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.

Related Articles

Child Psychology

Vygotsky vs. Piaget: A Paradigm Shift

Interactional Synchrony

Internal Working Models of Attachment

Soft Determinism In Psychology

Branches of Psychology

Learning Theory of Attachment

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

The Nature vs. Nurture Debate

Genetic and Environmental Influences and How They Interact

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

Verywell / Joshua Seong

• Definitions
• Interaction
• Contemporary Views

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

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

Nature and Nurture Defined

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

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

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

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

The Debate of Nature vs. Nurture

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

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

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

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

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

Examples of Nature vs. Nurture

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

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

Nature vs. Nurture in Psychology

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

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

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

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

Nature vs. Nurture in Child Development

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

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

Nature vs. Nurture in Personality Development

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

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

Nature vs. Nurture in Mental Illness Development

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

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

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

Nature vs. Nurture in Mental Health Therapy

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

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

Interaction Between Nature and Nurture

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

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

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

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

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

Contemporary Views of Nature vs. Nurture

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chomsky N. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax .

Galton F. Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development .

Watson JB. Behaviorism .

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

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

What Are Nature vs. Nurture Examples?

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

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

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

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

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

Thanasis Zovoilis / Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

How Are Inherited Traits Measured?

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

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

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

What is the "Big 5" personality traits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Child Development

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

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

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

In Psychology

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

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

In Personality Development

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

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

In Mental Illness

Both nature and nurture can contribute to mental illness development.

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

Other explanations for mental illness are environmental, such as:

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

In Mental Health Therapy

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

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

 What Is Nativism (Extreme Nature Position)?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Epigenetics Blurs the Line Between Nature and Nurture

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

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

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

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

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

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

Medline Plus. Is temperament determined by genetics?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

World Health Organization. Lead poisoning .

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

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

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

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

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

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

National Human Genome Research Institute. Eugenics and Scientific Racism .

OLL. The Works of John Locke in Nine Volumes .

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

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

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

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.

About one out of ten people is left-handed but the reasons why are not well understood. A new study now helps unlock the mystery of left-handedness.

A Personal Perspective: Facing the interplay between genetic factors and linguistic development prompted a question: Should I trust my instincts or those of others?

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.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• 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
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

At any moment, someone’s aggravating behavior or our own bad luck can set us off on an emotional spiral that threatens to derail our entire day. Here’s how we can face our triggers with less reactivity so that we can get on with our lives.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

• Subject List
• Take a Tour
• For Authors
• Subscriber Services
• Publications
• African American Studies
• African Studies
• American Literature
• Anthropology
• Architecture Planning and Preservation
• Art History
• Atlantic History
• Biblical Studies
• British and Irish Literature
• Childhood Studies
• Chinese Studies
• Cinema and Media Studies
• Communication
• Criminology
• Environmental Science
• Evolutionary Biology
• International Law
• International Relations
• Islamic Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Latino Studies
• Linguistics
• Literary and Critical Theory
• Medieval Studies
• Military History
• Political Science
• Public Health
• Renaissance and Reformation
• Social Work
• Urban Studies
• Victorian Literature
• Browse All Subjects

How to Subscribe

• Free Trials

In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section Nature versus Nurture Debate in Psychology

Introduction, general overviews.

• Conceptual Problems
• Biological Constraints, Predispositions, and Preparedness in Learning
• Critical Periods
• Innate Knowledge
• Heritability
• Behavioral Epigenetics

Related Articles Expand or collapse the "related articles" section about

About related articles close popup.

Lorem Ipsum Sit Dolor Amet

Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Aliquam ligula odio, euismod ut aliquam et, vestibulum nec risus. Nulla viverra, arcu et iaculis consequat, justo diam ornare tellus, semper ultrices tellus nunc eu tellus.

• Developmental Psychology (Cognitive)
• Developmental Psychology (Social)
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Life-Span Development

Other Subject Areas

Forthcoming articles expand or collapse the "forthcoming articles" section.

• Data Visualization
• Executive Functions in Childhood
• Remote Work
• Find more forthcoming articles...
• Export Citations
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Nature versus Nurture Debate in Psychology by Hunter Honeycutt LAST REVIEWED: 12 January 2023 LAST MODIFIED: 12 January 2023 DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199828340-0305

The nature-nurture dichotomy is a long-standing and pervasive framework for thinking about the causal influences believed to be operating during individual development. In this dichotomy, nature refers to factors (e.g., genes, genetic programs, and/or biological blueprints) or forces (e.g., heredity and/or maturation) inherent to the individual that predetermine the development of form and function. Nurture generally refers to all the remaining, typically “external,” causal factors (e.g., physical and social conditions) and processes (e.g., learning and experience) that influence development. The nature versus nurture debate in psychology deals with disagreements about the extent to which the development of traits in humans and animals reflects the relative influence of nature and nurture. It is commonly stated that psychologists have moved on from asking whether traits (or variation in traits) develop from nature or nurture, to recognize instead that both nature and nurture work together or “interact” to produce outcomes, although exactly how to view the interaction is a matter of much debate. While acknowledging the interaction of nature and nurture, one’s theoretical models and research focus might emphasize the prominence of one over the other. Thus, nativists focus more on the importance of innate factors or forces operating on development, whereas empiricists focus more on experiential or environmental factors. However, not everyone finds value in thinking about development in terms of nature and nurture. By the middle of the twentieth century, some psychologists, biologists, and philosophers began to view nature-nurture as a conceptually deficient and biologically implausible dichotomy that oversimplifies the dynamics of behavior and development. Such people espouse some variant of “developmental systems theory” and seek to eliminate or otherwise fuse the nature-nurture division.

