nature vs. nurture college essay

Nature vs. Nurture Debate In Psychology

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

The nature vs. nurture debate in psychology concerns the relative importance of an individual’s innate qualities (nature) versus personal experiences (nurture) in determining or causing individual differences in physical and behavioral traits. While early theories favored one factor over the other, contemporary views recognize a complex interplay between genes and environment in shaping behavior and development.

Key Takeaways

• Nature is what we think of as pre-wiring and is influenced by genetic inheritance and other biological factors.
• Nurture is generally taken as the influence of external factors after conception, e.g., the product of exposure, life experiences, and learning on an individual.
• Behavioral genetics has enabled psychology to quantify the relative contribution of nature and nurture concerning specific psychological traits.
• Instead of defending extreme nativist or nurturist views, most psychological researchers are now interested in investigating how nature and nurture interact in a host of qualitatively different ways.
• For example, epigenetics is an emerging area of research that shows how environmental influences affect the expression of genes.

The nature-nurture debate is concerned with the relative contribution that both influences make to human behavior, such as personality, cognitive traits, temperament and psychopathology.

Examples of Nature vs. Nurture

Nature vs. nurture in child development.

In child development, the nature vs. nurture debate is evident in the study of language acquisition . Researchers like Chomsky (1957) argue that humans are born with an innate capacity for language (nature), known as universal grammar, suggesting that genetics play a significant role in language development.

Conversely, the behaviorist perspective, exemplified by Skinner (1957), emphasizes the role of environmental reinforcement and learning (nurture) in language acquisition.

Twin studies have provided valuable insights into this debate, demonstrating that identical twins raised apart may share linguistic similarities despite different environments, suggesting a strong genetic influence (Bouchard, 1979)

However, environmental factors, such as exposure to language-rich environments, also play a crucial role in language development, highlighting the intricate interplay between nature and nurture in child development.

Nature vs. Nurture in Personality Development

The nature vs. nurture debate in personality psychology centers on the origins of personality traits. Twin studies have shown that identical twins reared apart tend to have more similar personalities than fraternal twins, indicating a genetic component to personality (Bouchard, 1994).

However, environmental factors, such as parenting styles, cultural influences, and life experiences, also shape personality.

For example, research by Caspi et al. (2003) demonstrated that a particular gene (MAOA) can interact with childhood maltreatment to increase the risk of aggressive behavior in adulthood.

This highlights that genetic predispositions and environmental factors contribute to personality development, and their interaction is complex and multifaceted.

Nature vs. Nurture in Mental Illness Development

The nature vs. nurture debate in mental health explores the etiology of depression. Genetic studies have identified specific genes associated with an increased vulnerability to depression, indicating a genetic component (Sullivan et al., 2000).

However, environmental factors, such as adverse life events and chronic stress during childhood, also play a significant role in the development of depressive disorders (Dube et al.., 2002; Keller et al., 2007)

The diathesis-stress model posits that individuals inherit a genetic predisposition (diathesis) to a disorder, which is then activated or exacerbated by environmental stressors (Monroe & Simons, 1991).

This model illustrates how nature and nurture interact to influence mental health outcomes.

Nature vs. Nurture of Intelligence

The nature vs. nurture debate in intelligence examines the relative contributions of genetic and environmental factors to cognitive abilities.

Intelligence is highly heritable, with about 50% of variance in IQ attributed to genetic factors, based on studies of twins, adoptees, and families (Plomin & Spinath, 2004).

Heritability of intelligence increases with age, from about 20% in infancy to as high as 80% in adulthood, suggesting amplifying effects of genes over time.

However, environmental influences, such as access to quality education and stimulating environments, also significantly impact intelligence.

Shared environmental influences like family background are more influential in childhood, whereas non-shared experiences are more important later in life.

Research by Flynn (1987) showed that average IQ scores have increased over generations, suggesting that environmental improvements, known as the Flynn effect , can lead to substantial gains in cognitive abilities.

Molecular genetics provides tools to identify specific genes and understand their pathways and interactions. However, progress has been slow for complex traits like intelligence. Identified genes have small effect sizes (Plomin & Spinath, 2004).

Overall, intelligence results from complex interplay between genes and environment over development. Molecular genetics offers promise to clarify these mechanisms. The nature vs nurture debate is outdated – both play key roles.

Nativism (Extreme Nature Position)

It has long been known that certain physical characteristics are biologically determined by genetic inheritance.

Color of eyes, straight or curly hair, pigmentation of the skin, and certain diseases (such as Huntingdon’s chorea) are all a function of the genes we inherit.

These facts have led many to speculate as to whether psychological characteristics such as behavioral tendencies, personality attributes, and mental abilities are also “wired in” before we are even born.

Those who adopt an extreme hereditary position are known as nativists.  Their basic assumption is that the characteristics of the human species as a whole are a product of evolution and that individual differences are due to each person’s unique genetic code.

In general, the earlier a particular ability appears, the more likely it is to be under the influence of genetic factors. Estimates of genetic influence are called heritability.

Examples of extreme nature positions in psychology include Chomsky (1965), who proposed language is gained through the use of an innate language acquisition device. Another example of nature is Freud’s theory of aggression as being an innate drive (called Thanatos).

Characteristics and differences that are not observable at birth, but which emerge later in life, are regarded as the product of maturation. That is to say, we all have an inner “biological clock” which switches on (or off) types of behavior in a pre-programmed way.

The classic example of the way this affects our physical development are the bodily changes that occur in early adolescence at puberty.

However, nativists also argue that maturation governs the emergence of attachment in infancy , language acquisition , and even cognitive development .

Empiricism (Extreme Nurture Position)

At the other end of the spectrum are the environmentalists – also known as empiricists (not to be confused with the other empirical/scientific  approach ).

Their basic assumption is that at birth, the human mind is a tabula rasa (a blank slate) and that this is gradually “filled” as a result of experience (e.g., behaviorism ).

From this point of view, psychological characteristics and behavioral differences that emerge through infancy and childhood are the results of learning.  It is how you are brought up (nurture) that governs the psychologically significant aspects of child development and the concept of maturation applies only to the biological.

For example, Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory states that aggression is learned from the environment through observation and imitation. This is seen in his famous bobo doll experiment (Bandura, 1961).

Also, Skinner (1957) believed that language is learned from other people via behavior-shaping techniques.

Evidence for Nature

• Biological Approach
• Biology of Gender
• Medical Model

Freud (1905) stated that events in our childhood have a great influence on our adult lives, shaping our personality.

He thought that parenting is of primary importance to a child’s development , and the family as the most important feature of nurture was a common theme throughout twentieth-century psychology (which was dominated by environmentalists’ theories).

Behavioral Genetics

Researchers in the field of behavioral genetics study variation in behavior as it is affected by genes, which are the units of heredity passed down from parents to offspring.

“We now know that DNA differences are the major systematic source of psychological differences between us. Environmental effects are important but what we have learned in recent years is that they are mostly random – unsystematic and unstable – which means that we cannot do much about them.” Plomin (2018, xii)

Behavioral genetics has enabled psychology to quantify the relative contribution of nature and nurture with regard to specific psychological traits. One way to do this is to study relatives who share the same genes (nature) but a different environment (nurture). Adoption acts as a natural experiment which allows researchers to do this.

Empirical studies have consistently shown that adoptive children show greater resemblance to their biological parents, rather than their adoptive, or environmental parents (Plomin & DeFries, 1983; 1985).

Another way of studying heredity is by comparing the behavior of twins, who can either be identical (sharing the same genes) or non-identical (sharing 50% of genes). Like adoption studies, twin studies support the first rule of behavior genetics; that psychological traits are extremely heritable, about 50% on average.

The Twins in Early Development Study (TEDS) revealed correlations between twins on a range of behavioral traits, such as personality (empathy and hyperactivity) and components of reading such as phonetics (Haworth, Davis, Plomin, 2013; Oliver & Plomin, 2007; Trouton, Spinath, & Plomin, 2002).

Implications

Jenson (1969) found that the average I.Q. scores of black Americans were significantly lower than whites he went on to argue that genetic factors were mainly responsible – even going so far as to suggest that intelligence is 80% inherited.

The storm of controversy that developed around Jenson’s claims was not mainly due to logical and empirical weaknesses in his argument. It was more to do with the social and political implications that are often drawn from research that claims to demonstrate natural inequalities between social groups.

For many environmentalists, there is a barely disguised right-wing agenda behind the work of the behavioral geneticists.  In their view, part of the difference in the I.Q. scores of different ethnic groups are due to inbuilt biases in the methods of testing.

More fundamentally, they believe that differences in intellectual ability are a product of social inequalities in access to material resources and opportunities.  To put it simply children brought up in the ghetto tend to score lower on tests because they are denied the same life chances as more privileged members of society.

