking this into consideration is important for getting that person the help they need.

Interaction Between Nature and Nurture

Which is stronger: nature or nurture? Many researchers consider the interaction between heredity and environment—nature with nurture as opposed to nature versus nurture—to be the most important influencing factor of all.

For example, perfect pitch is the ability to detect the pitch of a musical tone without any reference. Researchers have found that this ability tends to run in families and might be tied to a single gene. However, they've also discovered that possessing the gene is not enough as musical training during early childhood is needed for this inherited ability to manifest itself.

Height is another example of a trait influenced by an interaction between nature and nurture. A child might inherit the genes for height. However, if they grow up in a deprived environment where proper nourishment isn't received, they might never attain the height they could have had if they'd grown up in a healthier environment.

A newer field of study that aims to learn more about the interaction between genes and environment is epigenetics . Epigenetics seeks to explain how environment can impact the way in which genes are expressed.

Some characteristics are biologically determined, such as eye color, hair color, and skin color. Other things, like life expectancy and height, have a strong biological component but are also influenced by environmental factors and lifestyle.

Contemporary Views of Nature vs. Nurture

Most experts recognize that neither nature nor nurture is stronger than the other. Instead, both factors play a critical role in who we are and who we become. Not only that but nature and nurture interact with each other in important ways all throughout our lifespan.

As a result, many in this field are interested in seeing how genes modulate environmental influences and vice versa. At the same time, this debate of nature vs. nurture still rages on in some areas, such as in the origins of homosexuality and influences on intelligence .

While a few people take the extreme nativist or radical empiricist approach, the reality is that there is not a simple way to disentangle the multitude of forces that exist in personality and human development. Instead, these influences include genetic factors, environmental factors, and how each intermingles with the other.

Schoneberger T. Three myths from the language acquisition literature . Anal Verbal Behav . 2010;26(1):107-31. doi:10.1007/bf03393086

National Institutes of Health. Common genetic factors found in 5 mental disorders .

Pain O, Hodgson K, Trubetskoy V, et al. Identifying the common genetic basis of antidepressant response . Biol Psychiatry Global Open Sci . 2022;2(2):115-126. doi:10.1016/j.bpsgos.2021.07.008

Moulton C. Perfect pitch reconsidered . Clin Med J . 2014;14(5):517-9 doi:10.7861/clinmedicine.14-5-517

Levitt M. Perceptions of nature, nurture and behaviour . Life Sci Soc Policy . 2013;9:13. doi:10.1186/2195-7819-9-13

Bandura A, Ross D, Ross, SA. Transmission of aggression through the imitation of aggressive models . J Abnorm Soc Psychol. 1961;63(3):575-582. doi:10.1037/h0045925

Chomsky N. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax .

Galton F. Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development .

Watson JB. Behaviorism .

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

• Testimonials
• How it works
• Paper Writers Team
• Essay Writing Guide
• Free plagiarism checker
• Essay title generator
• Conclusion Generator
• Citation Generator
• Can ChatGPT Write Essays?
• Types of Essays
• Essay Writing Formats
• Essay Topics
• Best Research Paper Topics
• Essays by Subject
• Nature vs Nurture Essay Debate

A guide to writing a nature VS. nurture debate essay

Table of contents, the nature vs. nurture debate, interaction of nature and nurture, topics of nature vs. nurture debate, writing nature vs. nurture debate essay, examples of nature vs. nurture debate.

What makes a man? Is it nature or nurture? Well, the different answers to the question have fueled a constant discussion for centuries. The problem, however, seems to be like a deep, dark abyss, an insatiable monster that hasn’t yet grown sufficient with the answers that scientists, philosophers, and scholars supply. Since it was perceived, the nature vs nurture debate has baffled the scholars and laypeople alike, leading to ideological conundrums rather than pinnacles of insight.

“Nature,” in the debate, refers to the impact on human character/ traits by genetic predispositions. “Nurture” refers to the effect of the experiences of a person and their environment on their character and behavior.

So, what primarily drives the growth in a person’s weaknesses, strengths, sexual preferences, behavioral tendencies, and personality?

The genetic coding determines most of the physical attributes such as height, eye color, skin complexion, hair color, and other traits in humans. It, however, remains unknowт to anyone whether abstract characteristics such as intelligence, sexual orientation, personality, likes, and dislikes have any links with the genetic coding too. This dispute has had significant social implications, especially concerning what is thought to determine a person’s ability to learn (intelligence).

The nurture theory postulates that , although genetic influence over abstract traits may exist, the experiences and environmental factors are the linchpins for behavioral development . In Locke’s philosophy, he theorizes that a child is a tabula rasa  (blank slate) and can be conditioned to induce a new behavior or alter an undesirable behavior that the child depicts. Although fraternal twins raised together have remarkable similarities in most respects, still the effects of the environment have led to several differences in how they behave.

Many scientists avoid the nature vs. nurture debate, emphasizing “nature x nurture.” This means that nature and nurture are inseparable . They exist together with no clear line of separation between the two. Some genes, for example, cannot be activated without certain environmental conditions. The development of vision is an excellent exemplar for this. 

One cannot develop regular sight without exposure to visual stimuli. Similarly, some genes may undermine some environmental inputs. For example, one may not be affected by smoking-related problems despite being life-long smokers. It may be partly due to their genes. Although some things are genetic related, the environment also affects the way one behaves. 

In the end, we remain with a confounding problem: Are we born with these character traits, or do we behave following our life experiences and the environment?

Currently, we know that both nature and nurture play crucial roles in human development, but we have not known yet figured out whether we are developed primarily because of nature or due to nurture. The nature vs. nurture debate ceaselessly continues, but still, it is a fact that we have traits that are predetermined by our genes. We, however, can choose the path we want to take as we travel through our lifetime.

One of the most controversial issues against the nature theory is that there may exist a “gay gene.” A gene that predetermines a person’s sexual propensity is implied to be in humans according to the theory. It could explain that it is why gays are born like that. If we are to stick to the nature theory, then criminal acts can be justified as a cause of the genetic coding of behavioral tendencies.

On the other hand, the “behavioral genes” can be somewhat proven to exist when we survey fraternal twins. When you bring up fraternal twins apart from each other, they show similarities in behavior and response as if they have been raised together.

Though the debate includes several points of view, there are some nature vs nurture debate topics that come up more often when the debate between nature and nurture rages on among scholars. Writing and choosing a topic for a nature and nurture essay can be tough but there always an option to use write my paper services to get your paper done.

Some of those topics include:

• Sexual orientation and proclivity
• Intelligence
• Behavioral tendencies
• Skills and talents
• Physical and mental well being
• Is intelligence in humans inherent or a developed trait?
• What determines our sexual proclivities: is there a gay gene?
• What drives the actions of a crime doer?
• Is it possible that none of the talents are inherent?
• How nurture affects our physical health?
• How nature affects our mental health?

The nature vs. nurture debate is quite a long one. And with it being the issue that is most controversial and most disagreed on among psychologists, it has grown rather broad since its inception. Some of the nature vs nurture essay topics could be quite controversial and thought-provoking .

After selecting an engorging and engaging topic that you can handle, conduct extensive research on it. Come up with facts that support nature and those that support nurture in your nature vs nurture essay. Put together the points that seem to be similar in both. You can employ the use of a Venn diagram to present the data collected after extensive research accurately. 

Use the data collected to come up with the main focus of your essay. This will be your nature vs nurture essay thesis. This statement shows the main objective of your paper. It encapsulates whatever you want to convey to the reader. Choose the correct nature vs nurture essay outline while writing to ensure you tackle both sides adequately.

Begin with a catchy introduction. The first paragraph the interest of the reader on the whole essay. It should, therefore, be intriguing and make use of different or controversial points of view. Expound a bit on the topic to be discussed before getting to the ending. Use the last sentence or two to state your thesis statement.

Use the main body to write compelling paragraphs that show how nature and nurture, individually or collectively, affect the subject. The sections should all be of equal weights and contain a maximum of three evidence outlines to support your main points. Your nature vs nurture essay conclusion should restate the thesis statement and stand on the matter.

After completing the essay, read through to ensure your points flow coherently from one to the other. Edit it for any grammatical errors and come up with the final draft if you are satisfied with the edits and the message.

The internet is a vast repertoire that contains in-depth and extensive nature vs nurture essay examples. Seek information that is relevant to your topic to gain some insight and facts. 

External links

• nature vs nurture debate - YouTube . (n.d.). Www.Youtube.Com. Retrieved February 19, 2020, from https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=nature+vs+nurture+debate
• What is a Venn Diagram . (n.d.). Lucidchart. Retrieved February 19, 2020, from https://www.lucidchart.com/pages/tutorial/venn-diagram

How ready is your essay?

Don`t have an account?

Password recovery instructions have been sent to your email

Back to Log in

Nature Vs Nurture Essay: A Guide And Introduction

The nature vs nurture is a debate which has been prevalent since the dawn of medical advancements. It is an argument between human psychology and biology. It presents both sides of the debate by giving argumentative points on nature are well as Nurture and who has a dominant influence on a persons’ behaviour.

In this article, you will learn about the meaning of both the terms in details and why it is such a significant topic in a person’s personal life as well as academic. In this article, you will also learn about how to write an impressive Nature vs nurture essay.

Explanation and background Before you get into writing a nature vs nurture it is necessary that you completely understand both sides around which the whole debate is built.

Nature:  These are the aspects of our being which we do not pick by ourselves. These are mostly the physical and psychological factors of one’s body which he or she inherits from their biological parents. These factors are built in our genes and are passed down in a person’s nature of being through their parents and ancestors.

Nurture:  Nurture consists of all the behavioural aspects which we acquire throughout our life. It is a major evolutionary measure and is supported by many important theories including Darwin’s theory of evolution. These factors may include the changes brought upon a person’s physical or behaviour through their childhood experiences, how and where they are raised, their nourishment, social and cultural environment etc.

Biology, psychology, behaviourism and philosophy these are the three main fields of academics which have a major influence on the history of this debate. All of them try to put their statements of arguments or in support of one of the two i.e. Nature vs Nurture. Some believe that the nature and pre-wiring of a person’s body plays a major role in determining their physical and behavioural attributes, whereas some say that the genes and inheritance of a person has a lesser influence and that their choices and past experiences: voluntary or involuntary have a major part in deciding a person’s physical and mental abilities.

Although it is not possible to determine where and how this debate started and came to be as a huge topic as we know it today. But some people believe that it has its roots set deep beginning in the ancient period as some great philosophers such as Descartes and Plato stated that few aspects of human beings do not influence their upbringing and environment over them. Whereas in the early 1900s, John Watson; who is regarded as the father of behaviourism by many, put forth the theory of behaviourism. This states that the behavioural characteristics of a human being are acquired through their conditioning. This theory prevailed in the beginning but with time discoveries and scientific evidence came to light and this theory was countered by many biologists and philosophers.

Effects:  To understand this better let us discuss some features and influences of both nature and nurture.

Health and Diseases:  Disease transfer is an important deciding point in this debate. There are many diseases which a child or offspring inherits from its parents. These disease or health issues are inbuilt in their genes and are present in at least one of the two parents. They are caused due to DNA abnormality. These genetic issues include Down syndrome, Sickle cell anaemia, Huntington’s disease, Patterned baldness, Thalassemia, Cystic Fibrosis and many more.

Mental Health:  Mental health is an issue which is influenced by both natures as well as nurture. But many studies have revealed that nurture has more part to play in the conditioning of a person’s mental well-being. For example, the various psychological issues which are caused by the surrounding environment and the upbringing of a person are Depression, Bi-polar disorder, Anxiety Disorders, PTSD, ADHD, Eating Disorders.

Parental Influence: Temperament:  The temperament of a child is significantly influenced by observing the people around them and their daily surrounding and environment. If a child is around arguments and shootings for a major part of their upbringing, this influences them in such a way that they have anger issues in their adolescence.

Behavioural Inheritance:  There are some behavioural characteristics which we inherit from our parents. To find more evidence on these studies has been performed on twin siblings. It was observed that it if one of the siblings develops or acquires a certain trait or condition, there is a 50% probability that the other twin will develop that trait as well.

Applications of Nature vs Nurture

Through the years as science and technology advanced, discoveries were being made continuously all over the world. This led to setting strong foundations on both sides of the debates. It has spread to such an extent that it now a debate of whose theory is more correct. Nature vs Nurture has become a technique of analysis using which we can determine and predict the behaviours a being. All the conflicting fields have come together to utilize their knowledge and strong point to study and evaluate various aspects and issues and why they work as such.

The nature vs nurture approach of analysis can be applied on a topic or a subject to study how their behaviours came to being and how are they influenced. It gives an insight into how the particular issue came to being and using them, how we can predict the future behaviours and act accordingly.

By making slight changes in our analysis approach we study a different aspect of the subject with new results, which give us an option to use this method of analysis in various fields of psychology as well as biology and philosophy. For example, most of the studies include both approaches in their study, whereas in many cases of psychological therapies, different discoveries may be observed by adopting a more nurture based analysis approach or nature-based approach.

Writing a nature vs nurture essay

Now that you have understood what the whole debacle is all about. Now you can start to write your nature vs nurture essay.

The thing that sets this essay topic apart is that, despite being a debate, a nature vs nurture essay can be categorised as both argumentative and persuasive essay. Depending upon the topic or subject of study and the findings of your analysis, the there format of the essay can be determined, either it will be in an argumentative essay style or a persuasive essay style. In both, the case, nature vs nurture essay proves to be a great way to say your point of view on a particular topic and show off your analytical skills.

Tips to keep in mind Here are a few tips you must keep in mind while writing a nature vs nurture essay:

• Select your Topic Carefully:  The topic of your selection will determine what type of analysis you will be performing. Pick a topic which you are most comfortable with so that you have plenty of pre-existing knowledge on it. A good topic will ease your thought process, as ideas and questions will come to you rather than you finding questions through your research.
• Find reliable sources:  This is very important as not all sources will give the correct information. Look for credible information and sources to support your claims more easily.
• Include case studies:  Including case studies and their results increases the conviction level of your essay. The main aspect of nature vs nurture essay is persuasion, thus is very necessary to provide evidence which backs up your thesis or statements.
• Support your Claims:  While  writing the essay  in an argumentative style, pick a side which you think has more claim and support it throughout the essay.
• Look for examples:  Go through multiple examples of writings which are similar to your topic. This gives you an idea about how you should build the format of your essay.
• Do thorough research:  No matter which topic you choose, if it’s a known topic or if an unknown subject is assigned to you. You must always do your thorough research so that you get all the information you will be requiring in your essay. By doing prior research you identify the points which need the most emphasis in the essay to support your claims and to follow a clear flow of thought.
• Your analysis should be decisive and backed by references.
• Keep your target audience in mind while writing the essay.

Structure of Nature vs Nurture Essay

The main structure of nature vs nurture essay is the same as any other essay. It consists of an introduction, the body of the essay and a conclusion.

• Introduction-  Introduce the topic to the reader. Explain in brief about the whole nature vs nurture debate and how you are going to use it to analyse your subject. Provide an intriguing thesis statement at the end of the introduction.
• Body-  This is where you go in-depth about the issue or the subject of your study. Use multiple paragraphs to explain your topics. Make sure you follow a single topic throughout the paragraph.
• Conclusion-  Mention the thesis statement in the conclusion. Summarise all the ideas and points presented by you in the essay. Provide the results or findings of your analysis and suggest some outcomes. Give an ending statement which is a conclusion of the essay. This statement should intrigue the reader such that they have something to think about after completing the essay.

Related posts

Refer To Argumentative Essay Examples To Write An Impeccable Argumentative Essay

Write Essays By Using Essay Planning Tips And Techniques

Learn How To Cite An Interview In Chicago Style With Examples

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Affective Science
• Biological Foundations of Psychology
• Clinical Psychology: Disorders and Therapies
• Cognitive Psychology/Neuroscience
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational/School Psychology
• Forensic Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems of Psychology
• Individual Differences
• Methods and Approaches in Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational and Institutional Psychology
• Personality
• Psychology and Other Disciplines
• Social Psychology
• Sports Psychology
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Nature and nurture as an enduring tension in the history of psychology.

• Hunter Honeycutt Hunter Honeycutt Bridgewater College, Department of Psychology
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.013.518
• Published online: 30 September 2019

Nature–nurture is a dichotomous way of thinking about the origins of human (and animal) behavior and development, where “nature” refers to native, inborn, causal factors that function independently of, or prior to, the experiences (“nurture”) of the organism. In psychology during the 19th century, nature-nurture debates were voiced in the language of instinct versus learning. In the first decades of the 20th century, it was widely assumed that that humans and animals entered the world with a fixed set of inborn instincts. But in the 1920s and again in the 1950s, the validity of instinct as a scientific construct was challenged on conceptual and empirical grounds. As a result, most psychologists abandoned using the term instinct but they did not abandon the validity of distinguishing between nature versus nurture. In place of instinct, many psychologists made a semantic shift to using terms like innate knowledge, biological maturation, and/or hereditary/genetic effects on development, all of which extend well into the 21st century. Still, for some psychologists, the earlier critiques of the instinct concept remain just as relevant to these more modern usages.

The tension in nature-nurture debates is commonly eased by claiming that explanations of behavior must involve reference to both nature-based and nurture-based causes. However, for some psychologists there is a growing pressure to see the nature–nurture dichotomy as oversimplifying the development of behavior patterns. The division is seen as both arbitrary and counterproductive. Rather than treat nature and nurture as separable causal factors operating on development, they treat nature-nurture as a distinction between product (nature) versus process (nurture). Thus there has been a longstanding tension about how to define, separate, and balance the effects of nature and nurture.

• nature–nurture
• development
• nativism–empiricism
• innate–learned
• behavioral genetics
• epigenetics

Nature and Nurture in Development

The oldest and most persistent ways to frame explanations about the behavioral and mental development of individuals is to distinguish between two separate sources of developmental causation: (a) intrinsic, preformed, or predetermined causes (“nature”) versus (b) extrinsic, experiential, or environmental causes (“nurture”). Inputs from these two sources are thought to add their own contribution to development (see Figure 1 ).

Figure 1. The traditional view of nature and nurture as separate causes of development. In the traditional view, nature and nurture are treated as independent causal influences that combine during development to generate outcomes. Note that, during development, the effects of nature and nurture (shown in horizontal crossing lines) remain independent so that their effects on outcomes are theoretically separable.

Because some traits seem to derive more from one source than the other, much of the tension associated with the nature–nurture division deals with disagreements about how to balance the roles of nature and nurture in the development of a trait.

Evidence of Nature in Development

Evidence to support the nature–nurture division usually derives from patterns of behavior that suggest a limited role of environmental causation, thus implying some effect of nature by default. Table 1 depicts some common descriptors and conditions used to infer that some preference, knowledge, or skill is nature based.