The works in this section are mostly trade books that provide general introductions to the nature-nurture debate across a variety of topical areas in psychology, all of which would be suitable for use in classes with undergraduate students at all levels. Goldhaber 2012 contrasts four popular perspectives on the nature-nurture issue and would be a good place to start for anyone unfamiliar with the nature-nurture debate in psychology. Nativist perspectives are represented by Pinker 2002 , Plomin 2018 , and Vallortigara 2021 . An empiricist-leaning position on behavior development is put forth in Schneider 2012 . Developmental systems theory is promoted in Blumberg 2005 and Moore 2002 . Two edited books are included and both are better suited for advanced undergraduate- or graduate-level students. The first edited book, Coll, et al. 2013 , focuses on the nature-nurture issue across a range of topics and perspectives in psychology. The other, Mayes and Lewis 2012 , presents empiricist (or environmentalist) perspectives on child development.

Bateson, P. 2017. Behaviour, development and evolution . Cambridge, UK: OpenBook Publishers.

DOI: 10.11647/OBP.0097

Written by a distinguished ethologist who draws extensively from his work on animal behavior, this book argues that the nature-nurture division is neither valid nor helpful in capturing the complex system of factors that influence behavioral development. Topics include imprinting and attachment, parent-offspring relations, the influence of early-life experiences on later-life outcomes, problems with genetic determinism, and the role of behavior in evolutionary change.

Blumberg, M. S. 2005. Basic instinct: The genesis of novel behavior . New York: Thunder’s Mouth Press.

Consistent with developmental systems theory, Blumberg presents an overview of the conceptual and empirical limitations of nativism in explanations of behavioral and neural development in animals and cognitive development in humans.

Coll, C. G., E. L. Bearer, and R. M. Lerner, eds. 2013. Nature-nurture: The complex interplay of genetic and environmental influences on human behavior and development . New York: Psychology Press.

The contents of this edited volume are almost entirely original works with commentary that span multiple disciplines (psychology, biology, economics, philosophy) and multiple perspectives (behavioral genetics and developmental systems theory) on the nature-nurture issue.

Goldhaber, D. 2012. The nature-nurture debates: Bridging the gap . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.

DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139022583

Goldhaber reviews four major perspectives (behavior genetics, environmentalism, evolutionary psychology, and developmental systems theory) on the nature-nurture issue. He argues we should reject reductionist views based on either genetic determinism or environmental determinism in favor of more holistic, interactionist approaches.

Mayes, L. C., and M. Lewis, eds. 2012. The Cambridge handbook of environment in human development . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.

This handbook explores a wide variety of ways in which the environment influences child development. Chapters cover conceptual frameworks and methodological issues in thinking about and studying environmental influences as well reviewing ways in which environmental contexts and systems influence specific aspects of child development.

Moore, D. S. 2002. The dependent gene: The fallacy of nature vs. nurture . New York: Henry Holt.

This book provides an introduction to the developmental systems theory take on the nature-nurture issue particularly as it relates to genetic determinism, heritability and heredity.

Pinker, S. 2002. The blank slate: The modern denial of human nature . New York: Viking.

In this best-selling book, Pinker draws on evidence from behavioral genetics, evolutionary psychology, and cognitive psychology to argue for a nativist position concerning human nature.

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

Plomin reviews traditional and more modern evidence from behavioral genetics to argue that genes are the primary factor in bringing about psychological differences between people. Moreover, he argues that many “environmental” factors operating on development are themselves strongly influenced by genetic differences.

Schneider, S. M. 2012. The science of consequences: How they affect genes, change the brain, and impact our world . Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.

Schneider presents a view grounded in behavior analysis to argue for the critical role that the consequences of genetic activity, neural activity, and behavioral activity play in individual development. While emphasizing environmental (or experiential) factors influencing development, this book also highlights the systemic and interactive nature of developmental systems across multiple levels of analysis.

Vallortigara, G. 2021. Born knowing: Imprinting and the origins of knowledge . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

DOI: 10.7551/mitpress/14091.001.0001

Drawing upon research in comparative cognition and comparative neuroscience, much of it his own, Vallortigara argues that animals, including humans, enter the world with a set of unlearned, innate or instinctive behaviors and neural circuits that bias or predispose subsequent learning and development.

back to top

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content on this page. Please subscribe or login .

Oxford Bibliographies Online is available by subscription and perpetual access to institutions. For more information or to contact an Oxford Sales Representative click here .