Now we can see why the nature-nurture debate has become such a hotly contested issue.  What begins as an attempt to understand the causes of behavioral differences often develops into a politically motivated dispute about distributive justice and power in society.

What’s more, this doesn’t only apply to the debate over I.Q.  It is equally relevant to the psychology of sex and gender , where the question of how much of the (alleged) differences in male and female behavior is due to biology and how much to culture is just as controversial.

Polygenic Inheritance

Rather than the presence or absence of single genes being the determining factor that accounts for psychological traits, behavioral genetics has demonstrated that multiple genes – often thousands, collectively contribute to specific behaviors.

Thus, psychological traits follow a polygenic mode of inheritance (as opposed to being determined by a single gene). Depression is a good example of a polygenic trait, which is thought to be influenced by around 1000 genes (Plomin, 2018).

This means a person with a lower number of these genes (under 500) would have a lower risk of experiencing depression than someone with a higher number.

The Nature of Nurture

Nurture assumes that correlations between environmental factors and psychological outcomes are caused environmentally. For example, how much parents read with their children and how well children learn to read appear to be related. Other examples include environmental stress and its effect on depression.

However, behavioral genetics argues that what look like environmental effects are to a large extent really a reflection of genetic differences (Plomin & Bergeman, 1991).

People select, modify and create environments correlated with their genetic disposition. This means that what sometimes appears to be an environmental influence (nurture) is a genetic influence (nature).

So, children that are genetically predisposed to be competent readers, will be happy to listen to their parents read them stories, and be more likely to encourage this interaction.

Interaction Effects

However, in recent years there has been a growing realization that the question of “how much” behavior is due to heredity and “how much” to the environment may itself be the wrong question.

Take intelligence as an example. Like almost all types of human behavior, it is a complex, many-sided phenomenon which reveals itself (or not!) in a great variety of ways.

The “how much” question assumes that psychological traits can all be expressed numerically and that the issue can be resolved in a quantitative manner.

Heritability statistics revealed by behavioral genetic studies have been criticized as meaningless, mainly because biologists have established that genes cannot influence development independently of environmental factors; genetic and nongenetic factors always cooperate to build traits. The reality is that nature and culture interact in a host of qualitatively different ways (Gottlieb, 2007; Johnston & Edwards, 2002).

Instead of defending extreme nativist or nurturist views, most psychological researchers are now interested in investigating how nature and nurture interact.

For example, in psychopathology , this means that both a genetic predisposition and an appropriate environmental trigger are required for a mental disorder to develop. For example, epigenetics state that environmental influences affect the expression of genes.

What is Epigenetics?

Epigenetics is the term used to describe inheritance by mechanisms other than through the DNA sequence of genes. For example, features of a person’s physical and social environment can effect which genes are switched-on, or “expressed”, rather than the DNA sequence of the genes themselves.

Stressors and memories can be passed through small RNA molecules to multiple generations of offspring in ways that meaningfully affect their behavior.

One such example is what is known as the Dutch Hunger Winter, during last year of the Second World War. What they found was that children who were in the womb during the famine experienced a life-long increase in their chances of developing various health problems compared to children conceived after the famine.

Epigenetic effects can sometimes be passed from one generation to the next, although the effects only seem to last for a few generations. There is some evidence that the effects of the Dutch Hunger Winter affected grandchildren of women who were pregnant during the famine.

Therefore, it makes more sense to say that the difference between two people’s behavior is mostly due to hereditary factors or mostly due to environmental factors.

This realization is especially important given the recent advances in genetics, such as polygenic testing.  The Human Genome Project, for example, has stimulated enormous interest in tracing types of behavior to particular strands of DNA located on specific chromosomes.

If these advances are not to be abused, then there will need to be a more general understanding of the fact that biology interacts with both the cultural context and the personal choices that people make about how they want to live their lives.

There is no neat and simple way of unraveling these qualitatively different and reciprocal influences on human behavior.

Epigenetics: Licking Rat Pups

Michael Meaney and his colleagues at McGill University in Montreal, Canada conducted the landmark epigenetic study on mother rats licking and grooming their pups.

This research found that the amount of licking and grooming received by rat pups during their early life could alter their epigenetic marks and influence their stress responses in adulthood.

Pups that received high levels of maternal care (i.e., more licking and grooming) had a reduced stress response compared to those that received low levels of maternal care.

Meaney’s work with rat maternal behavior and its epigenetic effects has provided significant insights into the understanding of early-life experiences, gene expression, and adult behavior.

It underscores the importance of the early-life environment and its long-term impacts on an individual’s mental health and stress resilience.

Epigenetics: The Agouti Mouse Study

Waterland and Jirtle’s 2003 study on the Agouti mouse is another foundational work in the field of epigenetics that demonstrated how nutritional factors during early development can result in epigenetic changes that have long-lasting effects on phenotype.

In this study, they focused on a specific gene in mice called the Agouti viable yellow (A^vy) gene. Mice with this gene can express a range of coat colors, from yellow to mottled to brown.

This variation in coat color is related to the methylation status of the A^vy gene: higher methylation is associated with the brown coat, and lower methylation with the yellow coat.

Importantly, the coat color is also associated with health outcomes, with yellow mice being more prone to obesity, diabetes, and tumorigenesis compared to brown mice.

Waterland and Jirtle set out to investigate whether maternal diet, specifically supplementation with methyl donors like folic acid, choline, betaine, and vitamin B12, during pregnancy could influence the methylation status of the A^vy gene in offspring.

Key findings from the study include:

Dietary Influence : When pregnant mice were fed a diet supplemented with methyl donors, their offspring had an increased likelihood of having the brown coat color. This indicated that the supplemented diet led to an increased methylation of the A^vy gene.

Health Outcomes : Along with the coat color change, these mice also had reduced risks of obesity and other health issues associated with the yellow phenotype.

Transgenerational Effects : The study showed that nutritional interventions could have effects that extend beyond the individual, affecting the phenotype of the offspring.

The implications of this research are profound. It highlights how maternal nutrition during critical developmental periods can have lasting effects on offspring through epigenetic modifications, potentially affecting health outcomes much later in life.

The study also offers insights into how dietary and environmental factors might contribute to disease susceptibility in humans.

Bandura, A. Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1961). Transmission of aggression through the imitation of aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 63, 575-582

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bouchard, T. J. (1994). Genes, Environment, and Personality. Science, 264 (5166), 1700-1701.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment. Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Loss . New York: Basic Books.

Caspi, A., Sugden, K., Moffitt, T. E., Taylor, A., Craig, I. W., Harrington, H., … & Poulton, R. (2003). Influence of life stress on depression: moderation by a polymorphism in the 5-HTT gene.  Science ,  301 (5631), 386-389.

Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. Mouton de Gruyter.

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax . MIT Press.

Dube, S. R., Anda, R. F., Felitti, V. J., Edwards, V. J., & Croft, J. B. (2002). Adverse childhood experiences and personal alcohol abuse as an adult.  Addictive Behaviors ,  27 (5), 713-725.

Flynn, J. R. (1987). Massive IQ gains in 14 nations: What IQ tests really measure.  Psychological Bulletin ,  101 (2), 171.

Freud, S. (1905). Three essays on the theory of sexuality . Se, 7.

Galton, F. (1883). Inquiries into human faculty and its development . London: J.M. Dent & Co.

Gottlieb, G. (2007). Probabilistic epigenesis.   Developmental Science, 10 , 1–11.

Haworth, C. M., Davis, O. S., & Plomin, R. (2013). Twins Early Development Study (TEDS): a genetically sensitive investigation of cognitive and behavioral development from childhood to young adulthood . Twin Research and Human Genetics, 16(1) , 117-125.

Jensen, A. R. (1969). How much can we boost I.Q. and scholastic achievement? Harvard Educational Review, 33 , 1-123.

Johnston, T. D., & Edwards, L. (2002). Genes, interactions, and the development of behavior . Psychological Review , 109, 26–34.

Keller, M. C., Neale, M. C., & Kendler, K. S. (2007). Association of different adverse life events with distinct patterns of depressive symptoms.  American Journal of Psychiatry ,  164 (10), 1521-1529.

Monroe, S. M., & Simons, A. D. (1991). Diathesis-stress theories in the context of life stress research: implications for the depressive disorders.  Psychological Bulletin ,  110 (3), 406.

Oliver, B. R., & Plomin, R. (2007). Twins” Early Development Study (TEDS): A multivariate, longitudinal genetic investigation of language, cognition and behavior problems from childhood through adolescence . Twin Research and Human Genetics, 10(1) , 96-105.

Petrill, S. A., Plomin, R., Berg, S., Johansson, B., Pedersen, N. L., Ahern, F., & McClearn, G. E. (1998). The genetic and environmental relationship between general and specific cognitive abilities in twins age 80 and older.  Psychological Science ,  9 (3), 183-189.

