Nature vs. Nurture: The Debate Over Human Behavior

Introduction to the Nature vs. Nurture Debate

The nature vs. nurture argument is one that has been around for many years—especially since the behavioral sciences emerged in the 20th century with the experiments of Skinner and Bandura. It was Bandura's (1977) theory of social learning that viewed all behavior as learned from one's environment. Skinner (1957) likewise postulated that it was the "nurturing" side of one's experience that shaped human activity, thought, and expression. Galton (1883), on the other hand, felt differently. He predated both Skinner and Bandura and was himself a student of Darwin. He thus postulated that "nature" was responsible for the development of human behavior—that some people were simply born with greater gifts, such as intellectual ability, than others. Galton was a 19th-century philosopher and scientist, and his views aligned with ideas like the Great Man Theory, which articulated the position that great leaders are born, not made. This paper shows how the debate between nature vs. nurture has never really abated and how there is most likely a little bit of evidence to support both sides of the argument—meaning the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

Darwin introduced the theory of evolution in the 19th century and advanced the notion that nature is responsible for human development. Whatever skills and attributes people acquire over time are acquired because of a need to adapt in order to survive. Individual human beings receive genetic coding from their parents that enables them to carry on these adaptive skills throughout their lifetime and pass them on to the next generation. Galton viewed this idea as the most likely explanation for human behavior.

Darwin, Galton, and the Nature Argument

This concept was popular in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, as the eugenics movement got underway. Scientists and researchers were interested in controlling population development in the West by genetically engineering the human race. Birth control emerged as a result of the eugenics movement. It was viewed as a way to limit the reproduction of individuals deemed to add nothing positive to the gene pool.

Skinner, Bandura, and the Nurture Argument

By mid-century, the idea that human behavior is largely learned became a dominant view, thanks to the experiments of Skinner and Bandura. They showed that children could be taught to respond to things—such as rats—in a positive light if fear were not associated with those creatures by others. Likewise, children would pick up social behaviors as they grew older by observing those around them and imitating them. Social learning theory became a dominant framework in both psychology and criminology as researchers attempted to understand why individuals acted out or behaved in specific ways.

Conclusion: Toward a Third Factor — Free Will

Though the debate has never been solved, neither side has ever really been put to rest because both offer compelling arguments. There is something to be said about DNA and the role that genetics play in passing on certain aspects and qualities of the human condition from one generation to the next. This can be seen in physical characteristics certainly. At the same time, one's environment surely plays a part in determining human behavior as well. Individuals who follow in the footsteps of their predecessors most likely do so because that is simply what they observed growing up.