• About Psychology »
• Meet the Editorial Board »
• Abnormal Psychology
• Academic Assessment
• Acculturation and Health
• Action Regulation Theory
• Action Research
• Addictive Behavior
• Adolescence
• Adoption, Social, Psychological, and Evolutionary Perspect...
• Advanced Theory of Mind
• Affective Forecasting
• Affirmative Action
• Ageism at Work
• Allport, Gordon
• Alzheimer’s Disease
• Ambulatory Assessment in Behavioral Science
• Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA)
• Animal Behavior
• Animal Learning
• Anxiety Disorders
• Art and Aesthetics, Psychology of
• Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, and Psychology
• Assessment and Clinical Applications of Individual Differe...
• Attachment in Social and Emotional Development across the ...
• Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in Adults
• Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in Childre...
• Attitudinal Ambivalence
• Attraction in Close Relationships
• Attribution Theory
• Authoritarian Personality
• Bayesian Statistical Methods in Psychology
• Behavior Therapy, Rational Emotive
• Behavioral Economics
• Behavioral Genetics
• Belief Perseverance
• Bereavement and Grief
• Biological Psychology
• Birth Order
• Body Image in Men and Women
• Bystander Effect
• Categorical Data Analysis in Psychology
• Childhood and Adolescence, Peer Victimization and Bullying...
• Clark, Mamie Phipps
• Clinical Neuropsychology
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Consistency Theories
• Cognitive Dissonance Theory
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Communication, Nonverbal Cues and
• Comparative Psychology
• Competence to Stand Trial: Restoration Services
• Competency to Stand Trial
• Computational Psychology
• Conflict Management in the Workplace
• Conformity, Compliance, and Obedience
• Consciousness
• Coping Processes
• Correspondence Analysis in Psychology
• Counseling Psychology
• Creativity at Work
• Critical Thinking
• Cross-Cultural Psychology
• Cultural Psychology
• Daily Life, Research Methods for Studying
• Data Science Methods for Psychology
• Data Sharing in Psychology
• Death and Dying
• Deceiving and Detecting Deceit
• Defensive Processes
• Depressive Disorders
• Development, Prenatal
• Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM...
• Discrimination
• Dissociative Disorders
• Drugs and Behavior
• Eating Disorders
• Ecological Psychology
• Educational Settings, Assessment of Thinking in
• Effect Size
• Embodiment and Embodied Cognition
• Emerging Adulthood
• Emotional Intelligence
• Empathy and Altruism
• Employee Stress and Well-Being
• Environmental Neuroscience and Environmental Psychology
• Ethics in Psychological Practice
• Event Perception
• Expansive Posture
• Experimental Existential Psychology
• Exploratory Data Analysis
• Eyewitness Testimony
• Eysenck, Hans
• Factor Analysis
• Festinger, Leon
• Five-Factor Model of Personality
• Flynn Effect, The
• Forensic Psychology
• Forgiveness
• Friendships, Children's
• Fundamental Attribution Error/Correspondence Bias
• Gambler's Fallacy
• Game Theory and Psychology
• Geropsychology, Clinical
• Global Mental Health
• Habit Formation and Behavior Change
• Health Psychology
• Health Psychology Research and Practice, Measurement in
• Heider, Fritz
• Heuristics and Biases
• History of Psychology
• Human Factors
• Humanistic Psychology
• Implicit Association Test (IAT)
• Industrial and Organizational Psychology
• Inferential Statistics in Psychology
• Insanity Defense, The
• Intelligence
• Intelligence, Crystallized and Fluid
• Intercultural Psychology
• Intergroup Conflict
• International Classification of Diseases and Related Healt...
• International Psychology
• Interviewing in Forensic Settings
• Intimate Partner Violence, Psychological Perspectives on
• Introversion–Extraversion
• Item Response Theory
• Law, Psychology and
• Lazarus, Richard
• Learned Helplessness
• Learning Theory
• Learning versus Performance
• LGBTQ+ Romantic Relationships
• Lie Detection in a Forensic Context
• Locus of Control
• Loneliness and Health
• Mathematical Psychology
• Meaning in Life
• Mechanisms and Processes of Peer Contagion
• Media Violence, Psychological Perspectives on
• Mediation Analysis
• Memories, Autobiographical
• Memories, Flashbulb
• Memories, Repressed and Recovered
• Memory, False
• Memory, Human
• Memory, Implicit versus Explicit
• Memory in Educational Settings
• Memory, Semantic
• Meta-Analysis
• Metacognition
• Metaphor, Psychological Perspectives on
• Microaggressions
• Military Psychology
• Mindfulness
• Mindfulness and Education
• Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)
• Money, Psychology of
• Moral Conviction
• Moral Development
• Moral Psychology
• Moral Reasoning
• Nature versus Nurture Debate in Psychology
• Neuroscience of Associative Learning
• Nonergodicity in Psychology and Neuroscience
• Nonparametric Statistical Analysis in Psychology
• Observational (Non-Randomized) Studies
• Obsessive-Complusive Disorder (OCD)
• Occupational Health Psychology
• Olfaction, Human
• Operant Conditioning
• Optimism and Pessimism
• Organizational Justice
• Parenting Stress
• Parenting Styles
• Parents' Beliefs about Children
• Path Models
• Peace Psychology
• Perception, Person
• Performance Appraisal
• Personality and Health
• Personality Disorders
• Personality Psychology
• Person-Centered and Experiential Psychotherapies: From Car...
• Phenomenological Psychology
• Placebo Effects in Psychology
• Play Behavior
• Positive Psychological Capital (PsyCap)
• Positive Psychology
• Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
• Prejudice and Stereotyping
• Pretrial Publicity
• Prisoner's Dilemma
• Problem Solving and Decision Making
• Procrastination
• Prosocial Behavior
• Prosocial Spending and Well-Being
• Protocol Analysis
• Psycholinguistics
• Psychological Literacy
• Psychological Perspectives on Food and Eating
• Psychology, Political
• Psychoneuroimmunology
• Psychophysics, Visual
• Psychotherapy
• Psychotic Disorders
• Publication Bias in Psychology
• Reasoning, Counterfactual
• Rehabilitation Psychology
• Relationships
• Reliability–Contemporary Psychometric Conceptions
• Religion, Psychology and
• Replication Initiatives in Psychology
• Research Methods
• Risk Taking
• Role of the Expert Witness in Forensic Psychology, The
• Sample Size Planning for Statistical Power and Accurate Es...
• Schizophrenic Disorders
• School Psychology
• School Psychology, Counseling Services in
• Self, Gender and
• Self, Psychology of the
• Self-Construal
• Self-Control
• Self-Deception
• Self-Determination Theory
• Self-Efficacy
• Self-Esteem
• Self-Monitoring
• Self-Regulation in Educational Settings
• Self-Report Tests, Measures, and Inventories in Clinical P...
• Sensation Seeking
• Sex and Gender
• Sexual Minority Parenting
• Sexual Orientation
• Signal Detection Theory and its Applications
• Simpson's Paradox in Psychology
• Single People
• Single-Case Experimental Designs
• Skinner, B.F.
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Small Groups
• Social Class and Social Status
• Social Cognition
• Social Neuroscience
• Social Support
• Social Touch and Massage Therapy Research
• Somatoform Disorders
• Spatial Attention
• Sports Psychology
• Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE): Icon and Controversy
• Stereotype Threat
• Stereotypes
• Stress and Coping, Psychology of
• Student Success in College
• Subjective Wellbeing Homeostasis
• Taste, Psychological Perspectives on
• Teaching of Psychology
• Terror Management Theory
• Testing and Assessment
• The Concept of Validity in Psychological Assessment
• The Neuroscience of Emotion Regulation
• The Reasoned Action Approach and the Theories of Reasoned ...
• The Weapon Focus Effect in Eyewitness Memory
• Theory of Mind
• Therapy, Cognitive-Behavioral
• Thinking Skills in Educational Settings
• Time Perception
• Trait Perspective
• Trauma Psychology
• Twin Studies
• Type A Behavior Pattern (Coronary Prone Personality)
• Unconscious Processes
• Video Games and Violent Content
• Virtues and Character Strengths
• Women and Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM...
• Women, Psychology of
• Work Well-Being
• Workforce Training Evaluation
• Wundt, Wilhelm
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility

Powered by:

• [66.249.64.20|185.66.15.189]
• 185.66.15.189

A Close Look at Nature vs. Nurture

Psychology Professor shares her research for University’s Distinguished Scholar lecture

Posted in: Homepage News and Events , Psychology

“If you’ve ever been around a crying infant, you may have concluded that the world of a newborn is one great ‘blooming, buzzing confusion’ …” So begins the lecture – and the nature vs. nurture debate – presented by this academic year’s University Distinguished Scholar, Psychology Professor Laura Lakusta.