Plomin, R., & Petrill, S. A. (1997). Genetics and intelligence: What’s new?.  Intelligence ,  24 (1), 53-77.

Plomin, R. (2018). Blueprint: How DNA makes us who we are . MIT Press.

Plomin, R., & Bergeman, C. S. (1991). The nature of nurture: Genetic influence on “environmental” measures. behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14(3) , 373-386.

Plomin, R., & DeFries, J. C. (1983). The Colorado adoption project. Child Development , 276-289.

Plomin, R., & DeFries, J. C. (1985). The origins of individual differences in infancy; the Colorado adoption project. Science, 230 , 1369-1371.

Plomin, R., & Spinath, F. M. (2004). Intelligence: genetics, genes, and genomics.  Journal of personality and social psychology ,  86 (1), 112.

Plomin, R., & Von Stumm, S. (2018). The new genetics of intelligence.  Nature Reviews Genetics ,  19 (3), 148-159.

Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior . Acton, MA: Copley Publishing Group.

Sullivan, P. F., Neale, M. C., & Kendler, K. S. (2000). Genetic epidemiology of major depression: review and meta-analysis.  American Journal of Psychiatry ,  157 (10), 1552-1562.

Szyf, M., Weaver, I. C., Champagne, F. A., Diorio, J., & Meaney, M. J. (2005). Maternal programming of steroid receptor expression and phenotype through DNA methylation in the rat .  Frontiers in neuroendocrinology ,  26 (3-4), 139-162.

Trouton, A., Spinath, F. M., & Plomin, R. (2002). Twins early development study (TEDS): a multivariate, longitudinal genetic investigation of language, cognition and behavior problems in childhood . Twin Research and Human Genetics, 5(5) , 444-448.

Waterland, R. A., & Jirtle, R. L. (2003). Transposable elements: targets for early nutritional effects on epigenetic gene regulation . Molecular and cellular biology, 23 (15), 5293-5300.

Further Information

• Genetic & Environmental Influences on Human Psychological Differences

Evidence for Nurture

• Classical Conditioning
• Little Albert Experiment
• Operant Conditioning
• Behaviorism
• Social Learning Theory
• Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory
• Social Roles
• Attachment Styles
• The Hidden Links Between Mental Disorders
• Visual Cliff Experiment
• Behavioral Genetics, Genetics, and Epigenetics
• Epigenetics
• Is Epigenetics Inherited?
• Physiological Psychology
• Bowlby’s Maternal Deprivation Hypothesis
• So is it nature not nurture after all?

Evidence for an Interaction

• Genes, Interactions, and the Development of Behavior
• Agouti Mouse Study
• Biological Psychology

What does nature refer to in the nature vs. nurture debate?

In the nature vs. nurture debate, “nature” refers to the influence of genetics, innate qualities, and biological factors on human development, behavior, and traits. It emphasizes the role of hereditary factors in shaping who we are.

What does nurture refer to in the nature vs. nurture debate?

In the nature vs. nurture debate, “nurture” refers to the influence of the environment, upbringing, experiences, and social factors on human development, behavior, and traits. It emphasizes the role of external factors in shaping who we are.

Why is it important to determine the contribution of heredity (nature) and environment (nurture) in human development?

Determining the contribution of heredity and environment in human development is crucial for understanding the complex interplay between genetic factors and environmental influences. It helps identify the relative significance of each factor, informing interventions, policies, and strategies to optimize human potential and address developmental challenges.

• 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
• 2023 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."

• Type 2 Diabetes
• Heart Disease
• Digestive Health
• Multiple Sclerosis
• COVID-19 Vaccines
• Occupational Therapy
• Healthy Aging
• 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.

Nature vs. Nurture

Reviewed by Psychology Today Staff

The expression “nature vs. nurture” describes the question of how much a person's characteristics are formed by either “nature” or “nurture.” “Nature” means innate biological factors (namely genetics ), while “nurture” can refer to upbringing or life experience more generally.

Traditionally, “nature vs. nurture” has been framed as a debate between those who argue for the dominance of one source of influence or the other, but contemporary experts acknowledge that both “nature” and “nurture” play a role in psychological development and interact in complex ways.

• The Meaning of Nature vs. Nurture
• The Nature-vs.-Nurture Debate
• Identifying Genetic and Environmental Factors

The wording of the phrase “nature vs. nurture” makes it seem as though human individuality— personality traits, intelligence , preferences, and other characteristics—must be based on either the genes people are born with or the environment in which they grew up. The reality, as scientists have shown, is more complicated, and both these and other factors can help account for the many ways in which individuals differ from each other.

The words “nature” and “nurture” themselves can be misleading. Today, “ genetics ” and “environment” are frequently used in their place—with one’s environment including a broader range of experiences than just the nurturing received from parents or caregivers. Further, nature and nurture (or genetics and environment) do not simply compete to influence a person, but often interact with each other; “nature and nurture” work together. Finally, individual differences do not entirely come down to a person’s genetic code or developmental environment—to some extent, they emerge due to messiness in the process of development as well.

A person’s biological nature can affect a person’s experience of the environment. For example, a person with a genetic disposition toward a particular trait, such as aggressiveness, may be more likely to have particular life experiences (including, perhaps, receiving negative reactions from parents or others). Or, a person who grows up with an inclination toward warmth and sociability may seek out and elicit more positive social responses from peers. These life experiences could, in turn, reinforce an individual’s initial tendencies. Nurture or life experience more generally may also modify the effects of nature—for example, by expanding or limiting the extent to which a naturally bright child receives encouragement, access to quality education , and opportunities for achievement.

Epigenetics—the science of modifications in how genes are expressed— illustrates the complex interplay between “nature” and “nurture.” An individual’s environment, including factors such as early-life adversity, may result in changes in the way that parts of a person’s genetic code are “read.” While these epigenetic changes do not override the important influence of genes in general, they do constitute additional ways in which that influence is filtered through “nurture” or the environment.

Theorists and researchers have long battled over whether individual traits and abilities are inborn or are instead forged by experiences after birth. The debate has had broad implications: The real or perceived sources of a person’s strengths and vulnerabilities matter for fields such as education, philosophy , psychiatry , and clinical psychology. Today’s consensus—that individual differences result from a combination of inherited and non-genetic factors—strikes a more nuanced middle path between nature- or nurture-focused extremes.

The debate about nature and nurture has roots that stretch back at least thousands of years, to Ancient Greek theorizing about the causes of personality. During the modern era, theories emphasizing the role of either learning and experience or biological nature have risen and fallen in prominence—with genetics gaining increasing acknowledgment as an important (though not exclusive) influence on individual differences in the later 20th century and beyond.

“Nature versus nurture” was used by English scientist Francis Galton. In 1874, he published the book English Men of Science: Their Nature and Nurture , arguing that inherited factors were responsible for intelligence and other characteristics.

Genetic determinism emphasizes the importance of an individual’s nature in development. It is the view that genetics is largely or totally responsible for an individual’s psychological characteristics and behavior. The term “biological determinism” is often used synonymously.

The blank slate (or “tabula rasa”) view of the mind emphasizes the importance of nurture and the environment. Notably described by English philosopher John Locke in the 1600s, it proposed that individuals are born with a mind like an unmarked chalkboard and that its contents are based on experience and learning. In the 20th century, major branches of psychology proposed a primary role for nurture and experience , rather than nature, in development, including Freudian psychoanalysis and behaviorism.

Modern scientific methods have allowed researchers to advance further in understanding the complex relationships between genetics, life experience, and psychological characteristics, including mental health conditions and personality traits. Overall, the findings of contemporary studies underscore that with some exceptions—such as rare diseases caused by mutations in a single gene—no one factor, genetic or environmental, solely determines how a characteristic develops.

Scientists use multiple approaches to estimate how important genetics are for any given trait, but one of the most influential is the twin study. While identical (or monozygotic) twins share the same genetic code, fraternal (or dizygotic) twins share about 50 percent of the same genes, like typical siblings. Scientists are able to estimate the degree to which the variation in a particular trait, like extraversion , is explained by genetics in part by analyzing how similar identical twins are on that trait, compared to fraternal twins. ( These studies do have limitations, and estimates based on one population may not closely reflect all other populations.) 

It’s hard to call either “nature” or “nurture,” genes or the environment, more important to human psychology. The impact of one set of factors or the other depends on the characteristic, with some being more strongly related to one’s genes —for instance, autism appears to be more heritable than depression . But in general, psychological traits are shaped by a balance of interacting genetic and non-genetic influences.

Both genes and environmental factors can contribute to a person developing mental illness. Research finds that a major part of the variation in the risk for psychiatric conditions such as autism spectrum disorder, anxiety disorders, depression, and schizophrenia can be attributed to genetic differences. But not all of that risk is genetic, and life experiences, such as early-life abuse or neglect, may also affect risk of mental illness (and some individuals, based on their genetics, are likely more susceptible to environmental effects than others).

