Nature Vs. Nurture Theory

Nature versus Nurture Theory
Jeannette Villatoro
PYB0844A
Dr. Jimletta Vareene-Thomas
November 17, 2008











Nature versus Nurture Theory

Psychology is abundant with many theories of behavioral and mental processes. Some of these theories are contradictory while others compliment one another. It is important to understand all of these theories as well as their relationships with each other in order to study human behavior. Nature versus nurture is a particular theory that questions whether human behavior is predetermined by heredity or influences of the environment (Feldman, 2008). I will explore the theory of nature versus nurture, its effect on life and behavior, and how it applies to normal and abnormal psychology through the study of behavioral genetics.

Exploration of Nature Theory

Nature versus nurture delves into the deepest parallels of psychology as it applies to human nature. Perhaps one of the most sought after questions pertaining to the life cycle, this key issue in psychology asks whether heredity or environmental influences behavior.

Heredity is defined as “the transmission of such qualities from ancestor to descendant through the genes” (Webster, 2008, pg. 1). Behavior through heredity would mean that one’s actions and reactions are based on predetermined qualities from genes. This is a very significant theory, as human impulses and natural reactions to situations are supported by the belief that our genetic code generally alters these behaviors (Kearl, 2008).

Many instinctual behaviors are predetermined by heredity. The natural selection theory is one in which it is considered that “only the strong survive” (Donogan, 2008, pg. 1.) This theory was developed by psychologist Charles Darwin. It emphasizes the role of nature in development and focuses on the drive and needs of human beings. Those who lack little motivation or instincts to survive will have very little chance in being successful. Evolutionary theory suggests that nature has an enormous impact on the development of a child, both in prenatal and postnatal stages. A child may have obtained certain personality or behavioral traits that one parent displays. Bad temper or nervousness may be attributed to genes. But whatever traits or personal qualities that seem abundant through genetics can also be explained through environmental influences. This is what makes the study of psychology so difficult in determining whether nature or nurture presupposes how we mature and develop throughout the course of our lifetime.

Exploration of Nurture Theory

The Nurture theory challenges the nature theory by suggesting human behavior is influenced by one’s environment. How a person is raised, where they live and grow, and the surroundings they are accustomed helps shape them into the person they become. Nurture is defined as “the sum of the environmental factors influencing the behavior and traits expressed by an organism” (Webster, 2008, pg. 1).

If a child grows up in a volatile environment in which that child is poorly cared for, it is very likely that the child will have negative reactions to such an upbringing. Rebellion, anger, and resentment may be factors that affect a child in this situation. They may be less likely to be successful in life, and be prone to drug abuse or other unnatural ways of life. A child who is nurtured, loved, and cared for well is likely to grow up with positive attitudes about the world around them and do well in life. However, this theory cannot support itself on its own as there have been many children who grow up in bad environments that become healthy adults that contribute to society. There are also children who grow up in affluent households that turn to less desirable paths in life or have little drive to be successful. Because of these discrepancies, it is important to attribute both genetic and environmental factors in the development of human beings.

Theoretical Effects on Behavior
With the astounding discoveries of both nature and nurture, the significant exploration should be with how these effect behavior separately and cohesively. It is fairly obvious that it is neither one nor the other that predominantly control the human psyche, but both of these elements that help construct how people behave.


When focusing particular attention on genetics or nature in general, one must focus on several components of development such as instinctual behaviors and biological aspects. Nature theory encompasses the truth that we can “reproduce behaviors in successive generations of organisms” (Mansfield, 2008, pg. 1). The fact that we seek after certain breeds of dogs is an example of this phenomenon. One may desire a hunting dog so they might look for a Labrador Retriever or a Basset Hound, whereas someone who wants a dog with a predetermined trait of being a good watchdog might pursue obtaining a German Shepherd. These are examples of traits that are carried on genetically, and it exemplifies how human beings as well as other species obtain certain characteristics.