For the past 15 years, Lakusta has focused on language and cognitive development, and most recently leadership, in research within one of oldest philosophical fields of psychology.

“Is the world of a newborn really a big ‘booming, buzzing confusion’?” she asks referencing theorist William James. “Or do infants initially, and that is from birth, bring a rich knowledge base which may serve as a foundation and support subsequent learning?”

In her lecture to the University community – presented virtually due to the state’s stay-at-home orders –  Lakusta explores the timeless theme while sharing her own extensive studies on inherited traits and learned behaviors. Research makes it increasingly clear that both nature and nurture play a role, she says.

The University’s Distinguished Scholar Award recognizes Montclair State faculty who have developed a distinguished record of scholarly or creative achievement, says University Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs Willard Gingerich. “This award provided Laura with enhanced opportunities to implement two active, competitive research programs and the opportunity to share with the campus community her work exploring the domains of language and cognitive development, and a new line of research that explores the impact of nature and nurture in leadership development.”

As Lakusta explains in the presentation, “Nature and Nurture in Spatial Cognition and Beyond,” the nature and nurture theme is by no means solely of interest to the field of psychology, “but one that applies to a range of disciplines, including philosophy, cognitive science, linguistics, education, biology, genetics, et cetera, et cetera.”

“The field is in agreement that it’s not an either/or question. It’s not, is it nature or is it nurture that contributes to development. But the question is how do they contribute? How can we understand how nature and nurture work together to drive development forward?”

Lakusta has published repeatedly – often with her students – in some of the most competitive journals in cognitive and developmental psychology, including the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and since 2008 she has presented more than 50 invited papers and conference posters.

The studies of language and cognition – which have been supported with two different grants totaling about $900,000 from the National Science Foundation – test whether and how representations of spatial knowledge in children 6 months to 5 years can be influenced by environmental input. A portion of this work is a collaborative project with Barbara Landau, professor of Cognitive Science at Johns Hopkins University.

The main finding is that infants’ representations of events can support language learning. In the lab setting, for example, the researchers look at how infants and children interpret the world around them, and think about objects and actions. As explained in the lecture, this includes simple events, such as a duck moving out of a bowl or a leaf blowing into a box.

“You may be surprised at how much infants actually do seem to know within just a few months of life or even just a year,” Lakusta says.

A new study of leadership development, in collaboration with Montclair State Psychology Professor Jennifer Bragger , explores the broad questions of whether children are predisposed to develop into certain types of leaders and how environmental context may influence leadership development. Specifically, Lakusta and Bragger are testing how children, adolescents and adults perceive the distinctions between different leadership types, and whether Theory of Mind development, humility and self-awareness play a role in leadership emergence.

“We’re looking at how people become servant leaders,” Lakusta says. “These are leaders that primarily lead by focusing on their followers. They lead by empowering their followers by guiding, by developing their followers. By doing this, by focusing on their followers, they’re actually able to attain goals.”

The research takes place in Montclair State’s Cognitive and Language Development Lab , where Lakusta leads teams of student researchers. The lab is among the University’s clinical labs in psychology that have received grant funding for research.

“The students really made it happen,” Lakusta says. “They do everything from reading and presenting empirical and theoretical research to coding and analyzing and interpreting data to assisting me with participant testing. They go out into the community on a Sunday afternoon to help recruit children at community fairs. They assist with IRB (Institutional Review Board). The research would not be possible without them.”

Story by Staff Writer Marilyn Joyce Lehren .

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

Prof. Kifaru

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

5 pages / 2378 words

3 pages / 1170 words

2 pages / 962 words

3 pages / 1549 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

Imagine a world where every individual is born with a predetermined set of traits and characteristics, unchangeable and unaffected by their experiences. In this world, our destiny is solely determined by our genetic makeup, and [...]

Leadership is a complex and multifaceted concept that has been the subject of extensive study and debate. There are two contrasting views on the nature of leadership - some believe that leadership is an innate quality that [...]

In the dark annals of criminal history, few cases are as disturbing and chilling as that of the Toy Box Killer. This notorious individual, whose real name is David Parker Ray, terrorized the small town of Truth or Consequences, [...]

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 [...]

The question of whether or not is predetermined at birth to lead a life of crime is a question that has been debated for decades. Nature and nurture is a hotly contested argument concerning what influences the behaviour and [...]

In the tapestry of life, two fundamental forces interweave to shape our very being: heredity and environment. These forces, like the warp and weft of a loom, work in tandem to create the intricate patterns that define who we [...]

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

• Onsite training

3,000,000+ delegates

15,000+ clients

1,000+ locations

• KnowledgePass
• Log a ticket

01344203999 Available 24/7

Nature vs Nurture: What's the Difference?

The Nature vs Nurture debate has long been central to psychology, questioning the relative impact of genetic inheritance versus environmental factors on human behaviour and development. This blog provides an in-depth exploration of the Nature vs Nurture debate, offering a comprehensive look at radical viewpoints. Read along to learn more.

Exclusive 40% OFF

Training Outcomes Within Your Budget!

We ensure quality, budget-alignment, and timely delivery by our expert instructors.

Share this Resource

• Handle Stress and Develop Your Resilience
• Psychology Course
• Prevention Psychology Training
• Mindfulness Training
• Positive Psychology Course

If you asked your thoughts on “What influences a person’s personality more, their genetics or the way they are raised?” what would your answer be? Well, if you aren’t so sure, it is time for you to explore the long-standing debate on Nature vs Nurture.  