Like other psychological characteristics, personality is partly heritable. Research suggests less than half of the difference between people on measures of personality traits can be attributed to genes (one recent overall estimate is 40 percent). Non-genetic factors appear to be responsible for an equal or greater portion of personality differences between individuals. Some theorize that the social roles people adopt and invest in as they mature are among the more important non-genetic factors in personality development.

The latest findings on genetics reveals how genes may affect the risk for substance use disorders, and how they can help predict which treatment will work.

How do we make sense of new experiences? Ultimately, it's about how we categorize them—which we often do by "lumping" or "splitting" them.

How are twin studies used to answer questions related to the nature-and-nurture debate?

All I ask of strangers in the store—don't judge me as being less competent because my hair is grey and my skin well-textured. I’m just out doing my best, as we all are.

The new Biophilia Reactivity Hypothesis argues our attraction to the natural world is not an instinct but a measurable temperament trait.

A Personal Perspective: How can Adam Grant's newest book help OCD sufferers? In more ways than you think.

Do selfish genes mean that humans are designed to be selfish?

Are classical musicians more "craft" and jazz musicians more "creative"? A question for debate.

Where all beliefs and behavior come from.

Many people will outlive their money because of not saving for the future. Sadly, many people are also going to run out of health before they run out of life. Here's how not to.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Teletherapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Coronavirus Disease 2019
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

• 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: 24 April 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [66.249.64.20|162.248.224.4]
• 162.248.224.4

Character limit 500 /500

Home — Essay Samples — Psychology — Nature Versus Nurture — The Nature vs Nurture Debate

The Nature Vs Nurture Debate

• Categories: Nature Versus Nurture

About this sample

Words: 603 |

Published: Jan 29, 2024

Words: 603 | Page: 1 | 4 min read

Table of contents

Nature argument, nurture argument, interactionist perspective, criticisms and limitations of the debate.

• One of the most compelling examples of genetic influences on behavior is the study of identical twins. Identical twins share the same genes and were commonly separated at birth, yet they often display remarkable similarities in personality traits, interests, and even medical conditions.
• Genetic factors can lead to the onset of psychological disorders such as Autism and Schizophrenia.
• Evolution and natural selection have created inherited traits such as physical characteristics that enable humans to adapt to their environments.
• Early childhood experiences can heavily influence an individual’s cognitive development. Studies have shown that a nurturing environment positively contributes to intellectual development and conversely, poverty and violence negatively impact cognitive development.
• Socialization is a critical environmental factor that shapes one's personality. Cultural norms also deeply influence one's way of thinking, behavior, and personal identity.
• Environmental factors can heavily impact behavior, such as peer pressure and negative societal influences leading to adverse outcomes.
• Genetic factors and environmental factors have both been shown to interact to influence behavior, gene-environment interaction being critical scientific evidence of this.
• Epigenetics, the study of how environmental factors can activate or suppress certain genes, can have impacts on both personality and physical health.
• Plomin, R. (2018). Genetics and life events: The importance of childhood environments for recruitment into ‘nature’s experiments’. Psychological Review, 125(5), 778-791.
• Reiss, D., Neiderhiser, J. M., Hetherington, E. M., & Plomin, R. (2000). The relationship code: Deciphering genetic and social influences on adolescent development. Harvard University Press.
• Jablonka, E., & Raz, G. (2009). Transgenerational Epigenetic Inheritance: Prevalence , Mechanisms, and Implications for the Study of Heredity and Evolution. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 84(2), 131–176.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Psychology

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

4 pages / 1899 words

2 pages / 962 words

3 pages / 1170 words

2 pages / 829 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Nature Versus Nurture

Nature vs nurture has long been a contentious debate within the field of psychology, exploring the influence of genetics and environmental factors on human development. As scholars and researchers continue to delve into this [...]

Throughout history, philosophers and scholars have grappled with the concept of human nature. This essay will explore the three major views of human nature: Tabula Rasa, Innate Goodness, and Evil Inclination. By examining the [...]

An individual's behavior and social interactions are heavily influenced by their attitudes and personality traits. In psychology, attitudes refer to the feelings, beliefs, and behaviors towards a particular object or idea, while [...]

Human growth and development involve a variety of complex processes, periods, and theories that contribute to the understanding of how individuals change and develop over time. In this essay, we will explore the developmental [...]

Nature can be defined as to what abilities we present with at birth, ability can be determined by our genes; including those that we develop with age. Both a biological and evolutionary perspective support the model that our [...]

One of the most controversial scientific debates is the nature vs. nurture conflict. This focuses on whether our genes control and determine the person we are believed to be today, or if our early environment has shaped us into [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Nature vs. Nurture: Exploring the Debate through Essays

By Essaywriter

What traits set a man apart? How important is nature versus nurture? But there has been constant discussion about the various answers to the issue for centuries. The nature vs. nurture essay is one of the most difficult essay types to write.

We all occasionally experience anxiety when writing essays despite keeping quiet during nature vs. nurture debates. Here you will find some great advice on how to polish your essay on nature vs. nurture, along with the nature vs. nurture argument.

The Nature vs Nurture Debate

To better understand the nature vs. nurture controversy, you should first understand the definitions of the following terms:

• The word “nature” refers to a person’s innate characteristics (nativism). Nature describes our DNA most often. As we develop from infancy to adulthood, our personalities may be influenced by the genes we inherit as well as other traits we inherit.
• The term “nurturing” refers to experiences that are personal (empiricism). We are shaped by our surroundings, which is the term “nurture”. As persons, we are shaped by our experiences when we were young, our upbringing, and our interaction with others and with society in general (milieu).

The terms Nativists and empiricists are used to explain people who hold new ideas. Nativists think that a large portion of all people’s behaviors and characteristics are inherited through heredity. Empiricists contend that learning is the primary driver of nearly all behaviors and characteristics.

How much environment and genetics influence a person’s development is the subject of the nature vs. nurture debate. Your genes are products of nature. Your genes will always have an impact on your physical look and personality, regardless of where you were born or raised. Contrary to nurture, which refers to your upbringing or infancy, malnutrition throughout childhood can inhibit growth and prevent someone from developing normally, even if they have the genetics to grow to a normal height.

Both academics and the general public have been baffled by the nature vs. nurture argument, which has led to more ideological confusion than notions of comprehension.

Most often, college students will be given essays on the nature vs. nurture debate with a leaning toward either nutrition or nature as we evaluate this topic for an essay. In reality, it refers to the study of how a person’s character, behavioral traits, and decision-making processes are shaped by nature and nurture, often known as heredity.

Writing Tips for A Nature vs Nurture Essay

Some nature versus nurture essays is effective due to simple, tried-and-true expert advice. Writing an effective argumentative essay on this particular topic requires incorporating novel aspects and conducting adequate research. Here is some advice from experts to consider:

1. Research & Choosing A Stance or Perspective

Start by doing some study and identifying a viewpoint or attitude that motivated you. If it works well for you and shows your personal engagement, it will likely inspire other individuals. Essay themes should not be generic; instead, they should be focused on issues that may be explored. Your writing will be based on the nature vs. nurture essay themes you collected for your study. Essays on this subject can either be argumentative or persuasive because there is currently controversy around it.

2. Creating an Essay’s Outline & Layout

The nature vs. nurture essay will significantly increase your opportunity to show off your analytical skills. You may do this by stating your opinion and outlining your points of view on a certain topic. You must create an essay framework and layout after doing your research and selecting a position. You’ll be able to understand everything effortlessly as a result. Like any other outline, this one for an essay comprises an introduction, a body, and a conclusion.

3. Formatting the Essay & Citing Sources

Make sure your essay on nature vs. nurture includes enough references to back up the academic work. Observe the correct citation style to avoid plagiarism. However, due to the debate, only use citations when necessary, and refrain from using other people’s material as a summary in your final essay. To make the paper stand out as unique and reflect the author’s viewpoint on the issue, combine sources with your own ideas and constantly add your own comments.

4. Tip for Resolving The Nature vs Nurture Debate’s Complexity & Nuance

Although we are aware that both nature and nurture play important roles in human development, we have not yet established which factors contribute more to our development. We all have genetically predetermined traits, even if the nature vs. nurture debate goes on forever. In contrast, we are free to decide where we want to go in life. Instead of the nature vs. nurture debate, many scientists lay greater emphasis on the “nature x nurture” theory. Therefore, nature and nurture are inextricably linked. They cohabit without a clear line dividing them.

Example of Nature vs Nurture Essay Outline

Topic: who has a greater impact on human development, nature or nurture, introduction.

Thesis statement: Nature has less of an impact than nurture. Human growth or development is more affected by nurture than nature.