When it comes to environmental factors that can be considered nurture, there are certain factors that contribute to this theory such as the parents, schooling, and friends that a person has growing up. These compound issues reflect the importance of childhood and how life is perceived by the child. The role of parents is predominantly important when dealing with environmental influences on behavior and development. It is the parent whom cares for a child, nurtures that child, and provides a home environment. It is through that parent’s behavior that a child is exposed to and learns from. Also, the schooling that a child receives as well as the friends they choose have a major influence on how they behave and react to their environment. A child can come from a positive, loving home with copious religious and moral beliefs for example, and be influenced by friends who abuse drugs, skip school, and engage in sexual behavior. This child will be highly influenced by these external environmental factors and possibly become conflicted or troubled.

Additionally, it is intriguing to witness such phenomenon as a perceived learned behavioral being displayed exceptionally well by two related subjects. For example, Nat King Cole, a famous singer and producer, was known for his spellbinding music and sultry sounds. He changed the face of soul music and erased color lines in the entertainment industry. But beyond his talent at the business, his voice and magic behind the music is what reverberates among generations passed. The amazing quandary is that his daughter, Natalie Cole, has just as much a powerful voice and knack for producing compelling music as her father. Can this be mere coincidence or proof that such talent can be attributed to exceptional genes? Or does nurturing a particular talent that is evident in someone rank over the appearance of that genetic attribute, like how Tiger Wood’s father helped mold him into a winner based on his innate desire to play golf? It is apparent that both theories are necessary for growth and development, but the difficulty lies in discerning which theory wins over the other, even in the slightest terms.

I find this interesting in a personal standpoint because I am a mother. Parenthood is of sole importance in my life and remains the most influential role that I uphold. Being a mother allows me a vast array of perspectives into the ideals of nature versus nurture. I know who my children are; their strengths, weaknesses, and moral behaviors. I see kindness within them and a genuine care for others. All of these qualities they possess display their natural tendencies and are examples of biological factors that would be interpreted as the nature theory of development. I also witness the perils of our environment and how easily my children are influenced by external forces. Violence, sex, and socially unacceptable behavior are all flourishing in society. There are also positive things that children can soak in, yet they are rare. These are examples of the nurture theory as to the environmental forces that can either positively or negatively affect development. To suppose that a child is typically loved and cared for by a parent, it must still be taken into consideration that the peripheral influences of our environment have a huge bearing on how a child develops, and thus these influences essentially help to raise our children. Therefore, it is quite plausible to assume that there is a battle between nature and nurture as they pertain to development, almost as impactful as the battle between good and evil.

Application in Normal and Abnormal Psychology

How nature and nurture affect human behavior also relates to how they apply
to normal and abnormal psychology. This is an important issue to ponder not only for the understanding of individuals but society as a whole. If someone commits adultery, it can easily be argued that it is our natural tendencies as human beings to seek out as many mates as possible. On the other hand, if someone is being tried for murder, it can be suggested that the negative childhood they endured had a significant bearing on the emotional state of the accused and furthermore influenced the behaviors that lead to murder. These kinds of situations are just some examples of the many perplexities that exist in today’s world in relation to theories of
nature versus nurture.

Psychological diseases are also an important aspect of these developmental theories as many try to uncover whether heredity or environment contributes to many afflicting mental illnesses. Such illnesses such as depression and schizophrenia seem to be products of environmental proponents. Yet alcoholism has been studied since the 1970’s and results show that it can possibly be hereditary (Bjornsson, 2008). These anomalies collectively share components that can be attributed to both nature and nurture theories, thus bringing us closer to the understanding that we are affected by heredity just as strongly as our environment.