Nature refers to your genetic make-up, and Nurture refers to the way you were raised. Both elements play a big role in the formation of your personality! A recent study in the Human Brain Mapping Journal explored the contributions of genetics and environment to cognitive and emotional processing without favouring as predominant. 

The Nature vs Nurture debate undoubtedly remains one of the most pivotal discussions in psychology. Why wouldn’t it when every study that intended to study it differed in results? Well, it is simply a matter of perceptions. Undoubtedly, the best way to form a perception is to hear both sides! So, what are you waiting for? Read along to see which side of the argument you would bet your pretty pennies on!   

Table of Contents 

1) Nature 

2) Nurture  

3) Nature vs Nurture 

   a) Personality Development  

   b) Child Development  

   c) Mental Illness Development  

   d) Therapeutic Approaches  

4) Conclusion 

Nature  

Before we dive into the argument let us understand them separately, starting with Nature. In the context of this debate, Nature refers to the genetic material of the individual, that is passed down to them by their biological parents. In other words, all the hereditary elements that contribute to one’s behaviour.  

It is often seen that if one or more parents suffer from an illness, it is very likely that the child is also susceptible to suffer from the same! For example, if a mother has suffered from prenatal depression during her pregnancy, it is likely that the child may suffer from depression at some point in their life.    

Just like illnesses, personality traits may also be hereditary. Traits like stubbornness, temper or people-pleasing tendencies may offer transfer from parent to child. However, some may argue that it has less to do with genetics and more to do with the fact that their parents and the traits that raise them are acquired through Nurture.     

What is Nativism? 

Nativism is a rather controversial ideology that led to some dramatic trouble in some parts of history! It is an ideology that believes that everything about a person, like mental and physical characteristics, is inherited and predetermined during birth.   

In the early 20th century, this ideology gave way to a racially biased eugenics movement. Lucky for us, the concept of “selective breeding”, which suggested only certain people should be allowed to reproduce, did not stick around. It was rather looked down upon after losing momentum during World War II as it was the ideology behind the Nazis’ ethnic cleansing (killing people based on their ethnicity or religious beliefs).    

Nurture  

When acquainted with a fine gentleman, women often say, “This man was raised right!” and give credit for his manners to his mother. Now that is a fine example of representing the other side of the debate: Nurture!    

Nurture refers to the upbringing of the individual and how it effects how they perceive the world around them and interact with it. A raised in the care of a joyful family is likely to be jovial. A child that was forced to raise himself on the streets may be a little more bitter but may posses’ greater survival skills in the real world. 

What is Empiricism? 

Just like the extreme belief that your Nature is completely responsible for who you are. There is also an extreme perception to oppose it that believes only your upbringing builds the person you are. Empiricism believes that at birth, the human mind is a blank slate that gradually fills up with real life experiences.  

It suggests all our behavioural differences are due to improper learning during our childhood and adolescence. It is simply the result of upbringing that governs the psychological aspect of Childhood Development. It also believes that maturation is simply a physiological aspect and has nothing to do with the development of the mind. 

Learn how you can prevent psychological distress that can lead to extreme adversities. Sign up for our Prevention Psychology Training - register now!  

Nature vs Nurture  

Aren’t both perspectives absolutely fascinating? No wonder they debate on research on this subject matter has been around since the 1800’s and stayed relevant throughout. The term ‘Nature vs Nurture was coined by the psychologist Francis Galton. Galton was a Nativist that believed that intelligence was only passed down genetically.  

Galton was known for his controversial view that only intelligent people should be encouraged to marry one another and reproduce as much as possible. At the same time, non-intelligent people should be discouraged from reproducing.  

The argument of Nature vs Nurture grew subbranches over time. The most popular ones that were highly researched were personality development, child development and mental illness.  

Personality Development 

There have been many arguments about the governing factor of personality. Is it genetics or upbringing? The answer lies in the school of psychology you choose to follow.   

Behaviourists believe that your personality is simply your reactions to the environment and the world around you based on your perception and experience of it. At the same time, the biological theorist suggests that your parents inherit your personality and is a mix and match of your parents’ personality traits. 

Child Development 

In child development, there are two major theories that call the shots on each side. There is the concept of a Language Acquisition Device (LAD) by Chomsky and the social learning theory by Albert Bandura.   

According to LAD by Chomsky, children are born with an instinctive ability to learn and produce language. While Bandura’s social learning theory, suggest that people learn by observing. He proved his theory with the Bobo doll experiment, which showed that children can learn violent and aggressive behaviour by observing someone else be aggressive.   

Mental Illness Development 

The core of the debate lies in the substantial proof that both inherited traits and environmental factors play roles in the onset of mental disorders, making it impossible to dismiss either. Genetic predisposition can be a factor, as it may affect the brain’s chemical balance, leading to mental health issues. 

Similarly, environmental elements such as exposure to harmful substances and drugs can also alter brain chemistry. Moreover, upbringing plays a crucial role; for instance, a girl raised by a mother fixated on appearances may develop an eating disorder in her efforts to meet her mother’s expectations. 

In this complex interplay, the causes of mental illness could stem from genetic, environmental, or a combination of both influences. 

Therapeutic Approaches   

The effectiveness of a therapeutic method for an individual often hinges on the underlying causes of their condition, which genetic factors or life experiences can influence. Typically, the treatment strategy is tailored to the nature of the disorder and its origins. However, therapy itself is generally seen as an aspect of environmental shaping, aiming to address issues that may arise from innate predispositions or external factors. 

Aid in creating a safe space for everyone around you with our Mindfulness Training - sign up now!  

Conclusion 

This blog addressed the never-ending debate between Nature and Nurture. It explained both sides with their extremist views and the varies areas in which their views apply. Nature or Nurture the whichever side your opinions may lay, the Nature vs Nurture debate is one that will be long standing. It will consistently be a grey area in psychology demanding more and more research. 

Learn to manage stress mindfully and build resilience with our Handle Stress And Develop Your Resilience  - register now!  