Table 1. Common Descriptors and Associated Conditions for Inferring the Effects of Nature on Development

It is important to reiterate that nature-based causation (e.g., genetic determination) is inferred from these observations. Such inferences can generate tension because each of the observations listed here can be explained by nurture-based (environmental) factors. Confusion can also arise when evidence of one descriptor (e.g., being hereditary) is erroneously used to justify a different usage (e.g., that the trait is unlearned).

The Origins of Nature Versus Nurture

For much of recorded history, the distinction between nature and nurture was a temporal divide between what a person is innately endowed with at birth, prior to experience (nature), and what happens thereafter (nurture). It was not until the 19th century that the temporal division was transformed into a material division of causal influences (Keller, 2010 ). New views about heredity and Darwinian evolution justified distinguishing between native traits and genetic causes from acquired traits and environmental causes. More so than before, the terms nature and nurture were often juxtaposed in an opposition famously described by Sir Francis Galton ( 1869 ) as that between “nature versus nurture.”

Galton began writing about heredity in the mid-1860s. He believed we would discover laws governing the transmission of mental as well as physical qualities. Galton’s take on mental heredity, however, was forged by his desire to improve the human race in a science he would later call “eugenics.” In the mid- 19th century , British liberals assumed humans were equivalent at birth. Their social reform efforts were geared to enhancing educational opportunities and improving living conditions. Galton, a political conservative, opposed the notion of natural equality, arguing instead that people were inherently different at birth (Cowan, 2016 ), and that these inherited mental and behavioral inequalities were transmitted through lineages like physical qualities. Because Galton opposed the widely held Lamarckian idea that the qualities acquired in one’s lifetime could modify the inherited potential of subsequent generations, he believed long-lasting improvement of the human stock would only come by controlling breeding practices.

To explain the biological mechanisms of inheritance, Galton joined a growing trend in the 1870s to understand inheritance as involving the transmission of (hypothetical) determinative, germinal substances across generations. Foreshadowing a view that would later become scientific orthodoxy, Galton believed these germinal substances to be uninfluenced by the experiences of the organism. His theory of inheritance, however, was speculative. Realizing he was not equipped to fully explicate his theory of biological inheritance, Galton abandoned this line of inquiry by the end of that decade and refocused his efforts on identifying statistical laws of heredity of individual differences (Renwick, 2011 ).

Historians generally agree that Galton was the first to treat nature (as heredity) and nurture (everything else) as separate causal forces (Keller, 2010 ), but the schism gained biological legitimacy through the work of the German cytologist Auguste Weismann in the 1880s. Whereas Galton’s theory was motivated by his political agenda, Weismann was motivated by a scientific, theoretical agenda. Namely, Weismann opposed Lamarckian inheritance and promoted a view of evolution driven almost entirely by natural selection.

Drawing upon contemporary cytological and embryological research, Weismann made the case that the determinative substances found in the germ cells of plants and animals (called the “germ-plasm”) that are transmitted across generations were physically sequestered very early in embryogenesis and remained buffered from the other cells of the body (“somato-plasm”). This so-called, Weismann’s barrier meant that alterations in the soma that develop in the lifetime of the organism through the use or disuse of body parts would not affect the germinal substances transmitted during reproduction (see Winther, 2001 , for review). On this view, Lamarckian-style inheritance of acquired characteristics was not biologically possible.

Galton and Weismann’s influence on the life sciences cannot be overstated. Their work convinced many to draw unusually sharp distinctions between the inherited (nature) and the acquired (nurture). Although their theories were met with much resistance and generated significant tension in the life sciences from cytology to psychology, their efforts helped stage a new epistemic space through which to appreciate Mendel’s soon to be rediscovered breeding studies and usher in genetics (Muller-Wille & Rheinberger, 2012 ).

Ever since, psychology has teetered between nature-biased and nurture-biased positions. With the rise of genetics, the wedge between nature–nurture was deepened in the early to mid- 20th century , creating fields of study that focused exclusively on the effects of either nature or nurture.

The “Middle Ground” Perspective on Nature–Nurture

Twenty-first-century psychology textbooks often state that the nature–nurture debates have been resolved, and the tension relaxed, because we have moved on from emphasizing nature or nurture to appreciating that development necessarily involves both nature and nurture. In this middle-ground position, one asks how nature and nurture interact. For example, how do biological (or genetic) predispositions for behaviors or innate knowledge bias early learning experiences? Or how might environmental factors influence the biologically determined (maturational) unfolding of bodily form and behaviors?

Rejection of the Nature–Nurture Divide

For some, the “middle-ground” resolution is as problematic as “either/or” views and does not resolve a deeper source of tension inherent in the dichotomy. On this view, the nature–nurture divide is neither a legitimate nor a constructive way of thinking about development. Instead, developmental analysis reveals that the terms commonly associated with nature (e.g., innate, genetic, hereditary, or instinctual) and nurture (environmental or learned) are so entwined and confounded (and often arbitrary) that their independent effects cannot be meaningfully discussed. The nature–nurture division oversimplifies developmental processes, takes too much for granted, and ultimately hinders scientific progress. Thus not only is there a lingering tension about how to balance the effects of nature and nurture in the middle-ground view, but there is also a growing tension to move beyond the dichotomous nature–nurture framework.

Nativism in Behavior: Instincts

Definitions of instinct can vary tremendously, but many contrast (a) instinct with reason (or intellect, thought, will), which is related to but separable from contrasting (b) instinct with learning (or experience or habit).

Instinct in the Age of Enlightenment

Early usages of the instinct concept, following Aristotle, treated instinct as a mental, estimative faculty ( vis aestimativa or aestimativa naturalis ) in humans and animals that allowed for the judgments of objects in the world (e.g., seeing a predator) to be deemed beneficial or harmful in a way that transcends immediate sensory experience but does not involve the use of reason (Diamond, 1971 ). In many of the early usages, the “natural instinct” of animals even included subrational forms of learning.

The modern usage of instincts as unlearned behaviors took shape in the 17th century . By that point it was widely believed that nature or God had implanted in animals and humans innate behaviors and predispositions (“instincts”) to promote the survival of the individual and the propagation of the species. Disagreements arose as to whether instincts derived from innate mental images or were mindlessly and mechanically (physiologically) generated from innately specified bodily organization (Richards, 1987 ).

Anti-Instinct Movement in the Age of Enlightenment

Challenges to the instinct concept can be found in the 16th century (see Diamond, 1971 ), but they were most fully developed by empiricist philosophers of the French Sensationalist tradition in the 18th century (Richards, 1987 ). Sensationalists asserted that animals behaved rationally and all of the so-called instincts displayed by animals could be seen as intelligently acquired habits.

For Sensationalists, instincts, as traditionally understood, did not exist. Species-specificity in behavior patterns could be explained by commonalities in physiological organization, needs, and environmental conditions. Even those instinctual behaviors seen at birth (e.g., that newly hatched chicks peck and eat grain) might eventually be explained by the animal’s prenatal experiences. Erasmus Darwin ( 1731–1802 ), for example, speculated that the movements and swallowing experiences in ovo could account for the pecking and eating of grain by young chicks. The anti-instinct sentiment was clearly expressed by the Sensationalist Jean Antoine Guer ( 1713–1764 ), who warned that instinct was an “infantile idea” that could only be held by those who are ignorant of philosophy, that traditional appeals to instincts in animals not only explained nothing but served to hinder scientific explanations, and that nothing could be more superficial than to explain behavior than appealing to so-called instincts (Richards, 1987 ).

The traditional instinct concept survived. For most people, the complex, adaptive, species-specific behaviors displayed by naïve animals (e.g., caterpillars building cocoons; infant suckling behaviors) appeared to be predetermined and unlearned. Arguably as important, however, was the resistance to the theological implications of Sensationalist philosophy.

One of the strongest reactions to Sensationalism was put forward in Germany by Herman Samuel Reimarus ( 1694–1768 ). As a natural theologian, Reimarus, sought evidence of a God in the natural world, and the species-specific, complex, and adaptive instincts of animals seemed to stand as the best evidence of God’s work. More so than any other, Reimarus extensively catalogued instincts in humans and animals. Rather than treat instincts as behaviors, he defined instincts as natural impulses (inner drives) to act that were expressed perfectly, without reflection or practice, and served adaptive goals (Richards, 1987 ). He even proposed instincts for learning, a proposal that would resurface in the mid- 20th century , as would his drive theory of instinct (Jaynes & Woodward, 1974 ).

Partly as a result of Reimarus’ efforts, the instinct concept survived going into the 19th century . But many issues surrounding the instinct concept were left unsettled. How do instincts differ from reflexive behaviors? What role does learning play in the expression of instincts, if any? Do humans have more or fewer instincts than animals? These questions would persist well into the first decades of the 20th century and ultimately fuel another anti-instinct movement.

Instinct in the 19th Century

In the 19th century , the tension about the nature and nurture of instincts in the lifetime of animals led to debates about the nature and nurture of instincts across generations . These debates dealt with whether instincts should be viewed as “inherited habits” from previous generations or whether they result from the natural selection. Debating the relative roles of neo-Lamarckian use-inheritance versus neo-Darwinian natural selection in the transmutation of species became a significant source of tension in the latter half of the 19th century . Although the neo-Lamarckian notion of instincts as being inherited habits was rejected in the 20th century , it has resurged in recent years (e.g., see Robinson & Barron, 2017 ).

Darwinian evolutionary theory required drawing distinctions between native and acquired behaviors, and, perhaps more so than before, behaviors were categorized along a continuum from the purely instinctive (unlearned), to the partially instinctive (requiring some learning), to the purely learned. Still, it was widely assumed that a purely instinctive response would be modified by experience after its first occurrence. As a result, instinct and habit were very much entangled in the lifetime of the organism. The notion of instincts as fixed and unmodifiable would not be widely advanced until after the rise of Weismann’s germ-plasm theory in the late 19thcentury .

Given their importance in evolutionary theory, there was greater interest in more objectively identifying pure instincts beyond anecdotal reports. Some of the most compelling evidence was reported by Douglas Spalding ( 1844–1877 ) in the early 1870s (see Gray, 1967 ). Spalding documented numerous instances of how naïve animals showed coordinated, seemingly adaptive responses (e.g., hiding) to objects (e.g., sight of predators) upon their first encounter, and he helped pioneer the use of the deprivation experiment to identify instinctive behaviors. This technique involved selectively depriving young animals of seemingly critical learning experiences or sensory stimulation. Should animals display some species-typical action following deprivation, then, presumably, the behavior could be labeled as unlearned or innate. In all, these studies seemed to show that animals displayed numerous adaptive responses at the very start, prior to any relevant experience. In a variety of ways, Spalding’s work anticipated 20th-century studies of innate behavior. Not only would the deprivation experiment be used as the primary means of detecting native tendencies by European zoologists and ethologists, but Spalding also showed evidence of what would later be called imprinting, critical period effects and evidence of behavioral maturation.

Reports of pure instinct did not go unchallenged. Lloyd Morgan ( 1896 ) questioned the accuracy of these reports in his own experimental work with young animals. In some cases, he failed to replicate the results and in other cases he found that instinctive behaviors were not as finely tuned to objects in the environment as had been claimed. Morgan’s research pointed to taking greater precision in identifying learned and instinctive components of behavior, but, like most at the turn of the 20th century , he did not question that animal behavior involved both learned and instinctive elements.

A focus on instinctive behaviors intensified in the 1890s as Weismann’s germ-plasm theory grew in popularity. More so than before, a sharp distinction was drawn between native and acquired characteristics, including behavior (Johnston, 1995 ). Although some psychologists continued to maintain neo-Lamarckian notions, most German (Burnham, 1972 ) and American (Cravens & Burnham, 1971 ) psychologists were quick to adopt Weismann’s theory. They envisioned a new natural science of psychology that would experimentally identify the germinally determined, invariable set of native psychological traits in species and their underlying physiological (neural) basis. However, whereas English-speaking psychologists tended to focus on how this view impacted our understanding of social institutions and its social implications, German psychologists were more interested in the longstanding philosophical implications of Weismann’s doctrine as it related to the differences (if any) between man and beast (Burnham, 1972 ).

Some anthropologists and sociologists, however, interpreted Weismann’s theory quite differently and used it elevate sociology as its own scientific discipline. In the 1890s, the French sociologist Emil Durkheim, for example, interpreted Weismann’s germinal determinants as a generic force on human behavior that influenced the development of general predispositions that are molded by the circumstances of life (Meloni, 2016 ). American anthropologists reached similar conclusions in the early 20th century (Cravens & Burnham, 1971 ). Because Weismann’s theory divorced biological inheritance from social inheritance, and because heredity was treated as a generic force, sociologists felt free to study social (eventually, “cultural”) phenomena without reference to biological or psychological concerns.

Anti-Instinct Movement in the 1920s

Despite their differences, in the first two decades of the 20th century both psychologists and sociologists generally assumed that humans and animals had some native tendencies or instincts. Concerns were even voiced that instinct had not received enough attention in psychology. Disagreements about instincts continued to focus on (the now centuries old debates of) how to conceptualize them. Were they complex reflexes, impulses, or motives to act, or should instinct be a mental faculty (like intuition), separate from reasoning and reflex (Herrnstein, 1972 )?

In America, the instinct concept came under fire following a brief paper in 1919 by Knight Dunlap titled “Are There Any Instincts?” His primary concern dealt with teleological definitions of instincts in which an instinct referred to all the activities involved in obtaining some end-state (e.g., instincts of crying, playing, feeding, reproduction, war, curiosity, or pugnacity). Defined in this way, human instincts were simply labels for human activities, but how these activities were defined was arbitrarily imposed by the researchers. Is feeding, for instance, an instinct, or is it composed of more basic instincts (like chewing and swallowing)? The arbitrariness of classifying human behavior had led to tremendous inconsistencies and confusion among psychologists.

Not all of the challenges to instinct dealt with its teleological usage. Some of the strongest criticisms were voiced by Zing-Yang Kuo throughout the 1920s. Kuo was a Chinese animal psychologist who studied under Charles Tolman at the University of California, Berkeley. Although Kuo’s attacks on instinct changed throughout the 1920s (see Honeycutt, 2011 ), he ultimately argued that all behaviors develop in experience-dependent ways and that appeals to instinct were statements of ignorance about how behaviors develop. Like Dunlap, he warned that instincts were labels with no explanatory value. To illustrate, after returning to China, he showed how the so-called rodent-killing instinct in cats often cited by instinct theorists is not found in kittens that are reared with rodents (Kuo, 1930 ). These kittens, instead, became attached to the rodents, and they resisted attempts to train rodent-killing. Echoing the point made by Guer, Kuo claimed that appeals to instinct served to stunt scientific inquiry into the developmental origins of behavior.

But Kuo did not just challenge the instinct concept. He also argued against labeling behaviors as “learned.” After all, whether an animal “learns” depends on the surrounding environmental conditions, the physiological and developmental status of the animal, and, especially, the developmental (or experiential) history of that animal. Understanding learning also required developmental analysis. Thus Kuo targeted the basic distinction between nature and nurture, and he was not alone in doing so (e.g., see Carmichael, 1925 ), but his call to reject it did not spread to mainstream American psychologists.

By the 1930s, the term instinct had fallen into disrepute in psychology, but experimental psychologists (including behaviorists) remained committed to a separation of native from acquired traits. If anything, the dividing line between native and acquired behaviors became more sharply drawn than before (Logan & Johnston, 2007 ). For some psychologists, instinct was simply rebranded in the less contentious (but still problematic) language of biological drives or motives (Herrnstein, 1972 ). Many other psychologists simply turned to describing native traits as due to “maturation” and/or “heredity” rather than “instinct.”

Fixed Action Patterns

The hereditarian instinct concept received a reboot in Europe in the 1930s with the rise of ethology led by Konrad Lorenz, Niko Tinbergen, and others. Just as animals inherit organs that perform specific functions, ethologists believed animals inherit behaviors that evolved to serve adaptive functions as well. Instincts were described as unlearned (inherited), blind, stereotyped, adaptive, fixed action patterns, impervious to change that are initiated (released) by specific stimuli in the environment.

Ethologists in 1930s and 1940s were united under the banner of innateness. They were increasingly critical of the trend by American psychologists (i.e., behaviorists) to focus on studying on how a limited number of domesticated species (e.g., white rat) responded to training in artificial settings (Burkhardt, 2005 ). Ethologists instead began with rich descriptions of animal behavior in more natural environments along with detailed analyses of the stimulus conditions that released the fixed action patterns. To test whether behavioral components were innate, ethologists relied primarily on the deprivation experiment popularized by Spalding in the 19th century . Using these methods (and others), ethologists identified numerous fascinating examples of instinctive behaviors, which captured mainstream attention.

In the early 1950s, shortly after ethology had gained professional status (Burkhardt, 2005 ), a series of challenges regarding instinct and innateness were put forth by a small cadre of North American behavioral scientists (e.g., T. C. Schneirla, Donald Hebb, Frank Beach). Arguably the most influential critique was voiced by comparative psychologist Daniel Lehrman ( 1953 ), who presented a detailed and damning critique of deprivation experiments on empirical and logical grounds. Lehrman explained that deprivation experiments isolate the animal from some but not all experiences. Thus deprivation experiments simply change what an animal experiences rather than eliminating experience altogether, and so they cannot possibly determine whether a behavior is innate (independent of experience). Instead, these experiments show what environmental conditions do not matter in the development of a behavior but do not speak to what conditions do matter .

Lehrman went on to argue that the whole endeavor to identify instinctive or innate behavior was misguided from the start. All behavior, according to Lehrman, develops from a history of interactions between an organism and its environment. If a behavior is found to develop in the absence of certain experiences, the researcher should not stop and label it as innate. Rather, research should continue to identify the conditions under which the behavior comes about. In line with Kuo, Lehrman repeated the warning that to label something as instinctive (or inherited or maturational) is a statement of ignorance about how that behavior develops and does more to stunt than promote research.

Lehrman’s critique created significant turmoil among ethologists. As a result, ethologists took greater care in using the term innate , and it led to new attempts to synthesize or re-envision learning and instinct .

Some of these attempts focused on an increased role for learning and experience in the ontogeny of species-typical behaviors. These efforts spawned significant cross-talk between ethologists and comparative psychologists to more thoroughly investigate behavioral development under natural conditions. Traditional appeals to instinct and learning (as classical and operant conditioning) were both found to be inadequate for explaining animal behavior. In their stead, these researchers focused more closely on how anatomical, physiological, experiential, and environmental conditions influenced the development of species-typical behaviors.