Main point 1: Humans have a “blank slate” mindset, in which nothing has ever altered their brain processes. From there, the person’s personality and behavior start to take form as they start to interact with different people and go through different life experiences as they mature. There is no pre-existing information at birth.

Main point 2: The experiences one has as a child, not one’s genes, decide whether or not one will have health problems or disorders as an adult.

Main point 3: The development of either negative or positive behavior in a child is determined by nurture, not by nature. If a child’s parents model appropriate behavior for them, the child may pick up on such behavior.

Conclusion: Human growth is more influenced by nurture than by nature. Children have a “blank” mind when they are born, and they must take in as they mature into adults. Depending on their upbringing and culture of environment, they must learn certain habits.

A nature versus nurture essay might initially seem difficult to write. However, you may arrange your essay in a way that makes it simpler to write and more interesting to read by applying these suggestions to this essay sample.

Although this debate has been happening for centuries, it still is a topic of contention for many college students that understanding how to write this essay can be tricky.

At ThePaperExperts.com our academic advisors can guide you and answer any questions you may have regarding essays on Nature vs. Nurture.

Call us at 1-888-774-9994. We’re open around the clock to help college students.

Try us out, and you’ll be glad you did.

Related Post

Leveraging your junior college experience for university success, overcoming challenges and succeeding in the virtual classroom, exploring boundless horizons: a guide to specializing as certified nursing assistants, 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.

Leveraging Military Skills in Academic Assignments

  Take 10% OFF— Expires in h m s Use code save10u during checkout.

Chat with us

• Live Chat Talk to a specialist
• Self-service options
• Search FAQs Fast answers, no waiting
• Ultius 101 New client? Click here
• Messenger  

International support numbers

For reference only, subject to Terms and Fair Use policies.

• How it Works

Learn more about us

• Future writers
• Explore further

Ultius Blog

Sample critical essay on nature vs. nurture.

Select network

There has long been a debate about whether nature or nurture matters more in determining the traits an individual will have. In other words, do genetics or environment play a more formative role in the development of one’s personality? Nature says that our traits are influenced by genetic inheritance and similar biological factors while nurture is meant as the influence of environmental factors after conception.

We know that physical characteristics like eye color, hair color, and height can be attributed to specific genes within our DNA. But what about emotional or behavioral traits?  This sample biological essay from the essay writing services at Ultius examines the question that while some behavioral traits can be traced to certain genes, does our environment play a role in activating those genes?

Our genetic makeup

Science tells us that certain traits are most definitely attributed to genetic causes. Our eye color, skin pigmentation, and certain diseases like Tay-Sachs or Huntingdon’s chorea are all direct results of the genes we inherit from our parents. Other traits to which we can be genetically predisposed include weight, height, life expectancy, hair loss, and vulnerability to certain illnesses (McLeod 2007). Because these characteristics can be definitively connected to our biology, many speculate on whether or not genetic factors can contribute to behavioral tendencies, mental abilities, and personality traits .

Nativists, those who believe that every characteristic we have is determined only by nature, assume that the characteristics of the human species as a whole are simply a product of evolution and that the things that make us unique are a result of our own specific genetic code. They believe that the characteristics that are not observable at birth, such as personality traits, emerge later as the product of maturation.

We each have a biological clock inside us that turns certain behaviors on and off in a way that is preprogrammed from birth. An example of this would be the way our bodies change during puberty. Nativists also believe that:

“maturation governs the emergence of attachment in infancy, language acquisition, and even cognitive development as a whole” (McLeod 2007).

Bowlby’s theory of attachment views the bond between the mother and child as being an innate process that aids in our survival as a species. Likewise, Chomsky believed that language is learned through the use of an innate language acquisition device that all humans are born with (McLeod 2007). In addition, Freud speculated that traits like aggression are engrained in our DNA. 

Fraternal twins as evidence of nature over nurture

Similarly, it is often debated whether or not criminal activity can be linked to a genetic disposition. One of the biggest pieces of supporting evidence for the nature over nurture is the fact that fraternal twins exhibit similar characteristics even when they are raised apart. Often times, these twins will share behavioral traits as if they were raised together in the same place. Mental health is undoubtedly affected by our biological dispositions.

For example, bipolar is approximately five times as likely to develop when there is a family history of the condition (“Nature vs. Nurture Debate”). There are similar statistics available for a wide number of mental health conditions . Researchers also tend to place more emphasis on nature when it comes to addiction. Alcoholism, for example, can recur in families and it has been found that certain genes may influence the development of alcoholism and the way alcohol effects the body.

Alternatively, to nativists, empiricists believe that the human mind is a blank slate at birth and any characteristics we develop are a result of our experiences and environment. With point of view speculates that psychological characteristics and our behavioral tendencies are things we learned during our development. While the concept of maturation applies to the biological development we experience, any psychological growth is a result of the way we are brought up.

Attachment of infants as evidence of nurturing

An example of this would be the way infants form attachment. The formation of attachment is a direct result of the love and attention a child receives. If they are not given love and attention, the attachment will not develop. Similarly, we learn language by mirroring the speech we hear from others.

Our cognitive development is dependent on the environment and civilization in which we are reared (“Nature vs. Nurture”). Bandura’s social learning theory states that aggression is a characteristic that we learn through observation and imitation. In addition, Skinner believed that language is something individuals learn from others via behavioral shaping techniques.

Watson's ideas on environmental learning

John Watson, one of the most well-known psychologists to propose environmental learning as the dominating factor in the nature versus nurture debate, feels that our behavioral traits are purely a result of our surroundings and experiences. He felt that he could condition a new behavior in a child or alter an already existing behavior that is considered to be unfavorable (Sincero 2016).

Watson believed that he could randomly choose any baby out of a group of twelve infants and raise the child to become any type of specialist he chose. He stated that he could train any child to be anything, regardless of the individual’s talents, potentialities, and social groups.

Benefits of nurturing on mental health

Just like nature, nurture affects our mental health, as well. While someone may have a genetic disposition for one condition or another, there still needs to be an environmental trigger for that condition to develop. If there is a genetic indication that a mental condition may develop, the individual can be ‘nurtured’ in a way that can prevent the condition from developing or lessen its severity.

A neuroscientist named James Fallon discovered that he possessed the brain of a psychopath and believed that being raised in a loving and nurturing environment helped ensure that he never fully developed enough sociopathic traits for them to affect his success (“Nature vs. Nurture Debate”).

The foundations of addiction

In a similar way, the basis for addiction is not entirely determined by genetics. Certain environmental aspects, such as the habits of our friends, partners, and parents, can contribute significantly to the development of addiction. A genetic predisposition to alcoholism becomes entirely more significant when the individual in question is frequently exposed to alcohol abuse and comes to view the harmful behavior as normal.

A study conducted at the University of Liverpool found that a family history of mental health conditions was only the second strongest indicator that a mental condition would develop (“Nature vs. Nurture Debate”). The strongest predictor was life events and experiences that contributed to the development of the mental condition, such as abuse, bullying, or childhood trauma.

Meeting in the middle

Today, most people agree that our characteristics are a result of a combination of both nature and nurture. There is enough support for both sides to completely count either side out. For example, if one twin develops schizophrenia gene , the other twin has only a fifty percent chance of also developing the same condition (“Nature vs. Nurture Debate”). Clearly, both nature and nurture can affect the development of certain disorders.

The question then shifted from ‘which one’ to ‘how much?’ We know that both play a role, but which force is more important? Francis Galton was the first to pose this question during the late nineteenth century. A relative of Charles Darwin, he felt that intellectual ability was mostly attributed to genetics and that the tendency for genius to be a familial trait was the result of natural superiority (McLeod 2007).

Like what you're reading? Consider buying an essay from Ultius.

Arthur Jenson on intelligence testing

Many others have agreed throughout history, which has spurred an influx of intelligence testing; in particular, on separated twins and adopted children. Arthur Jenson is an American psychologist who is a modern proponent of nature over nurture. Jenson cites average IQ scores in which black Americans scored significantly lower than white participants and suggested that as much as eighty percent of intelligence is inherited (McLeod 2007).

Not surprisingly, controversy developed surrounding Jenson’s claims due to the logical weakness of his argument. It was widely agreed that his study was tainted by social and political implications that are often drawn from various studies that claim to represent natural inequalities between race and other social groups. Differences in IQ scores between various ethnic groups can be explained by biases in testing methods and social inequalities in access to resources and opportunities (McLeod 2007). Similarly, it is hotly debated whether or not alleged intelligence difference in male versus female results is a consequence of biology or culture.

The importance of both nature and nurture

Now, however, the scientific world has come to understand that trying to place a numerical value on nature and nurture to judge which is more important is not really the right approach (Davies 2001). Intelligence, for example, is a complex human characteristic that can exhibit itself in a wide variety of ways from genius to basic common sense .

By attempting to place quantitative values on the separate factors, we fail to focus on the fact that biology and environment interact in a host of important and intricate ways (Ridley 2003). Today, most people agree that neither biology nor environment act independently of one another. Both are necessary for any characteristic to manifest. Because they are dependent on each other and interact in such a complex manner, it is illogical to attempt to think of them separately. 

How nature and nurture combine in the individual

Rather than defending nativists or empiricists, most psychologists are now more interested in researching the ways in which nature and nurture interact with each other to develop characteristics and traits. In psychotherapy, this means that not only does there need to be a genetic disposition required for mental disorders to develop, but there also needs to be an environmental trigger, as well (Feller 2015).

The recognition of this important relationship is especially important given the genetic advancements made during the twenty-first century. The Human Genome Project and advent of bioengineering sparked wide interest in tracing types of behavior to particular strands of DNA found on certain chromosomes (McLeod 2007). Scientists expect to soon find specific genes that are linked to criminality, alcoholism, and other characteristics.

Stuck with writing?

Ultius can help

Ordering takes 5 minutes

Conclusion 

Psychologists have been debating the influence of nature versus nurture over human characteristics for a very long time. After the scientific world came to recognize that biology and environment both play a role, the emphasis shifted to determining which was more important. Now though, as we have come to truly understand the complexity of the relationship between our genetic dispositions and environmental triggers, we no longer focus on one versus the other, but rather the way they interact with and affect each other.

While it is certainly helpful in the development of certain conditions for there to be a genetic disposition, there almost always needs to be an environmental trigger that causes the characteristic to manifest in an individual. This is only a small part of this complex discussion and an example of what you can expect when you buy a critical essay from Ultius.

Davies, Kevin. “Nature vs. Nurture Revisited.” PBS . WGBH Educational Foundation, 17 Apr. 2001. Web. 14 Apr. 2016.  

Feller, Stephen. “Nature vs. Nurture: It’s a tie, study finds.” UPI . United Press International, Inc., 19 May 2015. Web. 14 Apr. 2016.

McLeod, S.A. “Nature vs. Nurture in Psychology.” Simply Psychology . Simple Psychology, 2007. Web. 14 Apr. 2016. 

“Nature vs. Nurture.” Diffen . Diffen, 2016. Web. 14 Apr. 2016. 

“Nature vs. Nurture Debate”. GoodTherapy.org . GoodTherapy.org, 2016. Web. 14 Apr. 2016. 

Ridley, Matt. “Nature via nurture: Genes, experience, and what makes us human.” APA PsycNET . HarperCollins Publishers, 2003. Web. 14 Apr. 2016. 

Sincero, Sarah Mae. “Nature and Nurture Debate” Explorable . Explorable.com, 2016. Web. 14 Apr. 2016.

https://www.ultius.com/ultius-blog/entry/sample-critical-essay-on-nature-vs-nurture.html

• Chicago Style

Ultius, Inc. "Sample Critical Essay on Nature vs. Nurture." Ultius | Custom Writing and Editing Services. Ultius Blog, 22 Apr. 2016. https://www.ultius.com/ultius-blog/entry/sample-critical-essay-on-nature-vs-nurture.html

Copied to clipboard

Click here for more help with MLA citations.

Ultius, Inc. (2016, April 22). Sample Critical Essay on Nature vs. Nurture. Retrieved from Ultius | Custom Writing and Editing Services, https://www.ultius.com/ultius-blog/entry/sample-critical-essay-on-nature-vs-nurture.html

Click here for more help with APA citations.

Ultius, Inc. "Sample Critical Essay on Nature vs. Nurture." Ultius | Custom Writing and Editing Services. April 22, 2016 https://www.ultius.com/ultius-blog/entry/sample-critical-essay-on-nature-vs-nurture.html.

Click here for more help with CMS citations.

Click here for more help with Turabian citations.

Ultius is the trusted provider of content solutions and matches customers with highly qualified writers for sample writing, academic editing, and business writing. 

Tested Daily

Click to Verify

About The Author

This post was written by Ultius.

• Writer Options
• Custom Writing
• Business Documents
• Support Desk
• +1-800-405-2972
• Submit bug report
• A+ BBB Rating!

Ultius is the trusted provider of content solutions for consumers around the world. Connect with great American writers and get 24/7 support.

© 2024 Ultius, Inc.

• Refund & Cancellation Policy

Free Money For College!

Yeah. You read that right —We're giving away free scholarship money! Our next drawing will be held soon.

Our next winner will receive over $500 in funds. Funds can be used for tuition, books, housing, and/or other school expenses. Apply today for your chance to win!

* We will never share your email with third party advertisers or send you spam.

** By providing my email address, I am consenting to reasonable communications from Ultius regarding the promotion.

Past winner

• Name Samantha M.
• From Pepperdine University '22
• Studies Psychology
• Won $2,000.00
• Award SEED Scholarship
• Awarded Sep. 5, 2018

Thanks for filling that out.

Check your inbox for an email about the scholarship and how to apply.

“Nature vs. Nurture” Debate in Education Essay

The ‘Nature vs. Nurture’ debate holds in several areas of psychology and refers to the question of whether our genes (‘nature’) determine attributes such as intelligence or language aptitude or whether such attributes can be acquired and improved through experience (‘nurture’). The outcome is of great importance for educators since education – together with parental influence – is the main source of experiential learning (Bulmer 2003). In this essay, the concept will be explained based on my own experience and academic research.

Historically, the nature vs. nurture debate began with the publication of Galton’s (1869) study in which he promoted inherited ability in the faculties of thinking and learning. On the same side of the argument, the more recent work by Herrnstein and Murray (1994) was significant in arguing that intelligence is, at least to some extent, inherited.

The theory is based on the assumption that aptitude is dominant in learning and that it is mainly hereditary. Therefore, the aim of education is to separate the naturally able from the less able and to provide each group of students with programs adapted to their talents. In other words, schools should function as if the ‘Bell Curve’ is a natural phenomenon that must be obtained in all learning results and that effort makes little difference (Resnick 1995: 55-62).

IQ tests are there to spread students out on a scale rather than to define what each one should actually work at learning. Teachers assign grades believing that – if everyone were to get an A or B – standards must be too low (and not that uniformly high grades mean everyone worked hard and managed to learn what was taught).

In my high school years, I certainly witnessed how belief in inherited aptitude was self-fulfilling. Students who were held to low expectations did not try to break through that barrier but often accepted the idea that aptitude is what matters and that they have not inherited enough of it – and their performance stayed low.

On the ‘nurture’ side of the argument is the theory of learning behind most educational practices today, based on the work of Thorndike (Faulkner 1998). Thorndike developed practical learning tools (textbooks, tests, curricula, and teacher training) in the belief that knowledge consists of a collection of bonds i.e. links between pairs of mental entities or between an external stimulus and an internal mental response. Learning is just trying to change the strengths of the bonds i.e. increasing the strength of ‘correct’ bonds and decreasing the strength of ‘incorrect’ ones.

In practice, correct bonds are strengthened by rewards, and incorrect ones are weakened through punishment or withholding rewards and create a system where the ‘stamping in’ of correct bonds and the ‘stamping out’ of incorrect ones is enhanced. In my experience, whenever teachers used positive feedback to create ‘enjoyment’ in the learning environment it certainly motivated me to work harder.

Recent evidence from developmental biology claims to have resolved the ‘Nature vs. Nurture’ issue and what this might mean for education practice. According to the Education Commission of the States (1996), research on brain development provides insight for improving the education of young children. The Carnegie Corporation (1994) highlights the fact that the environment affects not only the number of brain cells and the number of connections between them but also the way they are ‘wired’ and evidence points to the negative impact of early stress (a ‘nurture’ factor) on brain function (Carnegie Corporation 1994: 2)

While the brain connections developed before birth are vital, their main purpose is biological and it is during the child’s first months and years of growth and development that nature and nurture combine until they become ‘ intertwined and inseparable’ (Simmons & Sheehan 1997: 6).

At birth, the brain has around 100 billion neurons, which then link together in over 50 trillion synapses (Begley 1997). Afterward – especially in the first three years of life – the brain goes through a number of important changes. Over this period, many more connections among neurons are created than the brain can ever use. Over time, the connections that are rarely or never used disappear (Nash 1997). However, which connections are eliminated is not predetermined and the way in which a child is raised affects how the brain chooses to wire itself for life (Simmons & Sheehan 1997).

I have always believed that children should be encouraged to take advantage of the various windows of opportunity presented to them for healthy development. The research above shows that a child’s brain development suffers if the child is denied the opportunity to live in a stimulating environment. In other words, the research stresses the positive effects of active parenting – something I believe in very strongly – in order to provide children with stimulating experiences (Nash 1997).

In conclusion, this essay has explained the ‘Nature vs. Nurture’ issue providing arguments and evidence for the primacy of both inheritance and environment in learning and thinking. Each side leads to a different approach to education. If we accept the primacy of inheritance, this gives rise to the streaming of students based on their ‘aptitudes’ as revealed by their scores in, for example, IQ tests. Each stream is then taught at a level suitable for their supposed inherited aptitude.

On the other hand, the primacy of the environment leads to education based on ‘associationist’ learning achieved through effort, motivation, and rewards. Recent evidence from developmental biology clearly points to the greater importance of ‘nurture’ in preparing children successfully for thinking and learning. The more stimulating, enjoyable, and interesting we can make their environment, the more they will learn.

Works Cited

Begley, S. “Your child’s brain.” Newsweek 127.8 (1996): 55-61.

Begley, S. “How to build a baby’s brain.” Newsweek 129 (1997): 28-32.

Black, P. “Dreams, Strategies and Systems: portraits of assessment past, present and future.” Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 8.1 (2001): 65-85.

Bulmer, M. Francis Galton: Pioneer of Heredity and Biometry . John Hopkins University Press. 2003.

Carnegie Corporation. “Starting points: Meeting the needs of our youngest children.” Corporation of New York . 1994. Web.

Education Commission of the States . “Brain research and education: Bridging the gap between neuroscience & education.” 1996. Web.

Faulkner, D. Learning Relationships in the Classroom . London: Routledge. 1998.

Galton, Francis. Hereditary Genius, Its Laws and Consequences. London: Macmillan. 1869.

Herrnstein, R. J., and Murray, C. The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life . New York: Free Press. 1996.

Nash, J. M. “Fertile minds.” Time 149.5 (1997): 48-56.

Resnick, L. Education and Learning to Think Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. 2009.

Simmons, T., & Sheehan, R. “Brain research manifests importance of first years” The News & Observer. 1997. Web.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2021, February 5). "Nature vs. Nurture" Debate in Education. https://ivypanda.com/essays/nature-vs-nurture-debate-in-education/

""Nature vs. Nurture" Debate in Education." IvyPanda , 5 Feb. 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/nature-vs-nurture-debate-in-education/.

IvyPanda . (2021) '"Nature vs. Nurture" Debate in Education'. 5 February.

IvyPanda . 2021. ""Nature vs. Nurture" Debate in Education." February 5, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/nature-vs-nurture-debate-in-education/.

1. IvyPanda . ""Nature vs. Nurture" Debate in Education." February 5, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/nature-vs-nurture-debate-in-education/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . ""Nature vs. Nurture" Debate in Education." February 5, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/nature-vs-nurture-debate-in-education/.

• 8 Mile-Working At North Detroit Stamping
• Thorndike’s Approach to Learning and Hull’s Theories
• Intelligence in Two Psychological Journals Written by Thorndike and Hagopian
• Quality Management and Productivity in Organization
• Sheet-Metal Formation Analysis
• Why Must Political Power Have Primacy Over Military Power?
• A Comprehensive Aptitude Test
• A Summary of Operations at Oregon
• Data Protection: Securing Information System
• Scholastic Aptitude Test for College Admissions
• The Efficiencies of Educational Policies
• "Before Teaching Ethics, Stop Kidding Yourself" by Marino Gordon
• Differentiated Instruction and Universal Design of Learning
• Literacy Standards and Reading Instruction Theory
• Montessori Educational Philosophy, Its Pros and Cons

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 […]

College Essay On Nature And Nurture

Throughout my nineteen years of living I have gone through many events and have had many influences, both good and bad. Only a few of these events I would consider significant. I believe that both nature and nurture played a role in these significant events. Nurture had the biggest impact in my life and how I am today. In my personal opinion nature and nurture both had a role in my depression and anxiety disorder. At the end of eight grade I started to get very sick. My gallbladder had stopped functioning properly. I went back and forth to different doctors and the hospital . They would tell me that it is all in my head. We finally found a doctor that believed me, and he ran test on me. It wasn’t in my head, it was really happening to me.

Nature Vs. Nurture In The Divergent Trilogy

One of the oldest debates in the history of Psychology is about Nature versus Nurture. Today, we know that both play a significant role in human’s life. Some people believe that it is genes which affects our way of life and some people believes that it is none other but our environment that greatly influences our lifestyle and some believe that both has tremendous impact on one’s way of life. Indeed in certain cases both our nature (our genes) and our environment roughly play an equal role in human life.

Nature Vs Nurture Essay

How did your temperament flourish? The phrase nature and nurture relates to the relative importance of an individual's innate qualities as compared to an individual's personal experiences in causing individual differences, especially in behavioral traits. This debate is basically deciding if your genetics have more effect on you or society. Hereditary and environmental elements both frame identity. Identical twins are different in many ways. Personality changes over time. Studies have also shown that nurture is more dominant than nature in shaping personality. Nurture is definitely extra dominant in molding your identity.

Nature Vs Nurture Research Paper

Both nature and nurture has influences our personal developments. An example of how nature influenced my personal development is that my dad completed high school and went to college. I think that was a big help with me because I’m doing the same thing. Some people think that nature doesn’t influence person development. People think that because your parents could have dropped out of high school, but you completed high school and went to college. Nurture also can help with personal development because the environment helps you make certain decisions. The people you hang around most are most likely to influence you. If you see your friends doing something that you know is wrong what would you do? Some people will do it too because their friends influence them to do bad things. Others will walk away because their parents are good people and they have the same good traits as their parents. In my personal development both nature and nurture influenced me. Nature because both my mom and dad are quiet people and I feel like that has influenced me because I’m quiet too. There are many other ways that they have influenced me also. Some examples would be working every day to get whatever I need. I see my mom and dad working hard so I feel like I should do the same thing. The environment has influenced me a lot also. An example of how the nurture influenced my

I think that that both nature and nurture play an important role and the way a person turns out. It can either have a positive impact on the individual or a negative

Nature vs. Nurture Essay

One of the most enduring debates in the field of psychology is the controversial idea of nature vs. nurture. Throughout the endless history of the debate, no clear conclusion has been met, only hypotheses have been formed. At the center of the debate, human behaviors, ideas, and feelings are being determined, whether they are learned or inherited. Determining physical traits, such as eye color or hair color, are simple because they are hereditary traits. The idea of having a certain personality, intelligence, or ability is under discussion because scientists cannot determine if these traits are learned, or predetermined by genes.

Nature vs Nurture: Genetics vs Environment Essay

• 2 Works Cited

In my opinion I happen to think nature relies mostly on inherited traits, while nurture relies mostly on time spent improving

Essay on Nature vs Nurture Debate

     Throughout my childhood, I didn't grow up free of environmental influences nor did I develop without being affected by my inherited genetic makeup. I think

Nature Vs Nurture Theory Essay

Q) What was the basis of doctors reasoning to raise David (named Bruce at birth) as a girl? Explain the doctors reasoning in relation to nature versus nurture theories.

In today's society, one will find that there are many different factors that go into the development of a criminal mind, and it is impossible to single out one particular cause of criminal behavior. Criminal behavior often stems from both biological and environmental factors. In many cases criminals share similar physical traits which the general population do not usually have. For example criminals have smaller brains than properly adjusted individuals. However biological reasons cannot solely be the cause of criminal behavior. Therefore, one must look to other sources as to how a criminal mind is developed. Social and environmental factors also are at fault for developing

easily traced as far back as the start of the present century with at least some

From Dr. Money’s perspective, raising Bruce as a girl would allow him to live a “normal” life, if he were to live his life without a penis, he would be seen as an outsider and rejected from society. He also suggested to put Bruce on estrogen, but also surgically give him a cosmetic vagina. Dr. Money explained to Ron and Janet that Bruce/Brenda, would psychologically mature as a woman, and be attracted to men, as well as be able to have sexual intecourse, without a problem. According to Bruce’s parents, there was no reason “that it shouldn’t work” (50). However, they could have thought it out thoroughly, what if Brenda didn’t feel comfortable in her own skin? Would she feel as though something is wrong with her? This is where the topic of

Persuasive Essay On Nature Vs Nurture

I believe nurture influences us more to think and act the way we do. We are all made up of tiny individuals that make up our personality traits defining who and what we are. A person’s personality is determined by nature and nurture, but no one knows how much is determined by nature and how much is determined

Nature And Nurture Controversy

The significance of nature and nurture has been a prolonged debate that has caused quite a controversy and the discoveries made on this topic have made harder to determine which side is the most crucial. Multiple experiments and research studies have been conducted to prove one is better or stronger than the other and they continue to be conducted. As a species, human beings inherited DNA from our ancestors, but what impacts our actions the most is our environment. The predetermined genes are impactful, but it is what one makes of it that shapes oneself. The path is driven by the human being. The way we carry ourselves out is affected by the choices we make, but the way we have evolved mentally comes from the nurturing of our caretakers.