Frequently Asked Questions

It is true that Nurture has the ability to change. Nature studies have shown that environmental factors can influence and change our genetic makeup. This phenomenon is known as Epigenetics .   

Intelligence can be both Nature and Nurture. Smart genetics may produce a smart baby, but if environmental factors are restrictive in its growth, then the child can grow up to be dull. A child born with average genetics may grow up to be a genius simply because his Nurture facilitated it or out of bare necessity

The Knowledge Academy takes global learning to new heights, offering over 30,000 online courses across 490+ locations in 220 countries. This expansive reach ensures accessibility and convenience for learners worldwide.  

Alongside our diverse Online Course Catalogue, encompassing 17 major categories, we go the extra mile by providing a plethora of free educational Online Resources like News updates, Blogs , videos, webinars, and interview questions. Tailoring learning experiences further, professionals can maximise value with customisable Course Bundles of TKA .  

The Knowledge Academy’s Knowledge Pass , a prepaid voucher, adds another layer of flexibility, allowing course bookings over a 12-month period. Join us on a journey where education knows no bounds.  

The Knowledge Academy offers various Health & Safety Courses , including Advance First-Aid Training, Active and Healthy Lifestyle Training, and Counselling Certifications. These courses cater to different skill levels, providing comprehensive insights into What is Child Psychology .   

Our Health & Safety B logs cover a range of topics related to Child Psychology, offering valuable resources, best practices, and industry insights. Whether you are a beginner or looking to advance your Health and Safety knowledge, The Knowledge Academy's diverse courses and informative blogs have you covered.  

Upcoming Health & Safety Resources Batches & Dates

Fri 27th Sep 2024

Fri 20th Dec 2024

Get A Quote

WHO WILL BE FUNDING THE COURSE?

My employer

By submitting your details you agree to be contacted in order to respond to your enquiry

• Business Analysis
• Lean Six Sigma Certification

Share this course

Our biggest spring sale.

We cannot process your enquiry without contacting you, please tick to confirm your consent to us for contacting you about your enquiry.

By submitting your details you agree to be contacted in order to respond to your enquiry.

We may not have the course you’re looking for. If you enquire or give us a call on 01344203999 and speak to our training experts, we may still be able to help with your training requirements.

Or select from our popular topics

• ITIL® Certification
• Scrum Certification
• Change Management Certification
• Business Analysis Courses
• Microsoft Azure Certification
• Microsoft Excel Courses
• Microsoft Project
• Explore more courses

Press esc to close

Fill out your  contact details  below and our training experts will be in touch.

Fill out your   contact details   below

Thank you for your enquiry!

One of our training experts will be in touch shortly to go over your training requirements.

Back to Course Information

Fill out your contact details below so we can get in touch with you regarding your training requirements.

* WHO WILL BE FUNDING THE COURSE?

Preferred Contact Method

No preference

Back to course information

Fill out your  training details  below

Fill out your training details below so we have a better idea of what your training requirements are.

HOW MANY DELEGATES NEED TRAINING?

HOW DO YOU WANT THE COURSE DELIVERED?

Online Instructor-led

Online Self-paced

WHEN WOULD YOU LIKE TO TAKE THIS COURSE?

Next 2 - 4 months

WHAT IS YOUR REASON FOR ENQUIRING?

Looking for some information

Looking for a discount

I want to book but have questions

One of our training experts will be in touch shortly to go overy your training requirements.

Your privacy & cookies!

Like many websites we use cookies. We care about your data and experience, so to give you the best possible experience using our site, we store a very limited amount of your data. Continuing to use this site or clicking “Accept & close” means that you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more about our privacy policy and cookie policy cookie policy .

We use cookies that are essential for our site to work. Please visit our cookie policy for more information. To accept all cookies click 'Accept & close'.

  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 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

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

How To Write A Winning Nature Vs Nurture Essay

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

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

Develop an Outline of Your Nature vs Nurture Essay

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

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

How to Write a Great Introduction

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

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

Writing The Body Of Your Nature And Nurture Essay

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

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

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

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

Writing Conclusion Of Your Essay On Nature Vs Nurture

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

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

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

Get Nature vs Nurture Essay Examples and Help Today

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

Get on top of your homework.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

“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.

• 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
• 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/.

• How It Works
• All Projects
• Top-rated Pages
• Admission essay writing
• Book report writing
• Coursework writing
• Dissertation writing
• Essay editing
• MBA essay writing
• Scholarship essay writing
• Term paper writing
• Write my essay
• Free sample essays
• Writing blog

Best Compare and Contrast Essay Examples

Nature vs. nurture: analysis and controversy.

1016 words | 4 page(s)

In the ongoing debate of nature vs. nurture, scientists continue to research whether nature or the environment has more of an influence on physical and behavioral characteristics and traits. The nature versus nurture theory was first coined to determine whether nature (or genetic traits) have more of an influence on characteristics including personality than nurturing, or the environment in which one is born and raised in (Collins, 2012). Environment includes many different factors, including one’s socioeconomic conditions, one’s parents, one’s home, one’s food, one’s education… all of these can influence traits including one’s attitude, intelligence, height, weight, preferences, status, or so it is believed by some researchers (Collins, 2012). The nature argument suggests that individuals are born with certain characteristics that can only modestly be influenced by nurturing influences or environmental influences over time. Researchers have consistently debated the extent to which nurturing or environment can truly influence one’s behavioral and personality traits (Rockoff, 2013). To that extent many studies have explored the effects of nature vs. nurturing, examining the link between genetics, environment, and behavior or trait-specific tendencies.

This paper explores two studies in an attempt to answer whether nature or nurture is more predominant in influencing traits. Specifically, it is important to analyze how strong environmental factors are in determining behavioral and personality traits. The studies explored for this paper examine how strong nature is in influencing one’s behavioral and personality traits in twins. Historically researchers have turned to twins for exploring how nature and nurture influence personality. Identical twins have strong DNA ties that lend credibility to the nature argument.

Use your promo and get a custom paper on "Nature vs. Nurture: Analysis and Controversy".

The first research study examined for this debate is the case of, Nature vs. Nurture: Outcome Depends on Where You Live. This research study was carried out to explore the influence of environmental factors compared to natural and genetic factors on behavioral traits by King’s College of London. Researchers set out to explore the DNA of 6,759 identical and non-identical twins throughout the UK; scientists explored whether nature (genes) or environmental factors were more influential in determining behavioral and personality traits among study participants (Collins,2012). This particular study explored 45 different childhood characteristics, including attitude, preferences, language, verbal ability, reading, IQ, and related traits (Collins, 2012). The study revealed that in the UK, certain traits were more influenced by environmental or nurturing influences; but only in certain areas. However, other characteristics were more influenced by genetic or natural traits. For example, some traits were inevitably the result of genes. The traits most complex including language, verbal ability, IQ, and visual analysis often resulted in DNA relationship, or resulted in a relationship the researchers may attribute to having a “genetic” link (Collins, 2012). This lends credibility to the nature argument.

This coincided with the results of a study carried out on 137 sets of identical twins in Minnesota (KempJackson, 2011). This study, conducted as a result of a study first referred to as the Jim Twins Study, is most notable in its examination of two sets of twins in particular, known as the “Jim Twins,” who are two identical twins that were separated at birth, and raised by two different families. These twins, who reconnected much later in life, learned they lived nearly a parallel life, marrying wives with the same names, choosing the same pets, wives with the same names, and sharing the same beers. There is no explanation for the coincidences, other than to suggest that genes are to attribute for their shared preferences. The twins were raised by families that were completely different, taking out the nurture theory. These twins influenced the researchers in Minnesota to conduct the study. The Minnesota Study of Twins like the UK study explored characteristics including personality, intelligence, human nature, verbal ability, and more.

The Minnesota study revealed that certain characteristics, including IQ, were related more to nature, or genetics, rather than environment and training. The study suggests that the role of genetics in “the determination of at least a few key personality benchmarks and behaviors cannot be ignored” (Kempjackson, 2011). In many cases, the study suggests that certain personality traits including those relative to behavior and character, as in the other study, are “hard-wired” such as the twin’s decisions regarding their selection of beverages, animals, or preference with regard to preferred companions (KempJackson, 2011).

Rockoff (2013) suggests that variations in genes, particularly genes including the DRD4, which regulate certain neurotransmitters in the brain, may specifically influence behavioral traits including those responsible for nature, including sensitivity, aggression, and one’s inclination toward positive or negative behaviors. Children who act out more or less, or those that are more sensitive to their environment, may simply be affected more or less by their DNA, rather than their environment, as per a 2010 study of 338 children as reflected in the journal Child Development (Rockoff, 2013). While there is no doubt that nurture can have some influence in changing children’s behavior and personality trait, the extent to which environment can influence children’s behavior or personality may indeed be limited by genetic tendency, as these studies suggest. This latest study suggested that mothers with particular genetic variations were more likely to “yell, curse and slap children as the economy plunged, than mothers who didn’t have the genetic change” (Rockoff, 2013). This suggests that certain individuals are merely more sensitive to environmental influences than others. Knowing this information may help researchers work with and shape behavioral tendencies, although the extent to which such efforts may work may be limited. These studies suggest that intelligence is largely an inherited condition, and that many personality traits are also more inherited than shaped by environmental factors.

• Collins, N. (2012). Nature vs. Nurture: Outcome Depends on Where You Live. Science News. Retrieved October 14, 2013 from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9326819/Nature-vs-nurture-outcome-depends-on-where-you-live.html
• KempJackson, S. (2011). Nature, Nurture, or Neither: Identical Twins Hold the Answer. National Geographic. Retrieved October 14, 2013 from: http://technorati.com/women/article/nature-nurture-or-neither-identical-twins/
• Rockoff, J.D. (2013). Nature vs. Nurture: New Science Stirs Debate: How Behavior is Shaped- Who’s an Orchid, Who’s A Dandelion. WSJ. Retrieved October 14, 2013 from: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323527004579079132234671374

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

Psychology Essay Topics

When it comes to writing about psychology, picking the right essay topic is key to capturing interest and demonstrating your knowledge of the human mind. 

In this article, we'll look at various psychology essay topics to help students and enthusiasts find inspiration and delve into the fascinating world of thoughts, emotions, and behaviors that make us who we are.

Characteristics of Good Psychology Topic

Here are five characteristics of a brilliant psychology topic:

Need a Hand with a Psychology Essay?

Find the best writer for your assignment now!

How to Choose a Psychology Essay Topic?

Choosing a psychology essay topic can be a rewarding yet challenging task. Here are some steps to help you select an engaging and suitable topic:

Identify Your Interests

Start by considering what aspects of the science of the mind fascinate you the most. Are you drawn to cognitive processes, mental health issues, developmental stages, or social behavior? Choosing a topic you're passionate about will make the research and writing process more enjoyable.

Review Course Material

Look through your textbooks, class notes, and syllabus for inspiration. Often, topics covered in class can spark ideas or provide a foundation to build upon.

Consider Current Issues

Think about recent developments or trending topics in psychology. Issues like the impact of social media on mental health, the science of the mind of pandemic behavior, or advances in neuropsychology can be timely and relevant.

Narrow Your Focus

Once you have a general idea, narrow it down to a specific aspect. For example, if you're interested in social psychology, you might focus on the effects of peer pressure on adolescent behavior rather than a broad overview of social influences.

Check Available Resources

Ensure there are enough scholarly resources available on your chosen topic. Look for academic papers, books, and reputable websites that provide ample information for research.

Consult Your Instructor

If you're unsure about your topic, discuss it with your instructor. They can provide guidance, suggest modifications, or help you refine your idea to ensure it meets the course requirements. You can hire an essay writer if your tutor doesn’t provide consistent instructions or you are pressed for time.

Formulate a Research Question

Transform your topic into a clear, focused research question. For example, instead of a general topic like "memory," you could ask, "How does sleep deprivation affect short-term memory performance in college students?"

How to Write an Essay in APA?

Use our service to format all your citations correctly.