Tinbergen ( 1963 ) was among those ethologists who urged for greater developmental analysis of species-typical behaviors, and he included it as one of his four problems in the biological study of organisms, along with causation (mechanism), survival value (function), and evolution. Of these four problems, Tinbergen believed ethologists were especially well suited to study survival value, which he felt had been seriously neglected (Burkhardt, 2005 ).

The questions of survival value coupled with models of population genetics would gain significant momentum in the 1960s and 1970s in England and the United States with the rise of behavioral ecology and sociobiology (Griffiths, 2008 ). But because these new fields seemed to promote some kind of genetic determinism in behavioral development, they were met with much resistance and reignited a new round of nature–nurture debates in the 1970s (see Segerstrale, 2000 ).

However, not all ethologists abandoned the instinct concept. Lorenz, in particular, continued to defend the division between nature and nurture. Rather than speaking of native and acquired behaviors, Lorenz later spoke of two different sources of information for behavior (innate/genetic vs. acquired/environmental), which was more a subtle shift in language than it was an actual change in theory, as Lehrman later pointed out.

Some ethologists followed Lorenz’s lead and continued to maintain more of a traditional delineation between instinct and learning. Their alternative synthesis viewed learning as instinctive (Gould & Marler, 1987 ). They proposed that animals have evolved domain-specific “instincts to learn” that result from the its genetic predispositions and innate knowledge. To support the idea of instincts for learning, ethologists pointed to traditional ethological findings (on imprinting and birdsong learning), but they also drew from the growing body of work in experimental psychology that seemed to indicate certain types of biological effects on learning.

Biological Constraints and Preparedness

While ethology was spreading in Europe in the 1930s–1950s, behaviorism reigned in the United States. Just as ethologists were confronted with including a greater role of nurture in their studies, behaviorists were challenged to consider a greater role of nature.

Behaviorists assumed there to be some behavioral innateness (e.g., fixed action patterns, unconditioned reflexes, primary reinforcers and drives). But because behaviorists focused on learning, they tended to study animals in laboratory settings using biologically (or ecologically) irrelevant stimuli and responses to minimize any role of instinct (Johnston, 1981 ). It was widely assumed that these studies would identify general laws of learning that applied to all species regardless of the specific cues, reinforcers, and responses involved.

Challenges to the generality assumption began to accumulate in the 1960s. Some studies pointed to failures that occurred during conditioning procedures. Breland and Breland ( 1961 ), for example, reported that some complex behaviors formed through operant conditioning would eventually become “displaced” by conditioned fixed action patterns in a phenomenon they called “instinctive drift.” Studies of taste-aversion learning (e.g., Garcia & Koelling, 1966 ) also reported the failure of rats to associate certain events (e.g., flavors with shock or audiovisual stimuli with toxicosis).

Other studies were pointing to enhanced learning. In particular, it was found that rats could form strong conditioned taste aversions after only a single pairing between a novel flavor and illness. (This rapid “one trial learning” was a major focus in the research from Niko Tinbergen’s ethological laboratory.) Animals, it seemed, had evolved innate predispositions to form (or not form) certain associations.

In humans, studies of biological constraints on learning were mostly limited to fear conditioning. Evidence indicated that humans conditioned differently to (biologically or evolutionarily) fear-relevant stimuli like pictures of spiders or snakes than to fear-irrelevant stimuli like pictures of mushrooms or flowers (Ohman, Fredrikson, Hugdahl, & Rimmö, 1976 ).

These findings and others were treated as a major problem in learning theory and led to calls for a new framework to study learning from a more biologically oriented perspective that integrated the evolutionary history and innate predispositions of the species. These predispositions were described as biological “constraints” on, “preparedness,” or “adaptive specializations” for learning, all of which were consistent with the “instincts to learn” framework proposed by ethologists.

By the 1980s it was becoming clear that the biological preparedness/constraint view of learning suffered some limitations. For example, what constraints count as “biological” was questioned. It was well established that there were general constraints on learning associated with the intensity, novelty, and timing of stimuli. But, arbitrarily it seemed, these constraints were not classified as “biological” (Domjan & Galef, 1983 ). Other studies of “biological constraints” found that 5- and 10-day old rats readily learned to associated a flavor with shock (unlike in adults), but (like in adults) such conditioning was not found in 15-day-old rats (Hoffman & Spear, 1988 ). In other words, the constraint on learning was not present in young rats but developed later in life, suggesting a possible role of experience in bringing about the adult-like pattern.

Attempts to synthesize these alternatives led to numerous calls for more ecologically oriented approaches to learning not unlike the synthesis between ethology and comparative psychology in the 1960s. All ecological approaches to learning proposed that learning should be studied in the context of “natural” (recurrent and species-typical) problems that animals encounter (and have evolved to encounter) using ecologically meaningful stimuli and responses. Some argued (e.g., Johnston, 1981 ) that studies of learning should take place within the larger context of studying how animals develop and adapt to their surround. Others (Domjan & Galef, 1983 ) pointed to more of a comparative approach in studying animal learning in line with behavioral ecology that takes into account how learning can be influenced by the possible selective pressures faced by each species. Still, how to synthesize biological constraints (and evolutionary explanations) on learning with a general process approach remains a source of tension in experimental psychology.

Nativism in Mind: Innate Ideas

Nativism and empiricism in philosophy.

In the philosophy of mind, nature–nurture debates are voiced as debates between nativists and empiricists. Nativism is a philosophical position that holds that our minds have some innate (a priori to experience) knowledge, concepts, or structure at the very start of life. Empiricism, in contrast, holds that all knowledge derives from our experiences in the world.

However, rarely (if ever) were there pure nativist or empiricist positions, but the positions bespeak a persistent tension. Empiricists tended to eschew innateness and promote a view of the mental content that is built by general mechanisms (e.g., association) operating on sensory experiences, whereas nativists tend to promote a view of mind that contains domain-specific, innate processes and/or content (Simpson, Carruthers, Laurence, & Stich, 2005 ). Although the tension about mental innateness would loosen as empiricism gained prominence in philosophy and science, the strain never went away and would intensify again in the 20th century .

Nativism in 20th Century Psychology: The Case of Language Development

In the first half of the 20th century , psychologists generally assumed that knowledge was gained or constructed through experience with the world. This is not to say that psychologists did not assume some innate knowledge. The Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget, for example, believed infants enter the world with some innate knowledge structures, particularly as they relate to early sensory and motor functioning (see Piaget, 1971 ). But the bulk of his work dealt with the construction of conceptual knowledge as children adapt to their worlds. By and large, there were no research programs in psychology that sought to identify innate factors in human knowledge and cognition until the 1950s (Samet & Zaitchick, 2017 )

An interest in psychological nativism was instigated in large part by Noam Chomsky’s ( 1959 ) critique of B. F. Skinner’s book on language. To explain the complexity of language, he argued, we must view language as the knowledge and application of grammatical rules. He went on to claim that the acquisition of these rules could not be attributed to any general-purpose, learning process (e.g., reinforcement). Indeed, language acquisition occurs despite very little explicit instruction. Moreover, language is special in terms of its complexity, ease, and speed of acquisition by children and in its uniqueness to humans. Instead, he claimed that our minds innately contain some language-specific knowledge that kick-starts and promotes language acquisition. He later claimed this knowledge can be considered some sort of specialized mental faculty or module he called the “language acquisition device” (Chomsky, 1965 ) or what Pinker ( 1995 ) later called the “language instinct.”

To support the idea of linguistic nativism, Chomsky and others appealed to the poverty of the stimulus argument. In short, this argument holds that our experiences in life are insufficient to explain our knowledge and abilities. When applied to language acquisition, this argument holds children’s knowledge of language (grammar) goes far beyond the limited, and sometimes broken, linguistic events that children directly encounter. Additional evidence for nativism drew upon the apparent maturational quality of language development. Despite wide variations in languages and child-rearing practices across the world, the major milestones in language development appear to unfold in children in a universal sequence and timeline, and some evidence suggested a critical period for language acquisition.

Nativist claims about language sparked intense rebuttals by empiricist-minded psychologists and philosophers. Some of these retorts tackled the logical limitations of the poverty of stimulus argument. Others pointed to the importance of learning and social interaction in driving language development, and still others showed that language (grammatical knowledge) may not be uniquely human (see Tomasello, 1995 , for review). Nativists, in due course, provided their own rebuttals to these challenges, creating a persistent tension in psychology.

Extending Nativism Beyond Language Development

In the decades that followed, nativist arguments expanded beyond language to include cognitive domains that dealt with understanding the physical, psychological, and social worlds. Developmental psychologists were finding that infants appeared to be much more knowledgeable in cognitive tasks (e.g., on understanding object permanence) and skillful (e.g., in imitating others) than had previously been thought, and at much younger ages. Infants also showed a variety of perceptual biases (e.g., preference for face-like stimuli over equally complex non-face-like stimuli) from very early on. Following the standard poverty of the stimulus argument, these findings were taken as evidence that infants enter the world with some sort of primitive, innate, representational knowledge (or domain-specific neural mechanisms) that constrains and promotes subsequent cognitive development. The nature of this knowledge (e.g., as theories or as core knowledge), however, continues to be debated (Spelke & Kinzler, 2007 ).

Empiricist-minded developmental psychologists responded by demonstrating shortcomings in the research used to support nativist claims. For example, in studies of infants’ object knowledge, the behavior of infants (looking time) in nativist studies could be attributed to relatively simple perceptual processes rather than to the infants’ conceptual knowledge (Heyes, 2014 ). Likewise, reports of human neonatal imitation not only suffered from failures to replicate but could be explained by simpler mechanisms (e.g., arousal) than true imitation (Jones, 2017 ). Finally, studies of perceptual preferences found in young infants, like newborn preferences for face-like stimuli, may not be specific preferences for faces per se but instead may reflect simpler, nonspecific perceptual biases (e.g., preferences for top-heavy visual configurations and congruency; Simion & Di Giorgio, 2015 ).

Other arguments from empiricist-minded developmental psychologists focused on the larger rationale for inferring innateness. Even if it is conceded that young infants, like two-month-olds, or even two-day-olds, display signs of conceptual knowledge, there is no good evidence to presume the knowledge is innate. Their knowledgeable behaviors could still be seen as resulting from their experiences (many of which may be nonobvious to researchers) leading up to the age of testing (Spencer et al., 2009 ).

In the 21st century , there is still no consensus about the reality, extensiveness, or quality of mental innateness. If there is innate knowledge, can experience add new knowledge or only expand the initial knowledge? Can the doctrine of innate knowledge be falsified? There are no agreed-upon answers to these questions. The recurring arguments for and against mental nativism continue to confound developmental psychologists.

Maturation Theory

The emergence of bodily changes and basic behavioral skills sometimes occurs in an invariant, predictable, and orderly sequence in a species despite wide variations in rearing conditions. These observations are often attributed to the operation of an inferred, internally driven, maturational process. Indeed, 21st-century textbooks in psychology commonly associate “nature” with “maturation,” where maturation is defined as the predetermined unfolding of the individual from a biological or genetic blueprint. Environmental factors play a necessary, but fundamentally supportive, role in the unfolding of form.

Preformationism Versus Epigenesis in the Generation of Form

The embryological generation of bodily form was debated in antiquity but received renewed interest in the 17th century . Following Aristotle, some claimed that embryological development involved “epigenesis,” defined as the successive emergence of form from a formless state. Epigenesists, however, struggled to explain what orchestrated development without appealing to Aristotelean souls. Attempts were made to invoke to natural causes like physical and chemical forces, but, despite their best efforts, the epigenesists were forced to appeal to the power of presumed, quasi-mystical, vitalistic forces (entelechies) that directed development.

The primary alternative to epigenesis was “preformationism,” which held that development involved the growth of pre-existing form from a tiny miniature (homunculus) that formed immediately after conception or was preformed in the egg or sperm. Although it seems reasonable to guess that the invention and widespread use of the microscope would immediately lay to rest any claim of homuncular preformationism, this was not the case. To the contrary, some early microscopists claimed to see signs of miniature organisms in sperm or eggs, and failures to find these miniatures were explained away (e.g., the homunculus was transparent or deflated to the point of being unrecognizable). But as microscopes improved and more detailed observations of embryological development were reported in the late 18th and 19th centuries , homuncular preformationism was finally refuted.

From Preformationism to Predeterminism

Despite the rejection of homuncular preformationism, preformationist appeals can be found throughout the 19th century . One of the most popular preformationist theories of embryological development was put forth by Ernst Haeckel in the 1860s (Gottlieb, 1992 ). He promoted a recapitulation theory (not original to Haeckel) that maintained that the development of the individual embryo passes through all the ancestral forms of its species. Ontogeny was thought to be a rapid, condensed replay of phylogeny. Indeed, for Haeckel, phylogenesis was the mechanical cause of ontogenesis. The phylogenetic evolution of the species created the maturational unfolding of embryonic form. Exactly how this unfolding takes place was less important than its phylogenetic basis.

Most embryologists were not impressed with recapitulation theory. After all, the great embryologist Karl Ernst von Baer ( 1792–1876 ) had refuted strict recapitulation decades earlier. Instead, there was greater interest in how best to explain the mechanical causes of development ushering in a new “experimental embryology.” Many experimental embryologists followed the earlier epigenesists by discussing vitalistic forces operating on the unorganized zygote. But it soon became clear that the zygote was structured, and many people believed the zygote contained special (unknown) substances that specified development. Epigenesis-minded experimental embryologists soon warned that the old homuncular preformationism was being transformed into a new predetermined preformationism.

As a result, the debates between preformationism and epigenesis were reignited in experimental embryology, but the focus of these debates shifted to the various roles of nature and nurture during development. More specifically, research focused on the extent to which early cellular differentiation was predetermined by factors internal to cells like chromosomes or cytoplasm (preformationism, nature) or involved factors (e.g., location) outside of the cell (epigenesis, nurture). The former emphasized reductionism and developmental programming, whereas the latter emphasized some sort of holistic, regulatory system responsive to internal and external conditions. The tension between viewing development as predetermined or “epigenetic” persists into the 21st century .

Preformationism gained momentum in the 20th century following the rediscovery of Mendel’s studies of heredity and the rapid rise of genetics, but not because of embryological research on the causes of early differentiation. Instead, preformationism prevailed because it seemed embryological research on the mechanisms of development could be ignored in studies of hereditary patterns.

The initial split between heredity and development can be found in Galton’s speculations but is usually attributed to Weismann’s germ-plasm theory. Weismann’s barrier seemed to posit that the germinal determinants present at conception would be the same, unaltered determinants transmitted during reproduction. This position, later dubbed as “Weismannism,” was ironically not one promoted by Weismann. Like nearly all theorists in the 19th century , he viewed the origins of variation and heredity as developmental phenomena (Amundson, 2005 ), and he claimed that the germ-plasm could be directly modified in the lifetime of the organism by environmental (e.g., climactic and dietary) conditions (Winther, 2001 ). Still, Weismann’s theory treated development as a largely predetermined affair driven by inherited, germinal determinants buffered from most developmental events. As such, it helped set the stage for a more formal divorce between heredity and development with the rise of Mendelism in the early 20th century .

Mendel’s theory of heredity was exceptional in how it split development from heredity (Amundson, 2005 ). More so than in Weismann’s theory, Mendel’s theory assumed that the internal factors that determine form and are transmitted across generations remain unaltered in the lifetime of the organism. To predict offspring outcomes, one need only know the combination of internal factors present at conception and their dominance relations. Exactly how these internal factors determined form could be disregarded. The laws of hereditary transmission of the internal factors (e.g., segregation) did not depend on the development or experiences of the organism or the experiences the organism’s ancestors. Thus the experimental study of heredity (i.e., breeding) could proceed without reference to ancestral records or embryological concerns (Amundson, 2000 ). By the mid-1920s, the Mendelian factors (now commonly called “genes”) were found to be structurally arranged on chromosomes, and the empirical study of heredity (transmission genetics) was officially divorced from studies of development.

The splitting of heredity and development found in Mendel’s and Weismann’s work met with much resistance. Neo-Lamarckian scientists, especially in the United States (Cook, 1999 ) and France (Loison, 2011 ), sought unsuccessfully to experimentally demonstrate the inheritance of acquired characteristics into the 1930s.

In Germany during the 1920s and 1930s, resistance to Mendelism dealt with the chromosomal view of Mendelian heredity championed by American geneticists who were narrowly focused on studying transmission genetics at the expense of developmental genetics. German biologists, in contrast, were much more interested in the broader roles of genes in development (and evolution). In trying to understand how genes influence development, particularly of traits of interest to embryologists, they found the Mendelian theory to be lacking. In the decades between the world wars, German biologists proposed various expanded views of heredity that included some form of cytoplasmic inheritance (Harwood, 1985 ).

Embryologists resisted the preformationist view of development throughout the early to mid- 20th century , often maintaining no divide between heredity and development, but their objections were overshadowed by genetics and its eventual synthesis with evolutionary theory. Consequently, embryological development was treated by geneticists and evolutionary biologists as a predetermined, maturational process driven by internal, “genetic” factors buffered from environmental influence.

Maturation Theory in Psychology

Maturation theory was applied to behavioral development in the 19th century in the application of Haeckel’s recapitulation theory. Some psychologists believed that the mental growth of children recapitulated the history of the human race (from savage brute to civilized human). With this in mind, many people began to more carefully document child development. Recapitulationist notions were found in the ideas of many notable psychologists in the 19th and early 20th centuries (e.g., G. S. Hall), and, as such, the concept played an important role in the origins of developmental psychology (Koops, 2015 ). But for present purposes what is most important is that children’s mental and behavioral development was thought to unfold via a predetermined, maturational process.

With the growth of genetics, maturational explanations were increasingly invoked to explain nearly all native and hereditary traits. As the instinct concept lost value in the 1920s, maturation theory gained currency, although the shift was largely a matter of semantics. For many psychologists, the language simply shifted from “instinct versus learning” to “maturation versus practice/experience” (Witty & Lehman, 1933 ).

Initial lines of evidence for maturational explanations of behavior were often the same as those that justified instinct and native traits, but new embryological research presented in the mid-1920s converged to show support for strict maturational explanations of behavioral development. In these experiments (see Wyman, 2005 , for review), spanning multiple laboratories, amphibians (salamanders and frogs) were exposed to drugs that acted as anesthetics and/or paralytics throughout the early stages of development, thus reducing sensory experience and/or motor practice. Despite the reduced sensory experiences and being unable to move, these animals showed no delays in the onset of motor development once the drugs wore off.

This maturational account of motor development in amphibians fit well with contemporaneous studies of motor development in humans. The orderly, invariant, and predictable (age-related) sequential appearance of motor skills documented in infants reared under different circumstances (in different countries and across different decades) was seen as strong evidence for a maturational account. Additional evidence was reported by Arnold Gessell and Myrtle McGraw, who independently presented evidence in the 1920s to show that the pace and sequence of motor development in infancy were not altered by special training experiences. Although the theories of these maturation theorists were more sophisticated when applied to cognitive development, their work promoted a view in which development was primarily driven by neural maturation rather than experience (Thelen, 2000 ).

Critical and Sensitive Periods

As the maturation account of behavioral development gained ground, it became clear that environmental input played a more informative role than had previously been thought. Environmental factors were found to either disrupt or induce maturational changes at specific times during development. Embryological research suggested that there were well-delineated time periods of heightened sensitivity in which specific experimental manipulations (e.g., tissue transplantations) could induce irreversible developmental changes, but the same manipulation would have no effect outside of that critical period.

In the 1950s–1960s a flurry of critical period effects were reported in birds and mammals across a range of behaviors including imprinting, attachment, socialization, sensory development, bird song learning, and language development (Michel & Tyler, 2005 ). Even though these findings highlighted an important role of experience in behavioral development, evidence of critical periods was usually taken to imply some rigid form of biological determinism (Oyama, 1979 ).

As additional studies were conducted on critical period effects, it became clear that many of the reported effects were more gradual, variable, experience-dependent, and not necessarily as reversible as was previously assumed. In light of these reports, there was a push in the 1970s (e.g., Connolly, 1972 ) to substitute “sensitive period” for “critical period” to avoid the predeterminist connotations associated with the latter and to better appreciate that these periods simply describe (not explain) certain temporal aspects of behavioral development. As a result, a consensus emerged that behaviors should not be attributed to “time” or “age” but to the developmental history and status of the animal under investigation (Michel & Tyler, 2005 ).

Heredity and Genetics

In the decades leading up to and following the start of the 20th century , it was widely assumed that many psychological traits (not just instincts) were inherited or “due to heredity,” although the underlying mechanisms were unknown. Differences in intelligence, personality, and criminality within and between races and sexes were largely assumed to be hereditary and unalterable by environmental intervention (Gould, 1996 ). The evidence to support these views in humans was often derived from statistical analyses of how various traits tended to run in families. But all too frequently, explanations of data were clouded by pre-existing, hereditarian assumptions.

Human Behavioral Genetics

The statistical study of inherited human (physical, mental, and behavioral) differences was pioneered by Galton ( 1869 ). Although at times Galton wrote that nature and nurture were so intertwined as to be inseparable, he nevertheless devised statistical methods to separate their effects. In the 1860s and 1870s, Galton published reports purporting to show how similarities in intellect (genius, talent, character, and eminence) in European lineages appeared to be a function of degree of relatedness. Galton considered, but dismissed, environmental explanations of his data, leading him to confirm his belief that nature was stronger than nurture.

Galton also introduced the use of twin studies to tease apart the relative impact of nature versus nurture, but the twin method he used was markedly different from later twin studies used by behavioral geneticists. Galton tracked the life history of twins who were judged to be very similar or very dissimilar near birth (i.e., by nature) to test the power of various postnatal environments (nurture) that might make them more or less similar over time. Here again, Galton concluded that nature overpowers nurture.

Similar pedigree (e.g., the Kallikak study; see Zenderland, 2001 ) and twin studies appeared in the early 1900s, but the first adoption study and the modern twin method (which compares monozygotic to dizygotic twin pairs) did not appear until the 1920s (Rende, Plomin, & Vandenberg, 1990 ). These reports led to a flurry of additional work on the inheritance of mental and behavioral traits over the next decade.

Behavioral genetic research peaked in the 1930s but rapidly lost prominence due in large part to its association with the eugenics movement (spearheaded by Galton) but also because of the rise and eventual hegemony of behaviorism and the social sciences in the United States. Behavioral genetics resurged in the 1960s with the rising tide of nativism in psychology, and returned to its 1930s-level prominence in the 1970s (McGue & Gottesman, 2015 ).

The resurgence brought with a new statistical tool: the heritability statistic. The origins of heritability trace back to early attempts to synthesize Mendelian genetics with biometrics by Ronald Fisher and others. This synthesis ushered in a new field of quantitative genetics and it marked a new way of thinking about nature and nurture. The shift was to no longer think about nature and nurture as causes of traits in individuals but as causes of variation in traits between populations of individuals. Eventually, heritability came to refer to the amount of variance in a population sample that could be statistically attributed to genetic variation in that sample. Kinship (especially twin) studies provided seemingly straightforward ways of partitioning variation in population trait attributes into genetic versus environmental sources.

Into the early 21st century , hundreds of behavioral genetic studies of personality, intelligence, and psychopathology were reported. With rare exceptions, these studies converge to argue for a pervasive influence of genetics on human psychological variation.

These studies have also fueled much controversy. Citing in part behavioral genetic research, the educational psychologist Arthur Jensen ( 1969 ) claimed that the differences in intelligence and educational achievement in the United States between black and white students appeared to have a strong genetic basis. He went on to assume that because these racial differences appeared hereditary, they were likely impervious to environmental (educational) intervention. His article fanned the embers of past eugenics practices and ignited fiery responses (e.g., Hirsch, 1975 ). The ensuing debates not only spawned a rethinking of intelligence and how to measure it, but they ushered in a more critical look at the methods and assumptions of behavioral genetics.

Challenges to Behavioral Genetics

Many of the early critiques of behavioral genetics centered on interpreting the heritability statistic commonly calculated in kinship (family, twin, and adoption) studies. Perhaps more so than any other statistic, heritability has been persistently misinterpreted by academics and laypersons alike (Lerner, 2002 ). Contrary to popular belief, heritability tells us nothing about the relative impact of genetic and environmental factors on the development of traits in individuals. It deals with accounting for trait variation between people, not the causes of traits within people. As a result, a high heritability does not indicate anything about the fixity of traits or their imperviousness to environmental influence (contra Jensen), and a low heritability does not indicate an absence of genetic influence on trait development. Worse still, heritability does not even indicate anything about the role of genetics in generating the differences between people.

Other challenges to heritability focused not on its interpretation but on its underlying computational assumptions. Most notably, heritability analyses assume that genetic and environmental contributions to trait differences are independent and additive. The interaction between genetic and environmental factors were dismissed a priori in these analyses. Studies of development, however, show that no factor (genes, hormones, parenting, schooling) operates independently, making it impossible to quantify how much of a given trait in a person is due to any causal factor. Thus heritability analyses are bound to be misleading because they are based on biologically implausible and logically indefensible assumptions about development (Gottlieb, 2003 ).

Aside from heritability, kinship studies have been criticized for not being able to disentangle genetic and environmental effects on variation. It had long been known that that in family (pedigree) studies, environmental and genetic factors are confounded. Twin and adoption studies seemed to provide unique opportunities to statistically disentangle these effects, but these studies are also deeply problematic in assumptions and methodology. There are numerous plausible environmental reasons for why monozygotic twin pairs could resemble each other more than dizygotic twin pairs or why adoptive children might more closely resemble their biological than their adoptive parents (Joseph & Ratner, 2013 ).

A more recent challenge to behavioral genetics came from an unlikely source. Advances in genomic scanning in the 21st century made it possible in a single study to correlate thousands of genetic polymorphisms with variation in the psychological profiles (e.g., intelligence, memory, temperament, psychopathology) of thousands of people. These “genome-wide association” studies seemed to have the power and precision to finally identify genetic contributions to heritability at the level of single nucleotides. Yet, these studies consistently found only very small effects.

The failure to find large effects came to be known as the “missing heritability” problem (Maher, 2008 ). To account for the missing heritability, some behavioral geneticists and molecular biologists asserted that important genetic polymorphisms remain unknown, they may be too rare to detect, and/or that current studies are just not well equipped to handle gene–gene interactions. These studies were also insensitive to epigenetic profiles (see the section on Behavioral Epigenetics), which deal with differences in gene expression. Even when people share genes, they may differ in whether those genes get expressed in their lifetimes.

But genome-wide association studies faced an even more problematic issue: Many of these studies failed to replicate (Lickliter & Honeycutt, 2015 ). For those who viewed heritability analyses as biologically implausible, the small effect sizes and failures to replicate in genome-wide association studies were not that surprising. The search for independent genetic effects was bound to fail, because genes simply do not operate independently during development.

Behavioral Epigenetics

Epigenetics was a term coined in the 1940s by the developmental biologist Conrad Waddington to refer to a new field of study that would examine how genetic factors interact with local environmental conditions to bring about the embryological development of traits. By the end of the 20th century , epigenetics came to refer to the study of how nongenetic, molecular mechanisms physically regulate gene expression patterns in cells and across cell lineages. The most-studied mechanisms involve organic compounds (e.g., methyl-groups) that physically bind to DNA or the surrounding proteins that package DNA. The addition or removal of these compounds can activate or silence gene transcription. Different cell types have different, stable epigenetic markings, and these markings are recreated during cell division so that cells so marked give rise to similar types of cells. Epigenetic changes were known to occur during developmental periods of cellular differentiation (e.g., during embryogenesis), but not until 2004 was it discovered that these changes can occur at other periods in the life, including after birth (Roth, 2013 )

Of interest to psychologists were reports that different behavioral and physiological profiles (e.g., stress reactivity) of animals were associated with different epigenetic patterns in the nervous system (Moore, 2015 ). Furthermore, these different epigenetic patterns could be established or modified by environmental factors (e.g., caregiving practices, training regimes, or environmental enrichment), and, under certain conditions, they remain stable over long periods of time (from infancy to adulthood).

Because epigenetic research investigates the physical interface between genes and environment, it represents an exciting advance in understanding the interaction of nature and nurture. Despite some warnings that the excitement over behavioral epigenetic research may be premature (e.g., Miller, 2010 ), for many psychologists, epigenetics underscores how development involves both nature and nurture.

For others, what is equally exciting is the additional evidence epigenetics provides to show that the genome is an interactive and regulated system. Once viewed as the static director of development buffered from environment influence, the genome is better described as a developing resource of the cell (Moore, 2015 ). More broadly, epigenetics also points to how development is not a genetically (or biologically) predetermined affair. Instead, epigenetics provides additional evidence that development is a probabilistic process, contingent upon factors internal and external to the organism. In this sense, epigenetics is well positioned to help dissolve the nature–nurture dichotomy.

Beyond Nature–Nurture

In the final decades of the 20th century , a position was articulated to move beyond the dichotomous nature–nurture framework. The middle-ground position on nature–nurture did not seem up to the task of explaining the origins of form, and it brought about more confusion than clarity. The back-and-forth (or balanced) pendulum between nature- and nurture-based positions throughout history had only gone in circles. Moving forward would require moving beyond such dichotomous thinking (Johnston, 1987 ).

The anti-dichotomy position, referred to as the Developmentalist tradition, was expressed in a variety of systems-based, metatheoretical approaches to studying development, all of which extended the arguments against nature–nurture expressed earlier by Kuo and Lehrman. The central problem with all nativist claims according to Developmentalists is a reliance on preformationism (or predeterminism).

The problem with preformationism, they argue, besides issues of evidence, is that it is an anti-developmental mindset. It presumes the existence of the very thing(s) one wishes to explain and, consequently, discourages developmental analyses. To claim that some knowledge is innate effectively shuts down research on the developmental origins of that knowledge. After all, why look for the origins of conceptual knowledge if that knowledge is there all along? Or why search for any experiential contributions to innate behaviors if those behaviors by definition develop independently of experience? In the words of Developmentalists Thelen and Adolph ( 1992 ), nativism “leads to a static science, with no principles for understanding change or for confronting the ultimate challenge of development, the source of new forms in structure and function” (p. 378).

A commitment to maturational theory is likely one of the reasons why studies of motor development remained relatively dormant for decades following its heyday in the 1930–1940s (Thelen, 2000 ). Likewise, a commitment to maturational theory also helps explain the delay in neuroscience to examine how the brain physically changes in response to environmental conditions, a line of inquiry that only began in the 1960s.

In addition to the theoretical pitfalls of nativism, Developmentalists point to numerous studies that show how some seemingly native behaviors and innate constraints on learning are driven by the experiences of animals. For example, the comparative psychologist Gilbert Gottlieb ( 1971 ) showed that newly hatched ducklings display a naïve preference for a duck maternal call over a (similarly novel) chicken maternal call (Gottlieb, 1971 ), even when duck embryos were repeatedly exposed to the chicken call prior to hatching (Gottlieb, 1991 ). It would be easy to conclude that ducklings have an innate preference to approach their own species call and that they are biologically constrained (contraprepared) in learning a chicken call. However, Gottlieb found that the naïve preference for the duck call stemmed from exposure to the duck embryos’ own (or other) vocalizations in the days before hatching (Gottlieb, 1971 ). Exposure to these vocalizations not only made duck maternal calls more attractive, but it hindered the establishment of a preference for heterospecific calls. When duck embryos were reared in the absence of the embryonic vocalizations (by devocalizing embryos in ovo ) and exposed instead to chicken maternal calls, the newly hatched ducklings preferred chicken over duck calls (Gottlieb, 1991 ). These studies clearly showed how seemingly innate, biologically based preferences and constraints on learning derived from prenatal sensory experiences.

For Developmentalists, findings like these suggest that nativist explanations of any given behavior are statements of ignorance about how that behavior actually develops. As Kuo and Lehrman made clear, nativist terms are labels, not explanations. Although such appeals are couched in respectable, scientific language (e.g., “X is due to maturation, genes, or heredity”), they argue it would be more accurate simply to say that “We don’t know what causes X” or that “X is not due to A, B, or C.” Indeed, for Developmentalists, the more we unpack the complex dynamics about how traits develop, the less likely we are to use labels like nature or nurture (Blumberg, 2005 ).

On the other hand, Developmentalists recognize that labeling a behavior as “learned” also falls short as an explanatory construct. The empiricist position that knowledge or behavior is learned does not adequately take into account that what is learned and how easily something is learned depends on (a) the physiological and developmental status of the person, (b) the nature of the surrounding physical and social context in which learning takes place, and the (c) experiential history of the person. The empiricist tendency to say “X is learned or acquired through experience” can also short-circuit developmental analyses in the same way as nativist claims.

Still, Developmentalists appreciate that classifying behaviors can be useful. For example, the development of some behaviors may be more robust, reliably emerging across a range of environments and/or remaining relatively resistant to change, whereas others are more context-specific and malleable. Some preferences for stimuli require direct experience with those stimuli. Other preferences require less obvious (indirect) types of experiences. Likewise, it can still be useful to describe some behaviors in the ways shown in Table 1 . Developmentalists simply urge psychologists to resist the temptation to treat these behavioral classifications as implying different kinds of explanations (Johnston, 1987 ).

Rather than treat nature and nurture as separate developmental sources of causation (see Figure 1 ), Developmentalists argue that a more productive way of thinking about nature–nurture is to reframe the division as that between product and process (Lickliter & Honeycutt, 2015 ). The phenotype or structure (one’s genetic, epigenetic, anatomical, physiological, behavioral, and mental profile) of an individual at any given time can be considered one’s “nature.” “Nurture” then refers to the set of processes that generate, maintain, and transform one’s nature (Figure 2 ). These processes involve the dynamic interplay between phenotypes and environments.

Figure 2. The developmentalist alternative view of nature–nurture as product–process. Developmentalists view nature and nurture not as separate sources of causation in development (see Figure 1 ) but as a distinction between process (nurture) and product (nature).

It is hard to imagine any set of findings that will end debates about the roles of nature and nurture in human development. Why? First, more so than other assumptions about human development, the nature–nurture dichotomy is deeply entrenched in popular culture and the life sciences. Second, throughout history, the differing positions on nature and nurture were often driven by other ideological, philosophical, and sociopolitical commitments. Thus the essential source of tension in debates about nature–nurture is not as much about research agendas or evidence as about basic differences in metatheoretical positions (epistemological and ontological assumptions) about human behavior and development (Overton, 2006 ).