Homosexuality is another factor that is studied through theories of nature versus nurture. The question still remains whether sexuality is determined through genetics or external dynamics. Homosexuality, which was determined to be a mental illness long ago but was later dropped from that category by the American Psychological Association, is an example of how one’s tendencies or traits can be seemingly affected by both genetic and environmental authority. There has been evidence that certain brain structures differ in homosexual males compared to heterosexual males, such as the hypothalamus and the anterior commissure (Feldman, 2008, pg. 383). It has also been concluded that some people who alter their sexuality in life are influenced by environmental factors that change their views or tendencies toward other genders by way of learning theories and behaviors (Feldman, 2008). It has been proven only that both conceivable theories have impact on homosexuality rather than conclusive evidence toward one in particular.

One way psychologists are trying to understand how nature and nurture theories work within the developmental cycles of human beings is by conducting studies on twins. Identical twins are a sought after source for the study of psychology, particularly in the nature versus nurture theories of development. Identical twins are compelling examples of how one’s environment greatly effects a person’s development despite genetic factors.

Identical twins share the same genes and virtually have the same epigenetic markers. These markers essentially generate the power or effectiveness of certain heredity that is obtained (Bjornsson, 2008). Despite this phenomenon, identical twins change or adapt many traits due to environmental influences such as diet and lifestyle. Even certain diseases such as cancer, schizophrenia, and even obesity can be exposed in one identical twin and not the other (Bjornsson, 2008). This poses a fascinating discovery for psychologists who aim to discern the differences as well as likenesses that heredity and environment pose on development.

As a mother of identical twins, I have noticed amazing displays of both theories in my twins. Although my twin girls are identical in appearance and even share an uncanny amount of likes and dislikes, as they grow and evolve they seem to stray in certain areas. One of my twins likes the color yellow, while the other loves green. One twin is more prone to playing with dolls while the other loves to create artistic pictures and crafts. This is quite interesting because not only do they share the same genes, but they also share the same immediate environment as reflected in their home life. They have the same parents and siblings, the same house, they share the same bedroom with all the same toys, and they are exposed to the same stimuli. Yet, some things influence one twin in a greater capacity than the other and affects how they develop. This fascinating discovery of both personal experience matched with the various studies that have been executed on twins in regards to these theories brings the revelation that “if identical twins display different patterns of development, those differences have to be attributed to variations in the environment in which the twins were raised (Feldman, 2008, pg. 401)”. Yet even so, many identical twins that were raised in different environments due to being adopted into different families show substantial similarities in developmental patterns and choices in life. Again, the push and shove of heredity and environment show that both are quite significant pieces of the puzzle.

Conclusion

Both nature and nurture are fascinating aspects of development and have major influence on how a person develops and functions in life. Many aspects of development such as physical characteristics, intellectual characteristics, and emotional disorders are highly affected by heredity yet still have influence by many environmental issues (Feldman, 2008, pg. 400). However, it is becoming increasingly evident that neither factor is stronger than the other when determining development. A child can be innately born with many admirable qualities that can be tested by environmental influences that will either hinder or promote the progression of such qualities to flourish in society. In other words, nature versus nurture can easily work against each other in certain developmental circumstances. Therefore, psychologists are now accepting that our heredity and environmental influences work best when considered in a marriage of defining the works of human behavior. In essence, it is the balance of nature and nurture that help shape us into whom we are.

References

Bjornsson, H. (2008). Epigenetic markers change over a lifetime. Retrieved November,
28, 2008, from http://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/supported/sep/2008/fallin.cfm.

Donogan, O. (2008). Theory of natural selection. Retrieved November 25, 2008, from
http://www.allaboutscience.org/theory-of-natural-selection-faq.htm.

Feldman, R. (2008). Understanding psychology (8th ed.) Boston: McGraw Hill.
Kearl, M. (2008). Nature v. nurture: how much free will do we really have?. Retrieved November 17, 2008, from http://www.trinity.edu/mkearl/socpsy-2.html.

Mansfield, B. (2008). Behavioral genetics. Retrieved November, 28, 2008, from
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/behavior.shtml.
Webster, (2008). Definition from the Marriam-Webster online dictionary. Retrieved November 17, 2008, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary.