Nature vs. Nurture: Genetics, Environment, and Human Behavior

Introduction

The nature vs. nurture debate is one of the oldest and most enduring questions in psychology: are people pre-destined for their fate in terms of personality, life outcomes, and behavior, or are those outcomes shaped by the environment in which a child grows up and experiences life? This essay describes the basic questions in play and compares two studies that address the nature vs. nurture argument. While nature and nurture both certainly play a part in most lives, the evidence suggests that the answer is usually a combination of the two rather than one or the other.

The Nature vs. Nurture Debate Explained

There are two basic arguments when it comes to how people become who they are, act as they act, and do what they do. The "nature" argument holds that people are pre-disposed and pre-destined to behave in a certain way — that everything significant in a person's makeup is rooted in genetics. This could include intelligence, personality, mental illness, behavioral tendencies, addiction tendencies, and so forth.

The "nurture" argument, on the other hand, holds that how people develop is based more on the environment in which a child grows up: how capable their parents are, whether they are exposed to violence, how much economic hardship the family faces, and similar factors. Very rarely does anyone argue that people are shaped by one source alone. It is widely accepted that people are who they are partly because of how they were raised and partly because of the genes inherited from their biological parents. The real question is which of the two matters more in terms of final outcomes and ongoing development (Cherry, 2015).

One study in psychology notes that the field is divided into different approaches, each falling somewhere along the nature-nurture spectrum. From the nature end to the nurture end, these include the biological approach, the psychoanalytic approach, cognitive psychology, humanism, and behaviorism. The study observes that psychologists are not of one mind on the nature vs. nurture question, and that generalizations cannot be made across the board because each case is different (McLeod, 2015).

Psychological Approaches and Study Comparisons

A PBS review of the subject offered a similarly mixed conclusion. It noted that some outcomes are strongly influenced by genetics, while others are largely or at least partially environmental (PBS, 2015). Both studies gave nuanced answers and both concluded that the weight of each factor depends on which specific behavior or trait is being examined. For example, hair and eye color are determined entirely by heredity. However, the propensity to abuse substances or to behave in a certain way is far less settled, with environment playing a considerable role.

Both studies addressed behavior as well as physical traits, and both noted that people are often firmly situated one way or another depending on what is being examined. Both studies found that results vary depending on the specific trait or outcome under consideration. The primary difference between the two studies is their precise scope; however, the overall conclusion was the same — and arguably the correct one. Genetics can predispose a person to certain diseases and physical characteristics, and may even exert some influence on behavior. However, much of what shapes a person's life is rooted in environment and lived experience.

Cherry, K. (2015). The age old debate of nature vs. nurture. About.com Education. Retrieved 23 June 2015, from

Conclusion

McLeod, S. (2015). Nature nurture in psychology. Simply Psychology. Retrieved 23 June 2015, from http://www.simplypsychology.org/naturevsnurture.html

PBS. (2015). Nature vs. nurture revisited. PBS.org. Retrieved 23 June 2015, from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/nature-versus-nurture-revisited.html