• Amundson, R. (2000). Embryology and evolution 1920–1960: Worlds apart? History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences , 22 , 335–352.
• Amundson, R. (2005). The changing role of the embryo in evolutionary thought: Roots of evo-devo . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
• Blumberg, M. S. (2005). Basic instinct: The genesis of novel behavior . New York, NY: Thunder’s Mouth Press.
• Breland, K. , & Breland, M. (1961). The misbehavior of organisms. American Psychologist , 16 , 681–684.
• Burkhardt, R. (2005). Patterns of behavior: Konrad Lorenz, Niko Tinbergen and the founding of ethology . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
• Burnham, J. C. (1972). Instinct theory and the German reaction to Weismannism. Journal of the History of Biology , 5 , 321–326.
• Carmichael, L. (1925). Heredity and environment: Are they antithetical? The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 20 (3), 245–260.
• Chomsky, N. (1959). A review of B. F. Skinner’s verbal behavior. Language , 35 , 26–57.
• Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Connolly, K. (1972). Learning and the concept of critical periods in infancy. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology , 14 (6), 705–714.
• Cook, G. M. (1999). Neo-Lamarckian experimentalism in America: Origins and consequences. Quarterly Review of Biology , 74 , 417–437.
• Cowan, R. S. C. (2016). Commentary: Before Weismann and germplasm there was Galton and eugenics: The biological and political meaning of the inheritance of acquired characteristics in the late 19th century . International Journal of Epidemiology , 45 , 15–20.
• Cravens, H. , & Burnham, J. C. (1971). Psychology and evolutionary naturalism in American thought, 1890–1940. American Quarterly , 23 , 635–657.
• Diamond, S. (1971). Gestation of the instinct concept. History of the Behavioral Sciences , 7 (4), 323–336.
• Domjan, M. , & Galef, B. G. (1983). Biological constraints on instrumental and classical conditioning: Retrospect and prospect. Animal Learning & Behavior , 11 (2), 151–161.
• Dunlap, K. (1919). Are there any instincts? Journal of Abnormal Psychology , 14 , 307–311.
• Galton, F. (1869). Hereditary genius . London, U.K.: Macmillan.
• Garcia, J. , & Koelling, R. A. (1966). Relation of cue to consequence in avoidance learning. Psychonomics , 4 (1), 123–124.
• Gottlieb, G. (1971). Development of species identification in birds . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
• Gottlieb, G. (1991). Experiential canalization of behavioral development: Results. Developmental Psychology , 27 (1), 35–39.
• Gottlieb, G. (1992). Individual development and evolution: The genesis of novel behavior . New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
• Gottlieb, G. (2003). On making behavioral genetics truly developmental. Human Development , 46 , 337–355.
• Gould, J. L. , & Marler, P. (1987). Learning by instinct. Scientific American , 256 (1), 74–85.
• Gould, S. J. (1996). The mismeasure of man (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Norton.
• Gray, P. H. (1967). Spalding and his influence on research in developmental behavior. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences , 3 , 168–179.
• Griffiths, P. E. (2008). Ethology, sociobiology, and evolutionary psychology. In S. Sarkar & A. Plutnsky (Eds.), A companion to the philosophy of biology (pp. 393–414). New York, NY: Blackwell.
• Harwood, J. (1985). Geneticists and the evolutionary synthesis in interwar Germany. Annals of Science , 42 , 279–301.
• Herrnstein, R. J. (1972). Nature as nurture: Behaviorism and the instinct doctrine. Behaviorism , 1 (1), 23–52.
• Heyes, C. (2014). False belief in infancy: A fresh look. Developmental Science , 17 (5), 647–659.
• Hirsch, J. (1975). Jensenism: The bankruptcy of “science” without scholarship. Educational Theory , 25 , 3–27.
• Hoffman, H. , & Spear, N. E. (1988). Ontogenetic differences in conditioning of an aversion to a gustatory CS with a peripheral US. Behavioral and Neural Biology , 50 , 16–23.
• Honeycutt, H. (2011). The “enduring mission” of Zing-Yang Kuo to eliminate the nature–nurture dichotomy in psychology. Developmental Psychobiology , 53 (4), 331–342.
• Jaynes, J. , & Woodward, W. (1974). In the shadow of the enlightenment. II. Reimarus and his theory of drives. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences , 10 , 144–159.
• Jensen, A. (1969). How much can we boost IQ and scholastic achievement. Harvard Educational Review , 39 , 1–123.
• Johnston, T. (1981). Contrasting approaches to a theory of learning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 4 , 125–173.
• Johnston, T. (1987). The persistence of dichotomies in the study of behavior. Developmental Review , 7 , 149–172.
• Johnston, T. (1995). The influence of Weismann’s germ-plasm theory on the distinction between learned and innate behavior. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences , 31 , 115–128.
• Jones, S. (2017). Can newborn infants imitate? Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science , 8 , e1410.
• Joseph, J. , & Ratner, C. (2013). The fruitless search for genes in psychiatry and psychology: Time to reexamine a paradigm. In S. Krimsky & J. Gruber (Eds.), Genetic explanations: Sense and nonsense (pp. 94–106). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Keller, E. F. (2010). The mirage of space between nature and nurture . Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
• Koops, W. (2015). No developmental psychology without recapitulation theory . European Journal of Developmental Psychology , 12 (6), 630–639.
• Kuo, Z. Y. (1930). The genesis of the cat’s response to the rat. Journal of Comparative Psychology , 11 , 1–36.
• Lehrman, D. S. (1953). A critique of Konrad Lorenz’s theory of instinctive behavior. Quarterly Review of Biology , 28 , 337–363.
• Lerner, R. (2002). Concepts and theories of human development (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Lickliter, R. , & Honeycutt, H. (2015). Biology, development and human systems . In W. Overton & P. C. M. Molenaar (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science . Vol. 1: Theory and method (7th ed., pp. 162–207). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
• Logan, C. A. , & Johnston, T. D. (2007). Synthesis and separation in the history of “nature” and “nurture.” Developmental Psychobiology , 49 (8), 758–769.
• Loison, L. (2011). French roots of French neo-Lamarckisms,1879–1985 . Journal of the History of Biology , 44 , 713–744.
• Maher, B. (2008). Personal genomes: The case of the missing heritability . Nature , 456 , 18–21.
• McGue, M. , & Gottesman, I. I. (2015). Behavior genetics . In R. L. Cautin & S. O. Lilienfeld (Eds.), The encyclopedia of clinical psychology (Vol. 1). Chichester, U.K.: Wiley Blackwell.
• Meloni, M. (2016). The transcendence of the social: Durkheim, Weismann and the purification of sociology . Frontiers in Sociology , 1 , 1–13.
• Michel, G. F. , & Tyler, A. N. (2005). Critical period: A history of transition of questions of when, to what, to how . Developmental Psychobiology , 46 (3), 156–162.
• Miller, G. (2010).The seductive allure of behavioral epigenetics. Science , 329 (5987), 24–27.
• Moore, D. S. (2015). The developing genome. An introduction to behavioral epigenetics . New York, NY: Oxford University Press
• Morgan, C. L. (1896). Habit and instinct . New York, NY: Edward Arnold.
• Muller-Wille, S. , & Rheinberger, H.-J. (2012). A cultural history of heredity . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
• Ohman, A. , Fredrikson, M. , Hugdahl, K. , & Rimmö, P.A. (1976). The premise of equipotentiality in human classical conditioning: Conditioned electrodermal responses to potentially phobic stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General , 105 (4), 313–337.
• Overton, W. F. (2006). Developmental psychology: Philosophy, concepts, methodology. In R. Lerner (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development (pp. 18–88). New York, NY: Wiley.
• Oyama, S. (1979). The concept of the sensitive period in developmental studies. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly , 25 (2), 83–103.
• Piaget, J. (1971). Biology and knowledge: An essay on the relation between organic regulations and cognitive processes . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
• Pinker, S. (1995). The language instinct: How the mind creates language . London, U.K.: Penguin.
• Rende, R. D. , Plomin, R. , & Vandenberg, S. G. (1990). Who discovered the twin method? Behavioral Genetics , 20 (2), 277–285.
• Renwick, C. (2011). From political economy to sociology: Francis Galton and the social-scientific origins of eugenics . British Journal for the History of Science , 44 , 343–369.
• Richards, R. J. (1987). Darwin and the emergence of evolutionary theories of mind and behavior . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
• Robinson, G. E. , & Barron, A. B. (2017). Epigenetics and the evolution of instincts. Science , 356 (6333), 26–27.
• Roth, T. L. (2013). Epigenetic mechanisms in the development of behavior: Advances, challenges, and future promises of a new field . Development and Psychopathology , 25 , 1279–1291.
• Samet, J. , & Zaitchick, D. (2017). Innateness and contemporary theories of cognition . In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy . Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
• Segerstrale, U. (2000). Defenders of the truth: The battle for science in the sociobiology debate and beyond . New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
• Simion, F. , & Di Giorgio, E. (2015). Face perception and processing in early infancy: Inborn predispositions and developmental changes . Frontiers in Psychology , 6 , 969.
• Simpson, T. , Carruthers, P. , Laurence, S. , & Stich, S. (2005). Introduction: Nativism past and present . In P. Carruthers , S. Laurence , & S. Stich (Eds.), The innate mind: Structure and contents (pp. 3–19). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
• Spelke, E. , & Kinzler, K. D. (2007). Core knowledge . Developmental Science , 10 (1), 89–96.
• Spencer, J. P. , Samuelson, L. K. , Blumberg, M. S. , McMurray, R. , Robinson, S. R. , & Tomblin, J. B. (2009). Seeing the world through a third eye: Developmental systems theory looks beyond the nativist-empiricist debate. Child Development Perspectives , 3 , 103–105.
• Thelen, E. (2000). Motor development as foundation and future of developmental psychology. International Journal of Behavioral Development , 24 (4), 385–397.
• Thelen, E. , & Adolph, K. E. (1992). Arnold L. Gesell: The paradox of nature and nurture. Developmental Psychology , 28 (3), 368–380.
• Tinbergen, N. (1963). On the aims and methods of ethology. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie , 20 , 410–433.
• Tomasello, M. T. (1995). Language is not an instinct. Cognitive Development , 10 , 131–156.
• Winther, R. G. (2001). Weismann on germ-plasm variation. Journal of the History of Biology , 34 , 517–555.
• Witty, P. A. , & Lehman, H. C. (1933). The instinct hypothesis versus the maturation hypothesis. Psychological Review , 40 (1), 33–59.
• Wyman, R. J. (2005). Experimental analysis of nature–nurture. Journal of Experimental Zoology , 303 , 415–421.
• Zenderland, L. (2001). Measuring minds. Henry Herbert Goddard and the origins of American intelligence testing . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Psychology. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 01 May 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [66.249.64.20|45.133.227.243]
• 45.133.227.243

Character limit 500 /500

Nature Vs Nurture Essay Sample

Nature vs nurture is a concept that has been debated for centuries. The debate largely centers on whether one’s personality and intelligence are primarily determined by genetics or environment.

Some psychologists believe that the way in which children are raised will determine much of their future, while others argue that nature has more to do with it.

Essay Sample On Nature Vs Nurture

• Thesis Statement – Nature Vs Nurture Essay
• Nature Vs Nurture Essay Introduction
• The Importance Of Both Nature And Nurture
• How Nature And Nurture Combine In An Individual
• Nature Vs Nurture Essay Conclusion

Thesis Statement – Nature Vs Nurture Essay The debate of nature vs. nurture has been going on for decades, and although both sides have valid points there can be no definitive answer to this question as it is impossible to separate the two entirely. Nature Vs Nurture Essay Introduction The debate of nature vs. nurture has been going on for decades, and although both sides have valid points there can be no definitive answer to this question as it is impossible to separate the two entirely. This article will outline why each of these concepts play a role in human behavior and living organisms more generally. Get Non-Plagiarized Custom Essay on Nature Vs Nurture in USA Order Now Main Body – Nature Vs Nurture Essay The Importance Of Both Nature And Nurture Trying to understand to place a numerical value on nurture and nurture to judge in the scientific world is not the right approach. You can see, for example, intelligence is a complex human characteristic that can show itself in a wide assortment of ways from genius to fundamental common sense. Today most people agree that neither biological science nor environment acts independently of one another. Both are important for any characteristic to manifest. Since they are dependent on each other and interact in such a sophisticated manner, it is unreasonable to attempt to think of them separately. How Nature And Nurture Combine In An Individual Most psychologists are now interested in investigating how nature and nurture move with each other to develop character and attributes rather than supporting nativists or empiricists. The acknowledgment of this important human relationship is particularly important given the genetic advancements made during the twenty-first century. Buy Customized Essay on Nature Vs Nurture At Cheapest Price Order Now Nature Vs Nurture Essay Conclusion For a very long time, psychologists have been debating the influence of nature versus nurture over human characteristics. After the scientific world came to realize that biological science and environment both play a role, the value shifted to resolving which was more important. Now, though as we have come to truly know the complexness of the relationship between our genetic characters and environmental initiation, we no longer concentrate on one versus the other, however rather the way they communicate with and affect each other. While it is probably helpful in the development of individual conditions for there to be a genetic disposition, there almost always needs to be an environmental trigger that causes the character to appear in an individual. Hire USA Experts for Nature Vs Nurture Essay Order Now

But The Above Sample Is Plagiarized! Let’s Generate New For You!

The above-written essay sample describes that nature and nurture are both important in the development of a person’s personality.

Students in various colleges and universities are given distinct topics to debate on or write my assignments . It is not a simple task for them to write high-quality assignments in a short time period. Therefore to help them out StudentsAssignmentHelp.com is offering its cheap essay writing services for all educational level students.

You can communicate with our specialists today and acquire the best assignment written. Our online essay helpers hold master’s and Ph.D. degrees from top educational institutions around the world to present you with excellent academic writing help . We not only help you with your essay writing but you can also come to our experts for assignment help, dissertation writing, case study writing help , coursework writing services , term paper help, research paper writing services , and report writing.

• All the completed assignment work will be delivered to you on time without any delays.
• We are a cheap assignment help service provider, charging a reasonable sum from our students.
• We are always available to guide you with any academic writing help.
• Students can also come to our experts for free unlimited revisions in case they are not happy with the work.
• The assignment help experts  we have in our company are masters and Ph.D. degree holders.

Explore More Relevant Posts

• Nike Advertisement Analysis Essay Sample
• Mechanical Engineer Essay Example
• Reflective Essay on Teamwork
• Career Goals Essay Example
• Importance of Family Essay Example
• Causes of Teenage Depression Essay Sample
• Red Box Competitors Essay Sample
• Deontology Essay Example
• Biomedical Model of Health Essay Sample-Strengths and Weaknesses
• Effects Of Discrimination Essay Sample
• Meaning of Freedom Essay Example
• Women’s Rights Essay Sample
• Employment & Labor Law USA Essay Example
• Sonny’s Blues Essay Sample
• COVID 19 (Corona Virus) Essay Sample
• Why Do You Want To Be A Nurse Essay Example
• Family Planning Essay Sample
• Internet Boon or Bane Essay Example
• Does Access to Condoms Prevent Teen Pregnancy Essay Sample
• Child Abuse Essay Example
• Disadvantage of Corporate Social Responsibilities (CSR) Essay Sample
• Essay Sample On Zika Virus
• Wonder Woman Essay Sample
• Teenage Suicide Essay Sample
• Primary Socialization Essay Sample In USA
• Role Of Physics In Daily Life Essay Sample
• Are Law Enforcement Cameras An Invasion of Privacy Essay Sample
• Why Guns Should Not Be Banned
• Neolithic Revolution Essay Sample
• Home Schooling Essay Sample
• Cosmetology Essay Sample
• Sale Promotion Techniques Sample Essay
• How Democratic Was Andrew Jackson Essay Sample
• Baby Boomers Essay Sample
• Veterans Day Essay Sample
• Why Did Japan Attack Pearl Harbor Essay Sample
• Component Of Criminal Justice System In USA Essay Sample
• Self Introduction Essay Example
• Divorce Argumentative Essay Sample
• Bullying Essay Sample

Get Free Assignment Quote

Enter Discount Code If You Have, Else Leave Blank

• Homework Help
• Essay Examples
• Citation Generator
• Writing Guides
• Essay Title Generator
• Essay Topic Generator
• Essay Outline Generator
• Flashcard Generator
• Plagiarism Checker
• Paraphrasing Tool
• Conclusion Generator
• Thesis Statement Generator
• Introduction Generator
• Literature Review Generator
• Hypothesis Generator
• Nature Vs Nurture Essays

Nature Vs Nurture Essays (Examples)

355+ documents containing “nature vs nurture” .

Filter by Keywords:(add comma between each)

Nature vs nurture in an.

The general public has come to accept the sway of almighty genes in the human personality and destiny (De Waal). Studies of the behaviors of chimpanzees and bonobos illustrate striking similarities to human behaviors and suggest evolution and kinship (De Waal 1999). These range from politics, child rearing to violence and morality. There is no place for a blank slate. Human beings are naturally selfish and aggressive or they have evolved into cooperative and loving creatures. At the same time, the resemblance rejects genetic or biological determinism. Genes are merely biological inputs into the personality, powerless to dictate the course of its development. And the environment contributes passing stimulations, which eventually fade out. Oncoming researches promise to integrate developmental, genetic, cultural and evolutionary approaches into one integrated perspective. These developments will incline students and advocates of animal behavior towards environmental effects on human behavior, as in the case of primates….

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Pinker, Steven. Why the Nature/Nurture Debate Won't Go Away. Boston Globe: Globe

Newspaper Company, October 13, 2002

Waal, Frans de. The End of Nature vs. Nurture. Scientific American, December, 1999

Nature vs Nurture Perception and

The process of problem solving is therefore enhanced whenever the learner is able to gain access to, and manipulate, concepts and knowledge representations of problem-solving procedures. According to Lee, Baylor and Nelson (2005) "Potential instructional uses of external knowledge representations include the following: (a) clarification or elaboration of a learner's own conceptual understanding of a problem space…(b) communication of a learner's conceptual understanding to others… and, (c) evaluation of a learner's conceptual understanding. The focus here is the first use: that is, the learners' use of external representations to aid in their interpretation and understanding of concepts and procedures, as a way to facilitate problem solving" (p. 118). Structures vs. Processes: Memory Models And Processes The term "structures" refers to the contents attributes and products of the human brain, while the term "processes" denotes the manners in which knowledge is absorbed and recalled. Studies of memory processes are usually divided into….

Carney, R.N., Levin, M.E., & Levin, J.R. (1993) "Mnemonic strategies: Instructional techniques worth remembering," Teaching Exceptional Children, 25, 24-30.

Chen, P. & McGrath, D. (2003). Knowledge construction and knowledge representation in high school students' design of hypermedia documents. Journal of Multimedia and Hypermedia, 12, 33-61.

Flavell, J.H. (1999). Cognitive development: Children's knowledge about the mind. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 21-45.

Garcia, C. & Garcia, L. (2006) A Motor-development and motor-learning perspective: How do the organism, the environment, and the task affect motor learning? The Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 77, 31-33

Nature vs Nurture ADHD as an Example

Nature vs. Nurture ADHD as an Example of Nature vs. Nurture There are several schools of thought that address the way in which human beings develop their personality and behavioral traits. Some psychologists believe that traits tend to be innate, written into the individual's genetic code and thus inborn and largely predicted from conception (Gonzales-Mena, 2009). On the other hand, other psychologists believe that while individuals have genetic traits that may predispose them toward certain conditions and behaviors, the demonstration of those traits is the result of the way in which they were raised, and the way in which they interacted with the world at a young age (Gonzales-Mena, 2009). Both theories are based in observational and clinical data, and both seem to have equal support in the scientific community (Lippa, 2002). It seems likely that neither nature nor nurture are, in and of themselves, responsible for human behavior. Rather, a mixture….

Works Cited

Bateman, B., Warner, J., Hutchinson, E., Dean, T., Rowlandson, P., Gant, C., et al. (2004). The effects of a double blind, placebo controlled, artificial food coloring and benzoate preservative challenge on hyperactivity in the general population of sample of preschool children. Archive of Disease in Childhood, 89, 506-511

Gatzke-Kopp, L., Beauchaine, T., (2007). Central nervous system substrates of impulsivity:

Implications for the development of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and conduct.

In Donna Coch, Geraldine Dawson & Kurt W. Fischer (Ed.), Human behavior, learning, and the developing brain: Atypical development (pp 239-263). New York: Guilford Press.

Nature vs Nurture Debate Since

Since personality disorders are inherited, it can be assumed that overall personality traits are inherited from parents. Generally, people with similar characteristics have similar personalities since it's hereditary. Self-Confidence: The question on whether people are born with self-confidence or they are taught on developing this aspect is a fundamental issue about the nature vs. nurture debate. In the view of self-confidence being developed from environmental influences, it's basically stated that an individual's psychological traits that form confidence are developed mostly by parenting (William, 2009). Some of the parenting attributes that contribute to self-confidence are the parents' beliefs, expectations, and modeling. Moreover, the initial efficacy experiences are usually based on the family as peers become increasingly important to a person's development of self-knowledge of their capabilities as their social world expands in their growth processes. However, self-confidence is regarded as more of a genetic predisposition than a state of mind and can….

References:

Tomasic, T. (2006, February 23). Personality: Nature v. Nurture or Something in Between.

Retrieved from Bryn Mawr College website:  http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro06/web1/ttomasic.html 

Williams, R.B. (2009, July 11). Self-Confidence: Nature or Nurture. Retrieved March 26, 2012, from  http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-success/200907/self-confidence-nature-or-nurture

Nature vs Nurture The Modern Field of

Nature vs. Nurture: The modern field of psychology has been characterized by various significant questions including the concern regarding nature vs. nurture. This concern can also be described as the determination of the extent with which biology influences an individual's psychology as compared to cultural constructs or factors. Based on his analysis, Herdt (2004) presents an evaluation of Freudian and development psychology in which he explains the progression of adolescent development through a more culturally-informed means. To support his claims, article states that traditional theories of adolescent development have focused on the person and the formation of adult self on the basis that it existed outside of culture as presented in Freudian and biological discussions of psychology. The article consists of several important points including the following Isolation of Adolescent Development from the Community: According to historical analyses on sexuality, policies have constantly focused on the individual not culture to the extent that….

Herdt, G. (2004, January). Sexual Development, Social Oppression, and Local Culture. Sexuality Research & Social Policy Journal of NSRC, 1(1), 39-62. doi: 10.1525/srsp.2004.1.1.39

Kriepe, R.E. (n.d.). Sexual Development. Retrieved February 29, 2012, from  http://www.actforyouth.net/health_sexuality/adolescence/sexual.cfm 

Levy, S. (2009, February). Physical and Sexual Development. Retrieved February 29, 2012, from  http://www.merckmanuals.com/home/childrens_health_issues/adolescents/physical_and_sexual_development.html

Nature vs Nurture This Paper Argues That

Nature vs. Nurture This paper argues that my affinity for basketball is the result of both heredity and environment. Being good at the playing basketball requires certain traits, including physical agility, speed, strength, hand-eye coordination, and so forth, as well as intangible characteristics such as mental toughness, work ethic, basketball IQ etc. There is ongoing debate as to whether the influence of heredity or environment is greater in determining basketball skill, and this paper examines that debate from the perspective of genetics and evolution. My genetic heritage, or genoytype, includes DNA contributions from both parents. These coded instructions determine my phenotype, the observable characteristics I display. Together they account for my basketball abilities. While it seems straightforward to argue that genetics determine many physical basketball skills, my environment was also a factor. I grew up watching basketball games with my father, and shooting hoops in the driveway and at the park. So my….

Reference List

Harden, K.P., Turkheimer, E. & Loehlin, J.C. (2006). Genotype by Environment Interaction in Adolescents' Cognitive Aptitude. Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 1, doi:10.1007/s10519-006-9113-4

McInerney, J. (2008). What is behavioral genetics? Human Genome Project Information. Retrieved March 30, 2011 from  http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/behavior.shtml#2 

The Nature of Nurture. (2010). Association for Psychological Science. Retrieved March 30, 2011 from  http://www.psychologicalscience.org/convention/program_detail.cfm?abstract_id=12506

Nature vs Nurture Intelligence While

They should not just give them toys, they should also play with them. There are age-appropriate toys available in the market. For instance, Lego is an excellent toy for developing attention and concentration. However, if you leave a child alone with a Lego set, he will probably just throw the pieces around, as he will not understand what he is supposed to do with them. Parents should demonstrate how to use Lego to their children and also show their keenness towards the toy. If parents are going to sit around and watch movies and expect their children to play on their own, there is no point. Children need parental involvement and guidance." In conclusion, whether nature or nurture influences intelligence remains a matter of debate between scientists. However, it appears that nurture outweighs nature when it comes to intelligence. Changes in our environment early on may effect gene expression and….

Mehrotra, S. (2004). Intelligence - Can it be improved? Interview with Dr. Sushma Mehrotra, Child Psychologist. India Parenting Pvt. Ltd. Retrieved from the Internet at  http://www.indiaparenting.com/articles/data/art09_003.shtml .

Moore, David S. (2001). The Dependent Gene: The Fallacy of "Nature vs. Nurture." Times Books.

Pittman, K. (2003, October). "On Nature vs. Nurture, Success and Failure." A condensed version of this article appears in Youth Today, October 2003, 12(9), 24.

Powell, Kimberley. (October 9, 2003). Nature vs. Nurture: Are We Really Born That Way? About.com. Retrieved from the Internet at  http://genealogy.about.com/cs/geneticgenealogy/a/nature_nurture_2.htm . Sticht, Tom. (September 26, 1997). Functional Context Education: Making learning relevant. San Diego Consortium for Workforce Education and Lifelong Learning.

Nature vs Nurture Upon Researching the Issue

Nature vs. Nurture Upon researching the issue of nature vs. nurture both elements direct influence upon human development, it is clear that there is no definite way to argue if one plays a greater or not. Upon further understanding it is only fair to propose that both play a significant role in human development and shaping his or her character. At this point in discovery, it is only safe to comment that there are a number of different factors that come into play given the randomness of our society. The paragraphs below establish a strong argue for equal influence in one's development. However, there is one important detail to note at this time in that throughout human development there are periods of time where one may play a greater emphasis than the other depending on the stage. There are times in one's life where nurture will be more important and nature….

Work Cited:

Bower, B. "Kids adopted late reap IQ increases." Science News 24 July 1999: 54.

Dempsey, David, and Philip G. Zimbardo. Psychology & You. United States of America: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1978.

Gardner, Howard. Leading Minds: An Anatomy of Leadership. New York:

BasicBooks Harper Collins, 1995

Nature vs Nurture Human Cloning

(Myers, 2006, p. 99) The clone's adult personality would still likely closely resemble that of the donor, but would not likely be an exact match of the other. The issue of temperament has a great deal to do with decisions, as when certain offerings are made to the individual infant, the individual infant will likely respond in a consistent manner according to his or her temperament. Temperament, according to Myers, is the least variable aspect of the individual, as seen by adoptive studies associated with what adoptive parent's can influence or change and what they can not. (p. 98) The adult personality of monozygotic twins clearly differs, despite the fact that they share exactly the same DNA and presumably grew up in the same household. Where such individuals grew up in different households, such as is the case in adoptive twin situations the two individuals still share certain basic personality traits,….

Brannigan, M.C. (Ed.). (2001). Ethical Issues in Human Cloning Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives. New York: Seven Bridges Press.

The Case for Human Reproductive Cloning. (2002, November/December). Canadian Speeches, 16, 20.

Mathur, S. (2006). Diasporic Body Double: The Art of the Singh Twins. Art Journal, 65(2), 34.

Myers, D.G. (2006) Psychology Eight Edition in Modules. New York: Worth Publishing

Nature vs Nurture Debate

Nature vs. nurture debate has been the center of discussion for many years. Some believe that human behavior is created naturally while others believe that human behavior evolves over time. The purpose of this discussion is to discuss both sides of issue and to develop an opinion about which side seems more accurate. Let's begin our discussion by explaining the nature vs. nurture debate. Nature vs. Nurture The first recorded experiment concerning nature vs. nurture occurred in the 13th Century. The experiment was conducted by King Frederick II who wanted to see what language a child would pick up if they were not spoken to. He wanted to see if they would just naturally learn language. Steen (1996) asserts that the King was curious as to whether children would teach themselves the Hebrew language, which was the oldest language extant in Europe at the time, or one of the more recent languages such….

 http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=100487707 

Dunn, J., & Plomin, R. (1990). Separate Lives: Why Siblings Are So Different. New York: Basic Books.  http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=98845823 

Gould, S.J. (1977). Reflections in Natural History. New York: Norton.  http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=99473592 

Plomin, R. & McClearn, G.E. (Eds.). (1993). Nature, Nurture, & Psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Nature vs Nurture an Age Old Debate

Nature vs. Nurture An Age Old Debate Nature vs. nurture is one of the age old debates primarily within psychology but also within other social sciences such as sociology. Intelligence is often one of the aspects in which the argument hinges upon. There has been some evidence that the first born child in any family is more likely to possess traits consistent with intelligence and aptitude. This would suggest that nurture is a key component in the equation since siblings have relatively similar genetic composition. A strong correlation between being the first born and such measurable personality traits as intelligence would indicate that the manner in which one is raised in regards to their status may influence personal development. However at the same time it is hard to dispute the role that nature plays. Examples will be provided about cases involving eye sight and depth perception in which the biological capabilities that help….

Gibson, E., & Walk, R. (1960). Watch Out for the Visual Cliff. Scientific America, 67-71.

Hergenhahn, B., & Olson, M. (2011). An introduction to theories of personality. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice-Hall.

Powledge, T. (2011). Behavioral Epigenetics: How Nurture Shapes Nature. BioScience, 588-592.

Zajonc, R., & Markus, G. (1975). Born First, Born Smarter? Psychological Review, 74-88.

Nature vs Nurture Remains One

A personal identity is constructed of the social norms, beliefs, and aesthetic values in the society. Moreover, traumatic and pleasurable memories alike become part of who we are as adults. How a person deals with stress, and what stressors enter their world, are also determined in part by nature and in part by nurture. It is impossible to escape either DNA or experiences. Both leave indelible marks on human beings. A person can have plastic surgery to change his or her appearance but can never change the underlying cellular structures in their bodies. Similarly, a person can undergo psychological counseling to work on childhood trauma issues but can never extricate the memory from consciousness. The ways nature and nurture interact in the human being does not stop after childhood, either. Even as adults, people continue to absorb their environmental stimuli. Their genes may even determine how well they live and….

Nature vs Nurture Debate Human

For just one example, clinical depression in humans has been linked to early traumatic experiences; it has also been linked to specific genetic markers. esearchers have been able to plot the respective likelihood of developing the disease among individuals with either contributing factor in comparison to individuals with both contributing factors, demonstrating that the combination of biological and environmental influences is a much stronger predictor of depression than either factor on its own (Gerrig Zimbardo, p.498). The Significance of Extreme (Deviant) Human Behavior and Identical Twin Studies: Some of the most dramatic evidence of the significance of external environment and experience on personality development comes in the form of the common experiences that criminologists and criminal psychological profilers have identified as playing a role in the evolution of profoundly deviant human behavior. That evidence is relevant by virtue of its extreme departure from 'normal" human behavior as well as the fact that the….

Gerrig, R.J., Zimbardo, P.G. (2005) Psychology and Life. New York: Pearson

Hennelly-Kieth, J (2005) Double Visionary. Bostonia (pp.26-9). Retrieved December 2, 2007, at http://www.bu.edu/alumni/bostonia/2005/fall/pdfs/double.pdf

Henslin, J.M. (2002) Essentials of Sociology: A Down-to-Earth Approach.

Boston: Allyn & Bacon

Nature vs Nurture Debate The

To deal with the 'fallout' of these neurological particularities may require treating anxiety, depression, and teaching him or her to psychologically compensate for certain deficits through intensive therapy. The fact that autism is not 'caused' by conventional psychological causes like bad parenting or 'refrigerator mothers' as was once assumed does not mean that psychology and orchestrating the child's environment does not have a role in treating the illness. The two different approaches can also have a vital function in suggesting the source of specific components of what is considered a psychological illness. Autistic children often have difficulty identifying persons based upon their faces in a manner that is 'normal.' A neuroscientist will study the "specific brain systems" which "allow each person to recognize a face… Social psychologists, by contrast, take the ability to recognize faces and their expressions as a starting point and might ask how each stranger uses that….

Corkin, Suzanne. (et al. 1997). H. M.'s medial temporal lobe lesion: Findings from magnetic resonance imaging Journal of Neuroscience, 17(10):3964 -- 3979

Lieberman, Matthew D. & Ochsner, Kevin N. (2001). The emergence of social cognitive neuroscience. American Psychologist, 56 (9). 717-734

Miller, Gregory & Keller, Jennifer. (2000). Psychology and neuroscience: Making peace.

Current Directions in Psychological Science 9:6: 212-216.

nature vs. nurture theory. The author uses two books to draw information supporting the arguments presented in the paper. There were four sources used to complete this paper. For many years experts in the fields of biology, physics and chemistry have argued the elements of nature vs. nurture. Experts have remained divided on what drives a person to do, think, act and feel the way he or she does. Those who believe in the nurture theory argue that it is in the raising of the child and the lessons he or she is taught that ultimately shapes the end result. Those who favor the nature side of the argument disagree, and believe that the genetic component is much more important than anyone realizes when it comes to the eventual adult creation. Two experts in the field of science when it comes to human nature believe that nature is the underlying driving force….

Moral Dilemma Discussions.

Camping Magazine; January 1, 2001; Powell, Gwynn M.

Anxious Behavior May Be Determined Early in Life.(Brief Article)

Psychiatric Times; November 1, 2002

Can you help me come up with titles for my essay about good vs evil human nature

1. The Eternal Struggle: Exploring Good and Evil in Human Nature 2. The Duality of Human Nature: A Study of Good vs Evil 3. The War Within: Examining the Battle Between Good and Evil in Human Nature 4. Beyond Morality: Understanding the Complexities of Good vs Evil in Human Behavior 5. Nature vs Nurture: The Influence of Genetics and Environment on Good vs Evil in Humans 6. Shades of Grey: Navigating the Moral Ambiguities of Human Nature 7. The Power of Choice: How Free Will Influences Good vs Evil in Human Behavior 8. The Dark Side of Humanity: Unveiling the Depths of Evil within Us 9. The Light....

Can you provide essay topic ideas related to Nature vs Nurture?

1. The Influence of Nature and Nurture on Intelligence: Examining the Role of Genetics and Environmental Factors 2. The Debate Over Nature vs Nurture in Child Development: How Genetics and Parenting Style Shape a Child's Personality 3. Mental Health Disorders: Is it Nature or Nurture? Exploring the Genetic and Environmental Factors that Contribute to Mental Illness 4. Nature vs Nurture in Criminal Behavior: Understanding the Interplay of Genetic Predispositions and Social Circumstances 5. The Impact of Nature vs Nurture on Gender Identity: How Biology and Socialization Shape Gender Roles and Identities 6. Intelligence vs Creativity: Exploring the Genetic and Environmental....

Topic Idea 1: The Role of Nature and Nurture in Human Behavior Discuss the relative contributions of genes and environment to human traits and behaviors. Examine the interaction between genetics and upbringing, and how they shape personality, intelligence, and other characteristics. Explore the ethical implications of understanding the role of nature and nurture in human behavior, particularly in the context of genetic testing. Topic Idea 2: Nature vs. Nurture in Learning and Cognitive Development Analyze the influence of genes and environment on cognitive abilities, such as language, memory, and problem-solving. Discuss the importance of early childhood experiences in shaping intellectual development. ....

The general public has come to accept the sway of almighty genes in the human personality and destiny (De Waal). Studies of the behaviors of chimpanzees and bonobos illustrate…

Research Proposal

The process of problem solving is therefore enhanced whenever the learner is able to gain access to, and manipulate, concepts and knowledge representations of problem-solving procedures. According to…

Nature vs. Nurture ADHD as an Example of Nature vs. Nurture There are several schools of thought that address the way in which human beings develop their personality and behavioral traits.…

Research Paper

Since personality disorders are inherited, it can be assumed that overall personality traits are inherited from parents. Generally, people with similar characteristics have similar personalities since it's hereditary. Self-Confidence: The…

Nature vs. Nurture: The modern field of psychology has been characterized by various significant questions including the concern regarding nature vs. nurture. This concern can also be described as the…

Nature vs. Nurture This paper argues that my affinity for basketball is the result of both heredity and environment. Being good at the playing basketball requires certain traits, including physical…

They should not just give them toys, they should also play with them. There are age-appropriate toys available in the market. For instance, Lego is an excellent toy…

Nature vs. Nurture Upon researching the issue of nature vs. nurture both elements direct influence upon human development, it is clear that there is no definite way to argue if…

(Myers, 2006, p. 99) The clone's adult personality would still likely closely resemble that of the donor, but would not likely be an exact match of the other. The…

Nature vs. nurture debate has been the center of discussion for many years. Some believe that human behavior is created naturally while others believe that human behavior evolves over…

Nature vs. Nurture An Age Old Debate Nature vs. nurture is one of the age old debates primarily within psychology but also within other social sciences such as sociology. Intelligence is…

A personal identity is constructed of the social norms, beliefs, and aesthetic values in the society. Moreover, traumatic and pleasurable memories alike become part of who we are…

For just one example, clinical depression in humans has been linked to early traumatic experiences; it has also been linked to specific genetic markers. esearchers have been able to…

To deal with the 'fallout' of these neurological particularities may require treating anxiety, depression, and teaching him or her to psychologically compensate for certain deficits through intensive therapy.…

nature vs. nurture theory. The author uses two books to draw information supporting the arguments presented in the paper. There were four sources used to complete this paper. For…

• Support Available 24/7/365
• Toll Free: 1-866-707-2737
• Local / International: 1-732-917-4119
• Email Us: [email protected]

Essay Examples

• Essay Writing Tutorials
• Citation Guides

Need Writing Assistance?

Home / Essay Examples / Nature vs Nurture Essay Example

Nature vs Nurture Essay Example

• Last Edited: December 19, 2018

Open, View, and/or Download this Document

In this Nature vs. Nurture essay example, we will offer topics, titles, an outline, and what it takes to make a great paper. We begin with a strong introduction and thesis statement, followed by body paragraphs that offer in depth analysis of the topics as well as current evidence. We end the essay with a succinct recap of everything under the conclusion section. In critical essays, the main thing to focus on is development of a strong perspective to offer readers a unique and interpretive analysis of a text or topic(s).

What came first, the chicken or the egg? Is Nurture more influential than Nature?

To be or not to be: Nature versus Nurture

The Eternal Debate: Nature versus Nurture

Selected Title: Understanding Origins: Nature versus Nurture

Background on the Debate of Nature vs. Nurture

Heritability Estimates

Interaction of Genes and Environment

Personality Traits and Genetics

I.  Introduction

A.  Background

C.  Nurture

D.  Middle of the Road

III.  Conclusion

Introduction

The nature versus nurture debate has existed for thousands of years. Although the phrase was coined in 1869 by Francis Galton, an English polymath, humans have wondered what determined a person’s behavior and actions. While many believe a human’s behavior and personality are formed via a mixture of both nature and nurture, some have taken the side of ‘nature’, while others take on the side of ‘nurture’. Those that feel the nature side shapes people, contend that genotype and DNA determine personalities and traits. Those on the nurture side contend that humanity is born with a ‘blank slate’. Interactions and learning experiences thus shape a person’s understanding of life, allowing a person to acquire various attributes.

Essay Hook:

The age-old debate of nature versus nurture is nothing new, except now that humanity has a better understanding of genes and genomes, such knowledge has paved the way for new exploration of an archaic topic.

Thesis Statement

Whichever side people choose, there is merit to nature and nurture in helping form a better picture of what makes humans, human; this essay will explore nature and nurture and provide a potential ‘middle of the road’ interpretation, representing modern perspectives on the topic.

The nature versus nurture debate first came into the spotlight via ancient Greek philosophers through their examination of nature versus nurture in child development. (Rutherford) When the topic was raised again in the early modern era, developmental researchers sought to explore nature and nurture further, by using empirical research that provided context via theories. This is when they tested hypotheses and chose sides. Some became Nativists (those that support ‘nature) and others became Empiricists (those that support nurture). “Nativists believe that aspects of human development such as intelligence and personality are determined by genetic make-up. Empiricists however, believe that there are acquired.” (Conkbayir 186) Notable Empiricists like John Lock made popular the Latin phrase: tabula rasa . This phrase means ‘black slate’. The child’s mind serves as a blank slate from which learned experiences and interactions can form a child’s personality later and into adulthood. When Empiricists examine child development, they aim to look for how the child was raised, who they interacted with, what traumatic experiences they endured. They then base their conclusions on what they can gather from the child’s past.

Nativists demonstrated their beliefs from the nature perspective through examples like Chomsky’s 1965 Language Acquisition Device. Chomsky believed “the ability to understand and reproduce language was innate in all humans due to an existing mental capacity and the requisite vocal mechanisms.” (Conkbayir 187) Certain aspects of human personality like anger, flight or fight, or language can be interpreted as ‘nature’ driven developments. Chomsky and those with similar perspectives, provided strong evidence supporting the idea that genes can impact how a person behaves as he or she develops.

When examining the debate from the nature perspective, language appears to be the best direction to further understand this side of nature versus nurture. Chomsky believed human beings possess an innate ability to develop language. Although children can imitate and form habits, thus allowing nurture to provide some role in language acquisition, it is the potential predisposition to acquire competency and speech in language that makes it lean more towards nature. According to Chomsky, children can map language.

There is, I believe, good evidence that a generative grammar for a human language contains a system of base rules of a highly restricted sort, a set of grammatical transformations that map the deep structures formed in accordance with base rules onto surface structures, and a set of phonological rules that assign phonetic interpretations, in a universal phonetic alphabet, to surface structures. (Chomsky 150-151)

Modern technology has dispelled much of nativist thinking in relation to certain aspects of language development. However, new research into genetics has reopened the nature side of the argument. Genetics has been used to better understand the criminal mind as well as the origins of mental illness. Robert Plomin in his article, “Beyond Nature versus Nurture”, refers to nature as inheritance. People inherit from their parents’ certain predispositions that may make them more inclined to be aggressive, depressed, alcoholic, and so forth. “… cognitive ability and scholastic achievement, several recent studies found genetic effects overlap completely. For behavior problems, similar results indicating genetic overlap have been reported for major depression and generalized anxiety disorder, major depression, and phobias, and major depression and alcoholism.” (Plomin 30) When people are analyzed and evaluated for their behavior, some of it can be related back to family history and genetic predisposition.

If humans inherit some aspects of their personality, then the idea that certain things that make people human come from pre-determined information seems plausible. Although genetics cannot account for every part of a human being’s personality and behavior, it can account for some of it. A good example of this is schizophrenia. Researchers are still unsure of the number of genes responsible for development of schizophrenia, but they believe it to be an inherited mental disorder. (Plomin) People who have schizophrenia have the tendency to have a relative who also developed it at one point during their life.

Schizophrenia can manifest early in life or very late in life. The prevalence of very late-onset schizophrenia is low affecting roughly 1% of the population. However, those that are affected experience auditory and visual hallucinations. The most common cause of the development of this form of the disorder is family history. (Plomin) Although a genetic link cannot be established, those with family history of schizophrenia are more likely to develop it than others with no prior family history. Because family history plays a role in developing schizophrenia, it can be used in the nature argument. Meaning, people born with a specific problem stemming from family genes could result in mental health problems or disordered behavior. Although people with a family history can become schizophrenic, the potentiality for development is not 100%.

Saying Schizophrenia is inherited does not automatically denote certain development of the disorder. However, genetically speaking, a predisposition makes the brain more vulnerable to environmental stressors that allow for formation of this mental disorder. The same can be said of alcoholism. Not everyone with alcoholism in the family will become alcoholic, but when exposed to drinking these people may be more predisposed to developing an addiction to alcohol than other people. Environmental stressors are another part of the nature versus nurture debate and represent the ‘nurture’ side of the argument.

Empiricists see the environment as playing a crucial role in the development of a child. As an infant, the person experiences according to the empiricist, a ‘blank slate’ mentality where nothing has influenced his or her thought processes. From there, various experiences and interactions begin to form the identity and behavior of the person. “Empiricists assert that there is no endowed knowledge at birth. Instead, all knowledge comes through the senses, and mental development reflects learned associations. They argue that external stimuli naturally provoke sensations.” (Bornstein, et al. 3) Furthermore, through association, individual raw sensations meld into what is considered, ‘meaningful perceptions, creating a personality and behavior.

For example, two siblings with the same mother and father are raised in different households. They both have a genetic predisposition to depression but only one sibling is exposed to physical and verbal abuse. Later in life, the sibling that experienced abuse develops depression, while the sibling that grew up in a loving, stable home is active and happy. Although both siblings have a brain more vulnerable to depression, only one develops depression due to the environment that sibling grew up in. Empiricists feel the personality and behavior of an individual is learned as he or she ages rather than having these attributes be innate.

A strong proponent for environmental learning, John Watson believed he could train infants (chosen randomly), to become any kind of specialist he wanted. He believed a child’s talents, race, or potentialities had no impact on what the child could become because the environment dictated how the child develops. Watson proposed that most “emotional reactions are the result of learned associations between unconditioned stimuli and neutral events so that these neutral events come to elicit emotional responses through classic conditioning.” (Bornstein, et al. 257) Some of what Watson stated may be correct however, it is important to also see what modern researchers believe when it comes to environmental learning.

In the last few decades, new theories have emerged to explain how humans learn. Social learning theory posits that human behavior stems from the integrated point of view of behavioral, environmental, and cognitive influences.  Modeling allows for continuous reciprocation of these influences. “Bandura’s work emphasized the importance of observing and modeling the behaviors, attitudes, and emotional reactions of others from the assumption that most human behavior is learned observationally through modeling.” (Baker and Brandell 128) If humans see something, they understand how it is done and can learn how to do it themselves. For instance, a person sees another person fishing. That person did not know how to fish before. However, after seeing what steps the other person took to fish, that person can mimic these steps and learn.

Learned behavior serves as the basis for nurture. If parents teach their children to behave in a certain way, they will learn to act accordingly. An example of this is writing using the right hand. Some children are born left-handed but may be taught to only write with their right hand. Therefore, although the trait is left-handedness, the learned behavior replaces the right hand as the dominant hand. This changes not just how the child writes, but uses his or her hands. Many other examples exist where children are taught to behave in one way that counteracts what the children are born with and develop.  This perspective strips the potential influence of genes, and proposes that all behavior is learned behavior. However, as Chomsky noted, as geneticists note, not all behavior is learned behavior. This is where the Empiricist perspective falls short.

To state that hereditary factors remain irrelevant to a person’s development is not supported enough by evidence. Even when taking into consideration what the mother eats and where she lives as the fetus develops in her womb, that is not enough to determine the environment as the sole cause of human development. Therefore, the latest research is dedicated to incorporating both nature and nurture in human development. Nature represents the potentiality of an individual and nurture and environmental stressors.

Middle of the Road

When it comes to combining the nature and nurture sides of the debate, many use the 50-year Twin Study example to state human development involves nature and nurture. The study, published in May 2015 in the Nature Genetics journal, surveyed 2,748 studies all conducted within the last fifty years as well as researched 14.5 million sets of twins and their respective personality traits. What the researchers found was remarkable. “the reported heritability is 49%.”  (Downey 25) This means, loosely, that nurture counts for almost 50% of what people become. The other 50% percent is genetic. The study did not state every case was 50/50. Some that had bipolar disorder has a 70% genetic origin and 30% due to environmental factors.

Still, what the twin studies show, is the murky line of nature and nurture. What seems like a potentially one-sided explanation turns into a complex, multifaceted exploration of causes and development structure. It seems like life and the way the human body works, the origins of human behavior, lie within the mixture of genetic and environmental. This makes sense considering the spectrum that is visible in all of life. From the range of emotions people feel to the varied processes happening within the human body, balance is needed to create stability in life. Humans require a mixture of influences to develop normally.

Epigenetics seems to marry nature and nurture by determining that factors like environment, can cause change in phenotype while keeping the genotype the same. For example, many people in the United States suffer from obesity. Obesity has an impact on health by making many people who are obese, more susceptible to certain cancers. Three systems, including histone modification, non-coding RNA-related gene silencing, and DNA methylation are presently considered to start and maintain epigenetic change. If obesity promotes development of diabetes, some segments of the population that never experienced diabetes, are beginning to see occurrence of the disease to the point where it becomes family history (Clark and Lappin).

Obesity and diabetes appear to be a major topic of interest in epigenetics. “Studies are beginning to uncover specific genes affected by epigenetic modifications that accumulate over time. One diabetes-specific example is the hypermethylation of the cytochrome c oxidase subunit Vlla polypeptide 1 promoter in elderly twins compared with young twins.” (Clark and Lappin 140) If specific aspects of nutrition play a part in diabetes development, which then affects genes, this leads to a combination of nature and nurture in that, the environment affects the genes that lead to development of predisposition. Although epigenetics is new, this area of study can answer many questions that were left unanswered from the Nativists and Empiricists of the past.

Gene expression is the execution of the blueprints that are genes. Gene expression can be affected by the genes themselves and the environment. Epigenome is the interface regulating gene expression via environmental feedback. Putting it simply, when the directions in the blueprints cannot be executed properly because there are missing components like proteins and carbohydrates, changes occur. Without these proteins and carbohydrates or anything else needed to run the blueprint, the environment can then have an impact on the development of a person’s genes. This can be seen in the human immune system.

Sophisticated host defense mechanisms have developed among vertebrate animals to help combat potentially hostile antigens. These mechanisms chiefly consist of “the immune system and the epithelial cells that cover the body surface. Accumulating studies reveal epigenetic mechanisms in collaboration with signal transduction networks regulate gene expression over the course of differentiation, proliferation and function of immune and epithelial cells.” (Obata, et al. 226) Fine-tuned via physiological conditions, these cells change. Although some environmental factors can lead to inflammation and immunodeficiency disorders. Multiple Sclerosis for example, generates problems with a person’s myelination processes within the brain.

Epigenetic regulation of the immune system constantly shifts due to introduction of new viruses and other pathogens. Europeans were exposed to many different pathogens when they ventured into the Americas. The natives however, were not exposed to such pathogens, which resulted in the deaths of millions. This shows the environment having a direct effect on the genes and the genes expressing themselves in a way that precedes environmental stimulation. If the environment plays a role in how humans develop at the genetic level and the consequences is altered genes that then create pre-existing conditions, this shows how nature and nurture can go together.

Epigenetics is a great new area of research that promised a better understanding of nature versus nurture. It offers deeper insight into how humans development and evolve on earth. Furthermore, it provides the idea that one does not exist without the other.

  In conclusion nature versus nurture has deep roots in the work of ancient Greek philosophers. They sought to understand child development and see what causes a child to behave and act a certain way. This was then carried on to the 19th century and beyond where people like Chomsky and Watson chose sides to see which made the most sense. From a Nativist perspective, people were born with innate knowledge and potentiality. To some extent this is true because people are born with certain predispositions. Some may be more predisposed to alcohol addiction, while others to mental disorders.

From an Empiricist perspective, people exhibit learned behavior due to their environment. Two siblings sharing the same parents could exhibit different behavior and lifestyle choices based on where they were raised. To some extent this way of thinking rings true because learning does involve interactions and experiences with the environment. However, neither nurture or nature could explain the reality of human development as seen in the 50-year long Twin Study.

In the end, it seems 50% of human development can be attributed to the environment, and 50% to genes. When putting this into context through the study of epigenetics, this means nature and nurture play a part in how humans behave. Epigenetics states gene expression can be changed leading to a change in the genes. People see this through the immune systems of people exposed to various pathogens compared to those not exposed.

Whether epigenetics will answer all the nature versus nurture questions is still unknown. But, it does offer some understanding of how genes play a role in development and how the environment could affect genes. There is so much to discover when it comes to genetics and the environment. It remains a mystery that is begging to be solved. Hopefully it will be in time.

Works Cited

Baker, Karen E, and Jerrold R. Brandell.  Child and Adolescent Psychotherapy and Psychoanalysis: One Hundred Years After ‘little Hans’ . Routledge, 2013.

Bornstein, Marc H, et al.  Development in Infancy, Fifth Edition: A Contemporary Introduction . Taylor and Francis, 2013.

Chomsky, Noam.  Language and Mind . 3rd ed., Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Clark, Alexander, and Shalom Lappin.  Linguistic Nativism and the Poverty of the Stimulus . John Wiley & Sons, 2010.

Conkbayir, Mine.  Early Childhood and Neuroscience: Theory, Research and Implications for Practice . Bloomsbury Publishing, 2016.

Downey, Myles.  Enabling genius: A mindset for success in the 21st century . LID Editorial, 2016.

Niculescu, Mihai D, et al.  Nutrition in Epigenetics . Wiley, 2011.

Plomin, Robert. “Beyond Nature versus Nurture.”  Genetics and Mental Illness , 1996, pp. 29-50.

Rutherford, M. D.  Developmental Psychology: An Evolutionary Perspective . Lulu Press, 2016.

After reading this Nature vs. Nurture essay example, we hope this helps you understand what it takes to craft a quality essay for your academic endeavors. Nature vs. Nurture can be a difficult topic to tackle because it lacks the kind of finite direction that other topics have. However, we hope we have assisted you on your journey towards academic success. If you need any additional assistance, feel free to leave a comment below, and we’ll be sure to assist you.

View or Download this full document in (.docx) format.

Open Full Document      Open full document and source list

Order A Custom Written Essay      Order a one-of-a-kind custom essay on this topic

Cite This Resource:

Latest apa format (6th edition), latest mla format (8th edition), latest chicago format (16th edition).

• Special Education and Technology Integration Essay
• Fake News Essay
• Marketing Plan for Vietnamese Business Essay
• How to Become a U.S. Citizen Essay
• Social Media Essay
• To Kill a Mockingbird Essay
• Autism in the United States and Canada Essay

Essay Tutorials

• How to Correctly Summarize an Article (2020 Edition)
• Explanatory Essay: Guide to Writing an A+ Paper (2020 Update)
• How to Make an Essay Longer
• Guide to Writing in Third person (2020 Edition)
• College Essays: Examples, Prompts, and Topics
• How to Write an Expository Essay
• How to Write a Scholarship Essay (2020 Guide)

Student Questions

• How do I write a reflective essay?
• I have a page of an essay due in 7 hours that I haven’t started yet. How should I do it?
• What should I write my college essays about?
• What is a good thesis statement on discrimination?
• How to write a three-paragraph essay

Presentations

• 77 Amazing Persuasive Speech Topics [Professor Approved]
• Informative Speech Outline
• Informative Speech on Cyberbullying
• Curriculum Evaluation Project
• Strategic Estimate of Ahurastan Power Point Presentation

Need Assistance Writing Your Essay?

10% off your first order! (coupon code: 10OFFNEW)

100% Money Back Guarantee, 24/7/365 Customer Support

Nature vs Nurture Examples: Genes or Environment

Categories Development

Sharing is caring!

The nature versus nurture debate focuses on the question of whether genetic or environmental factors matter most in the course of human development.

What is it that makes you who you are? Some might say that it is your genes that have the greatest influence in controlling your personality and preferences. Others might say that it is your environment and the unique experiences you have had over the course of your life that have a greater role.

In this article, learn more about the nature vs. nurture debate and what research has found about the contributions of genetic and environmental factors.

Table of Contents

What Is the Nature vs Nurture Debate?

The nature vs. nurture debate is often described as one of the big philosophical and scientific questions facing psychologists. So what exactly does this debate mean? Why is it important for understanding the human mind and behavior?  

Let’s start by learning more about each of these factors.

• Nature: This side of the debate argues that genes have the greatest influence over who we are, from the way we look to the way we behave. Genes determine physical traits such as height, eye color, hair color, and face shape, but they can also contribute to other attributes such as your personality traits and cognitive abilities.
• Nurture: This side of the debate argues that environmental variables such as upbringing, individual experiences, and other social relationships play a more important role. Your upbringing, early social interactions, school, and peers all shape who you are and how you behave.

Let’s consider an example. If a student excels at math, is it because they inherited that ability from their parents or because they work hard to learn the subject?

Nature would suggest that they do well because they are genetically inclined to do so, while nature argues that their talent stems from their upbringing and educational background.

History of Nature vs. Nurture

The debate over nature and nurture predates psychology and goes back to the days of the ancient philosophers. In philosophy, this is often referred to as the nativism versus empiricism debate. What do these terms mean and how do they relate to nature and nurture?

The nativist approach suggests that inheritance plays the greatest role in determining characteristics. Nativism proposes that people’s characteristics, both physical and mental, are innate. These are things that are passed down genetically from our ancestors. The nativist approach essentially espouses the nature side of the argument.

Noam Chomsky’s theory of language acquisition is one of the best-known examples of nativism in psychology.  Chomsky suggested that language develops as a result of an innate language acquisition device. He believed that people are able to learn language because they have an innate, hard-wired capacity for what he referred to as universal grammar.

Empiricism represents the nurture side of the debate. The empiricist approach suggests that all learning is the result of experience and environmental factors.

The philosopher John Locke took an empiricist approach and proposed a concept known as tabula rasa, which means “blank slate.” This approach that the mind is essentially that —a blank slate—and that it is through learning and experience that all knowledge, skill, and behavioral patterns are acquired.

Behaviorism is one example of an empirical approach to understanding human behavior. Behaviorists such as John B. Watson and B.F. Skinner believed that all human behavior was the result of conditioning, either classical (associative) or operant ( reinforcement and punishment ).

Watson was famously known for proclaiming that he could train anyone to be anything using the principles of conditioning, regardless of that individual’s genetics and background.

Approaches to Psychology

While few contemporary psychologists take an extreme, hard-lined empiricist or nativist approach, different branches of psychology do sometimes tend to emphasize one influence over the other.

Biological Psychology

Biological psychology, for example, tends to focus more on the nature side of the debate. This area of psychology focuses on how biological factors influence human behavior, so things such as the brain, neurons, and neurotransmitters are of greater interest than external factors.

Behavioral Psychology

Behavioral psychology tends to take the nurture side of the debate, focusing on how environmental factors and learned associations contribute to how people think and act.

Health Psychology

Health psychology is an example of an approach that tends to lie somewhere in the middle. Health psychologists are focused on understanding how both biological and environmental factors contribute and interact to affect an individual’s health.

Nature vs. Nurture Examples

Looking at examples can be helpful to understand why the nature vs nurture debate has been so crucial throughout psychology’s history. The topic is not just an important philosophical debate. It has been critical for understanding what factors influence different aspects of human behavior and has been the source of considerable controversy at times.

Consider the long debate over the factors that influence intelligence. Those on the nature side of the debate suggest that the greatest influence on IQ is inheritance. Some early thinkers such as Francis Galton believed that intelligence could largely be attributed to genetic factors.

Such views have been used to justify discriminatory social policies and attitudes. When some research suggested that some groups of people had lower IQ scores, for example, some researchers interpreted these results to suggest that these individuals scored lower as a result of genetics.

Those taking the nurture side of the debate point out that other factors, including biased test construction, racism, and systemic discrimination impacting educational access and quality, play a more important role.

Inequality, discrimination, and lack of access play a role in shaping how well people perform on intelligence tests and other assessments of educational outcomes.

Gender Differences and Education

Sex differences in school performance and attainment is another area where the debate between the contributions of nature vs nurture comes into play. Girls often perform better on verbal tests but less well on math. As they advance in school, girls also become less likely to enter STEM courses and STEM fields.

Those taking a nature perspective might suggest that girls are inherently less capable in these subjects. Nature advocates, however, would point out that social variables, including gender stereotypes and discrimination, have a greater influence.

Many researchers today believe that human behavior is influenced by both nature and nurture, and that it is often the interaction of the two variables that is even more important.

Examples of the Impact of the Nature and Nurture Debate

Few modern psychologists would take an extreme nature or nurture position. Rather than asking which one controls specific variables, researchers are more likely to wonder about the degree to which each of these forces plays a role. So what exactly are the relative contributions of nature and nurture?

According to the research, the answer is about 50/50. Researchers collected the results of nearly every twin study conducted over the last half-century. Doing this allowed them to determine which factors played a role in determining certain characteristics.

Twin studies examine similarities and differences by looking at twins who are either raised together or raised apart. This allows researchers to determine the impact of genes versus the environment.

Researchers analyzed more than 2,700 twin studies involving a whopping 14.5 million pairs of twins from 39 different countries and discovered that genes and environment share a roughly equal role in determining who we are.

Variations in personality traits and disease were determined to be 49% due to genetics and 51% due to environment.

One important thing to note is that while the research suggests a 50/50 split, the findings did reveal that genes do play a greater role in the risk of certain diseases. Bipolar disorder, for example, was found to be approximately 70% heritable.

Examples of How Nature and Nurture Interact

Today, many experts suggest that we should be more concerned with how nature and nurture interact to determine how we develop. For example, we might be genetically inclined toward a certain trait, but our experiences can determine to what degree that trait is expressed.

Height is a good example of how genes and the environment can interact to make you who you are. Even if you inherit genes for tallness, proper nourishment is important for reaching that height. Kids who come from tall families might not become tall if they do not receive proper nutrition during their childhood.

So while we know that both factors are equally important, the question we are left to ponder is just how much of a role each factor plays in the development of certain characteristics. As the research suggests, some diseases are more strongly linked to genetics than to the environment.

As researchers continue to explore how nature and nurture interact, we will continue to gain a deeper understanding of the factors that contribute to who we are.

Haworth CM, Davis OS, Plomin R. Twins Early Development Study (TEDS): a genetically sensitive investigation of cognitive and behavioral development from childhood to young adulthood .  Twin Res Hum Genet . 2013;16(1):117-125. doi:10.1017/thg.2012.91

Institute of Medicine (US) Forum on Neuroscience and Nervous System Disorders. From Molecules to Minds: Challenges for the 21st Century: Workshop Summary. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2008. Grand challenge: Nature versus nurture: How does the interplay of biology and experience shape our brains and make us who we are ? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK50991/

Sravanti L. (2017). Nurture the nature .  Indian journal of psychiatry ,  59 (3), 385. https://doi.org/10.4103/psychiatry.IndianJPsychiatry_341_17

• Infographics

Epigenetics and Child Development: How Children’s Experiences Affect Their Genes

For more information about epigenetics, please scroll down below the infographic .

New scientific research shows that environmental influences can actually affect whether and how genes are expressed. In fact, scientists have discovered that early experiences can determine how genes are turned on and off and even whether some are expressed at all. Thus, the old ideas that genes are “set in stone” or that they alone determine development have been disproven. Nature vs. Nurture is no longer a debate—it’s nearly always both!

More Information on Epigenetics Deep Dive: Gene-Environment Interaction Learn more about the physical and chemical processes that take place as part of the creation of the epigenome. Working Paper 10: Early Experiences Can Alter Gene Expression and Affect Long-Term Development This in-depth working paper explains how genes and the environment interact, and gives recommendations for ways that caregivers and policymakers can effectively respond to the science.

During development, the DNA that makes up our genes accumulates chemical marks that determine how much or little of the genes is expressed. This collection of chemical marks is known as the “ epigenome .” The different experiences children have rearrange those chemical marks. This explains why genetically identical twins can exhibit different behaviors, skills, health, and achievement.

Correcting Popular Misrepresentations of Science

Until recently, the influences of genes were thought to be set, and the effects of children’s experiences and environments on brain architecture and long-term physical and mental health outcomes remained a mystery. That lack of understanding led to several misleading conclusions about the degree to which negative and positive environmental factors and experiences can affect the developing fetus and young child. The following misconceptions are particularly important to set straight.

• Contrary to popular belief, the genes inherited from one’s parents do not set a child’s future development in stone. Variations in DNA sequences between individuals certainly influence the way in which genes are expressed and how the proteins encoded by those genes will function. But that is only part of the story—the environment in which one develops , before and soon after birth, provides powerful experiences that chemically modify certain genes which, in turn, define how much and when they are expressed. Thus, while genetic factors exert potent influences, environmental factors have the ability to alter the genes that were inherited.
• Although frequently misunderstood, adverse fetal and early childhood experiences can—and do—lead to physical and chemical changes in the brain that can last a lifetime. Injurious experiences , such as malnutrition, exposure to chemical toxins or drugs, and toxic stress before birth or in early childhood are not “forgotten,” but rather are built into the architecture of the developing brain through the epigenome. The “biological memories” associated with these epigenetic changes can affect multiple organ systems and increase the risk not only for poor physical and mental health outcomes but also for impairments in future learning capacity and behavior.
• Despite some marketing claims to the contrary, the ability of so-called enrichment programs to enhance otherwise healthy brain development is not known. While parents and policymakers might hope that playing Mozart recordings to newborns will produce epigenetic changes that enhance cognitive development, there is absolutely no scientific evidence that such exposure will shape the epigenome or enhance brain function. What research has shown is that specific epigenetic modifications do occur in brain cells as cognitive skills like learning and memory develop, and that repeated activation of brain circuits dedicated to learning and memory through interaction with the environment, such as reciprocal “ serve and return ” interaction with adults, facilitates these positive epigenetic modifications. We also know that sound maternal and fetal nutrition , combined with positive social-emotional support of children through their family and community environments, will reduce the likelihood of negative epigenetic modifications that increase the risk of later physical and mental health impairments.

The epigenome can be affected by positive experiences, such as supportive relationships and opportunities for learning, or negative influences, such as environmental toxins or stressful life circumstances, which leave a unique epigenetic “signature” on the genes. These signatures can be temporary or permanent and both types affect how easily the genes are switched on or off. Recent research demonstrates that there may be ways to reverse certain negative changes and restore healthy functioning, but that takes a lot more effort, may not be successful at changing all aspects of the signatures, and is costly. Thus, the very best strategy is to support responsive relationships and reduce stress to build strong brains from the beginning, helping children grow up to be healthy, productive members of society.

For more information:   Early Experiences Can Alter Gene Expression and Affect Long-Term Development: Working Paper No. 10 .

Full Text of the Graphic

“Epigenetics” is an emerging area of scientific research that shows how environmental influences—children’s experiences—actually affect the expression of their genes.

This means the old idea that genes are “set in stone” has been disproven. Nature vs. Nurture is no longer a debate. It’s nearly always both!

During development, the DNA that makes up our genes accumulates chemical marks that determine how much or little of the genes is expressed. This collection of chemical marks is known as the “epigenome.” The different experiences children have rearrange those chemical marks. This explains why genetically identical twins can exhibit different behaviors, skills, health, and achievement.

Epigenetics explains how early experiences can have lifelong impacts.

The genes children inherit from their biological parents provide information that guides their development. For example, how tall they could eventually become or the kind of temperament they could have.

When experiences during development rearrange the epigenetic marks that govern gene expression, they can change whether and how genes release the information they carry.

Thus, the epigenome can be affected by positive experiences, such as supportive relationships and opportunities for learning, or negative influences, such as environmental toxins or stressful life circumstances, which leave a unique epigenetic “signature” on the genes. These signatures can be temporary or permanent and both types affect how easily the genes are switched on or off. Recent research demonstrates that there may be ways to reverse certain negative changes and restore healthy functioning. But the very best strategy is to support responsive relationships and reduce stress to build strong brains from the beginning.

Young brains are particularly sensitive to epigenetic changes.

Experiences very early in life, when the brain is developing most rapidly, cause epigenetic adaptations that influence whether, when, and how genes release their instructions for building future capacity for health, skills, and resilience. That’s why it’s crucial to provide supportive and nurturing experiences for young children in the earliest years.

Services such as high-quality health care for all pregnant women, infants, and toddlers, as well as support for new parents and caregivers can—quite literally— affect the chemistry around children’s genes. Supportive relationships and rich learning experiences generate positive epigenetic signatures that activate genetic potential.

Related Topics: brain architecture , lifelong health , mental health

Explore related resources.

• Reports & Working Papers
• Tools & Guides
• Presentations

Videos : InBrief: Early Childhood Mental Health

Reports & Working Papers : Establishing a Level Foundation for Life: Mental Health Begins in Early Childhood

Reports & Working Papers : From Best Practices to Breakthrough Impacts

Reports & Working Papers : The Foundations of Lifelong Health Are Built in Early Childhood

Reports & Working Papers : Children’s Emotional Development Is Built into the Architecture of Their Brains

Reports & Working Papers : Connecting the Brain to the Rest of the Body: Early Childhood Development and Lifelong Health Are Deeply Intertwined

Tools & Guides : El lugar es importante: Guía para la aplicación de políticas

Infographics : El lugar importa: lo que nos rodea nos define

Briefs : Health and Learning Are Deeply Interconnected in the Body: An Action Guide for Policymakers

Videos : How Early Childhood Experiences Affect Lifelong Health and Learning

Briefs : How to Support Children (and Yourself) During the COVID-19 Outbreak

Briefs : InBrief: Early Childhood Mental Health

Reports & Working Papers : Maternal Depression Can Undermine the Development of Young Children

Reports & Working Papers : Persistent Fear and Anxiety Can Affect Young Children’s Learning and Development

Tools & Guides : Place Matters: An Action Guide for Policy

Reports & Working Papers : Place Matters: The Environment We Create Shapes the Foundations of Healthy Development

Infographics : Place Matters: What Surrounds Us Shapes Us

Podcasts : The Brain Architects Podcast: COVID-19 Special Edition: A Different World

Podcasts : The Brain Architects Podcast: COVID-19 Special Edition: Creating Communities of Opportunity

Podcasts : The Brain Architects Podcast: COVID-19 Special Edition: Mental Health in a Locked-Down World

Podcasts : The Brain Architects Podcast: COVID-19 Special Edition: Self-Care Isn’t Selfish

Infographics : The Brain Circuits Underlying Motivation: An Interactive Graphic

Infographics : What Is COVID-19? And How Does It Relate to Child Development?

Tools & Guides , Partner Resources : Training Module: Health Care Practitioner Module and Resources

• Newsletters
• Account Activating this button will toggle the display of additional content Account Sign out

“Parenting Doesn’t Matter”? Tell Me Another One.

This emergent consensus makes no sense to me.

This essay was adapted from Melinda Wenner Moyer’s newsletter, Is My Kid the Asshole? Subscribe here .

The other day, a friend pointed me to Arthur C. Brooks’ new essay in the Atlantic, “ The One Big Thing You Can Do for Your Kids .” Brooks is a Harvard social scientist, an Atlantic columnist, a former president of the American Enterprise Institute, and the author of 13 books, including  one he co-wrote with Oprah Winfrey.

Brooks makes a lot of points in his essay that I support. Like the assertion that “the parenting technique that truly matters is warmth and affection” and the argument that “you will make a lot of mistakes, but mostly they won’t matter.”

In other words, Brooks says, we don’t have to be perfect parents. Our kids will be OK.

I totally agree, but I’m not at all convinced by the premise for his argument. Brooks argues that it’s OK for us to make mistakes as parents because how we parent doesn’t matter—our children’s characteristics are shaped far more by nature (genes) than nurture (environment). “A huge amount of personality is biological and inherited,” Brooks writes, citing a couple of studies.

I think he’s overreaching here—and also overlooking other important considerations.

First, Brooks cites a study suggesting that genes play a large role in shaping personality. He writes:

One 1996 study involving 123 pairs of identical twins (who share 100 percent of their genes) and 127 pairs of fraternal twins (who, like any other pair of siblings, share about 50 percent)  estimated  that 41 percent of neuroticism may be inherited, as well as 53 percent of extroversion, 61 percent of openness to experience, 41 percent of agreeableness, and 44 percent of conscientiousness.

Yet, when I think about who I want my kids to become, I’m not focused on broad personality traits like these. I mean, yes—I hope that my kids don’t end up neurotic, and I hope that they grow up to be conscientious, agreeable, and open to new experiences. (I couldn’t care less about extroversion.) But what I care about far more are their values and choices. Will my son treat girls and women with the respect they deserve? Will my kids be anti-racist? Will they stand up for—or at least show support and compassion for—peers who are being bullied?

These questions aren’t answered by that study. But they are addressed by others, which suggest that what we do as parents absolutely shapes kids’ values and behavior toward others. We know that the conversations parents have with kids about racism, sexism, sex, consent, and bullying make a difference in terms of what values kids hold and how they behave toward others; I cite plenty of this research in  my first book . Other studies have found  that broad parenting practices shape kids’ values and moral development. Some studies even suggest  that the quality of the parent-child relationship affects how strongly various traits are shaped by genes vs. the environment—suggesting that how we raise our kids doesn’t merely affect how our kids turn out; it also affects just how much of an influence we have.

I want to spend a second reflecting on the numbers in that personality trait study too. The study finds that “41 percent of neuroticism may be inherited, as well as 53 percent of extroversion, 61 percent of openness to experience, 41 percent of agreeableness, and 44 percent of conscientiousness.”

If 41 percent or 53 percent or 61 percent of a trait is inherited, that means that the rest—a substantial portion!—is not inherited. This again suggests that the environment in which kids are raised  does  matter.

A few years ago, for this newsletter , I interviewed  Danielle Dick , a psychologist at Virginia Commonwealth University who specifically studies genetic and environmental influences on human behavior. Dick explained to me that, yes, our kids’ genes absolutely shape who they will become. “The research unambiguously shows that our children’s genes play a large role in their behavior,” she told me.

But then she added: “I’m absolutely not saying that parents don’t matter.”

I was interviewing Dick because she wrote a (wonderful!) parenting book called  The Child Code: Understanding Your Child’s Unique Nature for Happier, More Effective Parenting —and if genes were the only thing that mattered, I daresay she would not have penned a book full of parenting advice. In  The Child Code , Dick argues that when making parenting choices, parents should consider how their kids are wired, because aligning parenting strategies with kids’ temperaments can make them more effective.

Back to Brooks’ essay. To support his argument that parents don’t matter, Brooks also mentions a 2021 study  that investigated the link between specific parenting behaviors and personality. Brooks described this study as showing that “in most aspects, parenting mattered about as much as birth order—which is to say, its effect was little to none.”

Yet, in the very next paragraph, Brooks highlights two important exceptions: The personality traits of conscientiousness and agreeableness were shaped by parenting. Conscientiousness was found to be shaped by parent involvement in kids’ lives and how much cultural stimulation parents provided, and agreeableness was shaped by how much structure the parents provided—did they make their kids do their homework, etc.?—and parents’ goals.

Conscientiousness and agreeableness are among the personality traits I care about most because they most closely align with being a good human being—and this study, which Brooks cites as evidence that parenting doesn’t matter, suggests to me that parenting does matter for these traits. Other studies have reported that the environment plays an important role in shaping social values too.

It’s also worth highlighting that this 2021 study looked only at how personality traits were shaped by four specific parenting factors: parental goals, parental involvement in their kids’ school, parental structure, and parental cultural stimulation. The study didn’t investigate the impact of so many other things we as parents do, such as the conversations we have with our kids and how we engage with their emotions (which, research suggests,  do matter when it comes to the development of children’s moral values).

So, even if the study had found no relationship between those four parenting dimensions and child personality traits, it would still be inaccurate and misleading to conclude that parenting doesn’t matter. The study looked at just a very small slice of what parents do.

As an aside, I find it interesting that most of the recent essays   I’ve come across  that argue that parents don’t matter have been written by men, who are often less involved in parenting. Maybe there’s a bit of rationalization going on?  It’s fine that I’m not doing much at home—parenting doesn’t matter!  Or maybe it makes sense: If men aren’t all that involved in child-rearing, then of course they will not have that much of an influence on their children. Research does suggest that kids learn more values from their  mothers and grandmothers  than from their fathers and grandfathers.

Still, these essays rub me the wrong way, and not just because they overgeneralize and cherry-pick the science. They feel like yet another way to undermine the hard, important work that women typically do. (Brooks also wrote an essay  on marriage last year that argued that couples shouldn’t attempt to split domestic duties equally because doing so “militates against one of the most important elements of love: generosity—a willingness to give more than your share in a spirit of abundance, because giving to someone you care for is pleasurable in itself.” OK, dude.) I can’t help but point out that the “Nature matters more than nurture” argument has long been used to support racism too.

Let me circle back to Brooks’ overarching point. Brooks argues that it’s OK for us to make mistakes as parents because what we do doesn’t make much of a difference. I disagree: I think it’s OK for us to make mistakes because parenting does matter. Mistakes are opportunities for growth and education. When we screw up, we teach our kids many important things. We teach them that all humans are works in progress and that we should strive to learn and grow throughout our lives. We model for them how to apologize, be humble, and take responsibility for our actions. We teach them that life is often more complex and messy and beautiful than we expect it to be—and that, I believe, is a good thing.