Nature And Nurture In College

Nature and nurture have both affected me in one way or another. Nurture seems like it plays a bigger role in my life. When I wanted to join track my parents would help me with what I needed. They said that if I wanted to I could do it and they always tried to get me to run more but I didn't need to run because after a little bit I wanted to run even more. An example of both nature and nurture would be school both my parents were good in school so when I was born I had some intelligence but they both want me to do better than them in school so they hold my grades above all else. Nature also played a role in me joining track because both my parents did track in high school they were both very good at short distance so am I.

Are Children Affected By Nature Or Nurture?

Nature versus nurture is a commonly debated topic in the scientific world. For example were all child molesters abused as children themselves or are their genes or other factors to blame for their bad decisions? Genes seem to determine much about children, such as eye color and height, but do they also determine behavior and overall health, or is the environment the children were raised in to blame? For example, when a child is misbehaving, is it the parents responsibility to take the blame for their offspring's behavior due to how they have chosen to raise their son or daughter, or is the child's genetic makeup to blame for their faults? Can a child's environment override the genes a child is born with?

Related Topics

• Health care provider

• How It Works
• All Projects
• Write my essay
• Buy essay online
• Custom coursework
• Creative writing
• Custom admission essay
• College essay writers
• IB extended essays
• Buy speech online
• Pay for essays
• College papers
• Do my homework
• Write my paper
• Custom dissertation
• Buy research paper
• Buy dissertation
• Write my dissertation
• Essay for cheap
• Essays for sale
• Non-plagiarized essays
• Buy coursework
• Term paper help
• Buy assignment
• Custom thesis
• Custom research paper
• College paper
• Coursework writing
• Edit my essay
• Nurse essays
• Business essays
• Custom term paper
• Buy college essays
• Buy book report
• Cheap custom essay
• Argumentative essay
• Assignment writing
• Custom book report
• Custom case study
• Doctorate essay
• Finance essay
• Scholarship essays
• Essay topics
• Research paper topics
• Top queries link

Best Nature Essay Examples

Nature versus nurture.

601 words | 3 page(s)

The debate between the importance of nature versus nurture in human development is one that has spanned centuries. Some scientists and researchers believe that human behavior is shaped largely, and sometimes solely, by genetics and factors not related to the environment in which one is raised. On the other hand, are researchers who posit that regardless of genetics and biological factors, setting up certain environments can lead to specific outcomes in humans. One of the most famous experiments which unexpectedly shed light on the topic of nature versus nurture was the Stanford prison experiment. In this study, the researcher took a heterogeneous sample of young, male, college students from Stanford and placed them in a strategically set environment. As a result of these similar backgrounds, assumptions and interpretations can be made about the effect of the environment on behavior.

Phillip Zimbardo, the psychologist behind this experiment, took Hobbes’s primary state of nature, which is a state of war, and used it to fuel his experiment. Phillip Zimbardo conducted this experiment on August 14-20th of 1971, in the United States, at a time before strict ethical laws regarding experiments were enacted. As such, the experiment that he conducted could no longer be considered ethical today. For this experiment, Phillip picked a handful of young, healthy, Stanford college students and randomly assigned them to play the role of either a prisoner or a guard.

Use your promo and get a custom paper on "Nature versus Nurture".

Throughout the entire movie, it is clear that the guards abuse their powers and take advantage of the assigned role of the guard. In particular, this is evident in the first few scenes of the movie where each prisoner is instructed to call the guards by nothing other than “Mr. Correctional Officer.” Those who do not comply with these orders suffer a penalty. In the Stanford prison experiment, after some chose not to comply with the orders, they received certain consequences. Eventually, these prisoners and other prisoners who observed the behaviors and consequences began to shape their own behaviors (as a result of the environment).

During this experiment two factors were at play: behavioral condition techniques and the resulting consequences on the nature versus nurture debate. Zimbardo, with the help of his “prison guards” executed the rules for conditioning very well and the prisoners (who were formerly healthy college students) began to take on the role of a prisoner, following the orders of those in charge. Many behaviors were shaped in these young men as a consequence of being placed in this environment. In particular, they could only eat at a certain time, no matter how hungry they were. Those who resisted were put in “the hole” and others observed the consequences of not following the rules.

In sum, Phillip Zimbardo took a group of 24 young men who had never committed a crime and who had not been previously incarcerated and placed them in an environment which shaped their behaviors in completely different ways. He set up an environment in which they eventually learned to stopped using their names in favor of numbers which were on their shirts. This experiment, though not necessarily designed to test the nature versus nurture debate, can be viewed as an important, real-word example of how environments can have substantial effects on behaviors. Because these college students were healthy and well-functioning prior to the experiment, one could argue that they were on a nearly equal genetic playing field prior to the experiment. As such, conclusions made from this study suggest that the only factor that was changed was the environment, and the environment served to change behaviors in these formerly mentally healthy men.

Have a team of vetted experts take you to the top, with professionally written papers in every area of study.

• 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).

• Good and Bad Experiences with Leadership Essay
• Brexit Essay
• Hurricane Harvey Essay
• U.S. Interest Rates Rise and Fall Essay
• Quantitative and Qualitative Data Analysis Essay
• Police Brutality Essay
• Bullying Essay

Essay Tutorials

• 119 Research Paper Topics to Explore (Updated for 2020)
• Descriptive Essay Topics
• How to Write a Research Paper Introduction (2020 Guide)
• Death Penalty Essay Writing Guide
• How to Write an Exemplification Essay (2020 Guide)
• How to Write a Rhetorical Analysis Essay
• College Essays: Examples, Prompts, and Topics

Student Questions

• What should I write my college essays about?
• How to write an introduction paragraph for an essay
• Which of the following should your thesis statement achieve?
• How to start a research paper
• What is a good metaphor for someone or something that leaves home but in the end they always return – I was writing a college application essay?

Presentations

• Informative Speech Outline
• 77 Amazing Persuasive Speech Topics [Professor Approved]
• Informative Speech Topics (2020 Update)
• Informative Speech on Cyberbullying
• Vitamix Blenders Marketing Communication Plan

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 Essay for Students and Children

500+ words essay on nature vs nurture.

The topic of nature vs nurture is always a great topic of debate among people. There are great men who did work hard to achieve great heights . But still, they are some people who didn’t work that hard yet still managed to be successful.

In other words, it is a debate between hard work and talent. In the grooming of a person, the nurturing is essential. However, still, there are some individuals who were never born in a great environment . Yet by their sense of knowledge and intellectualism created a special place in the hearts of people.

Nature has given us many things in life and one of them is talents. Either we are born as the only individual in our family or it is in our genes. Furthermore, nature plays a vital role in deciding the future of a child. Many singers in this era are born with beautiful voices. They did not need any nurturing. Their talent took them to heights they couldn’t even imagine.

For instance, some of the great legends like Lata Mangeshkar, Asha Bhosle, Kishor Kumar had soulful voices. Also, they were the ones who sang from their childhood days. They started their careers and became successful at a very early age. Moreover, they did not get much teaching but still are the legends of all time.

Apart from singing, there are other talents that nature has given us. Various scientists like Albert Einstein , Isaac Newton , Galileo Galilei, started their work in their teenage years. They had amazing intellectualism, because of which they got recognition in their entire world. Furthermore, these scientists did not get any mentoring. They did everything on their own. Because they had extraordinary intelligence and ambition in life.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

On the other hand, the nurturing of a person is important. Because hard work beats talent. With proper mentoring and practice, a person can achieve success in life. If a person has an environment in which everybody is in the same profession and are successful in it.

Then there is a great chance that the person will land up in the same profession and will achieve heights. Because in that environment he will get proper nurturing.

Furthermore, he will also be able to perform better over the years. “ Hard work always pays off ”. This idiom is always true and nobody can deny that. If a person has true dedication then it can beat talent. Various singers, dancers, musicians, businessmen, entrepreneurs did work really hard for years.

And because of that, they got recognition in the entire world. In these categories, musicians are who achieved heights only with their hard work and constant practice.

It is true that there are no shortcuts to success. Various known legends like Bob Dylon. Lou Reed, Elvis Persley, Michael Jackson worked hard throughout their lives. As a result, they were some of the great personalities in the entire world.

Q1. What is the meaning of nurture?

A1. Nurture means the way a person grooms himself. This is done in order to achieve success. Nurturing is essential in a person’s life because it can be a way a person can cross the barrier and do something great. Moreover nurture also means the mentoring and care a person is getting in an environment.

Q2. What is the difference between Nature and Nurture?

A2. The main difference between nature and nurture is, nature is the talent a person inherits from his parents or is God gifted. While nurturing is hard work and mentoring of a person in a particular field. So that he may excel in that field.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

Download the App