Psychology Essay Topics List

Here are some intriguing psychology essay topics for students, offering diverse angles for exploring the complexities of human behavior and mental processes.

Psychology Essay Topics About Human Cognition

Human cognition is the intricate process by which individuals acquire, process, store, and utilize information to perceive, understand, and interact with the world around them.

• Sleep's effect on memory.
• Stress and decision-making.
• Attention's role in learning.
• Everyday cognitive biases.
• Multitasking and productivity.
• Language vs. thought.
• Emotions and cognition.
• Children's problem-solving skills.
• Aging and cognitive function.
• Memory improvement strategies.
• Technology's cognitive impact.
• Cognitive dissonance and beliefs.
• Imagination in cognition.
• Nutrition's effect on cognition.
• Mindfulness and cognitive flexibility.

Psychology Essay Topics About Psychology Career

A career in psychology involves studying human behavior and mental processes, applying research findings to help individuals, groups, and organizations improve their well-being and functioning.

• Healthcare science of the mind trends.
• Ethics in psychology.
• Technology in psychology careers.
• Coping with burnout.
• Psychology and the law.
• Entrepreneurship in psychology.
• Advocacy in the science of the mind.
• Research advancements.
• Work-life balance.
• Future prospects.
• Diversity in the science of the mind.
• Specialized career paths.
• Professional growth.
• Remote opportunities.
• Career transitions.

Psychology Essay Topics About Human Development

Psychology studies human development by examining the biological, cognitive, social, and emotional changes that occur across the lifespan, from infancy to old age, to understand how individuals grow and adapt to their environments.

• Parental attachment and childhood.
• Nature vs. nurture in development.
• Early experiences and personality.
• Peer relationships in adolescence.
• Lifespan cognitive growth.
• Gender identity formation.
• Socioeconomic impact on development.
• Attachment theory and relationships.
• Divorce's effects on kids.
• Cultural parenting and development.
• Identity formation in adulthood.
• Technology's influence on development.
• Resilience to childhood challenges.
• Aging and cognition.
• Play's role in childhood.

Psychology Essay Topics About Mental Disorders

Mental disorders and the science of the mind are intertwined as psychology seeks to understand, diagnose, and treat a wide range of conditions affecting thoughts, emotions, and behaviors.

• Mental illness stigma.
• Schizophrenia.
• Depression and anxiety link.
• Addiction's neural basis.
• PTSD in veterans.
• Eating disorders.
• Bipolar disorder and mood shifts.
• Borderline personality disorder myths.
• Autism and its early detection.
• ADHD diagnosis and management.
• DID controversies.
• Schizoaffective disorder overlap.
• Personality disorders.
• Neurodevelopmental disorders.

Psychology Essay Topics About Branches of Psychology

The most important branches of the science of the mind include clinical psychology, which focuses on assessing and treating mental health disorders; cognitive psychology, which examines mental processes like memory and perception; and social psychology, which investigates how individuals are influenced by social interactions and environments.

• Cognitive thought processes.
• Developmental behavior.
• Behavioral thought processes.
• Biological psychology.
• Social thought processes.
• Clinical behavior.
• Educational psychology.
• Environmental behavior.
• Industrial-organizational psychology.
• Health behavior.
• Forensic thought processes.
• Counseling psychology.
• Positive thought processes.
• Comparative behavior.
• Sport psychology.

Psychology Essay Topics About History of Psychology

Studying the history of psychology is important for students as it provides a foundational understanding of how psychological theories, methodologies, and practices have evolved over time.

• Evolution of psychological thought.
• Key figures in the science of the mind history.
• Impact of behaviorism.
• Cognitive revolution.
• Structuralism vs. functionalism.
• Gestalt thought processes.
• Legacy of psychoanalysis.
• Humanistic thought processes emerge.
• Cross-cultural perspectives.
• WWII's influence on the thought processes.
• Feminist critiques in psychology history.
• Role of the APA.
• Neuroscience integration.
• Ethical dilemmas in the science of the mind history.
• Future trends in psychology.

Psychology Essay Topics About Addictions

Psychology explores the underlying cognitive, behavioral, and neurological factors contributing to addictive behaviors while also providing strategies for prevention, intervention, and treatment.

• Neurobiology of addiction.
• Genetic predisposition to addiction.
• Childhood trauma and addiction.
• Substance addiction.
• Behavioral addictions.
• Dual diagnosis.
• Treatment approaches for addiction.
• Addressing addiction stigma.
• Harm reduction strategies.
• Socioeconomic factors in addiction.
• Addiction in special populations.
• Peer influence in addiction.
• Technology addiction.
• Prevention of addiction.
• Legalization and addiction implications.

Psychology Essay Topics About PTSD

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is a mental health condition characterized by persistent symptoms such as intrusive memories, avoidance of trauma-related triggers, negative changes in mood and cognition, and hyperarousal following exposure to a traumatic event.

• Neurobiology of PTSD.
• Trauma's memory impact.
• Risk factors for PTSD.
• Gender differences in PTSD.
• PTSD comorbidity.
• Cultural considerations in PTSD.
• Trauma-focused therapies.
• Resilience and post-traumatic growth.
• Military-related PTSD.
• Secondary trauma.
• Transgenerational trauma.
• Societal responses to trauma.
• Trauma-informed care.
• Innovative PTSD treatments.
• Early intervention for PTSD prevention.

Psychology Essay Topics About Social Issues

Psychology studies social issues by providing insights into the individual and collective behaviors, attitudes, and perceptions that contribute to societal challenges, informing interventions and policies.

• Social media's impact on mental health.
• Thought processes of prejudice and discrimination.
• Group dynamics and conformity.
• Social support and resilience.
• Income inequality's effects on health.
• Political polarization thought processes.
• Bystander effect in emergencies.
• Gender stereotypes' influence.
• Behavior of environmental conservation.
• Thought processes of poverty.
• Globalization's impact on identity.
• Psychology of unemployment.
• Social justice activism.
• Empathy and prosocial behavior.
• Psychology of forgiveness.

Psychology Essay Topics About Memory

Psychology examines the processes involved in encoding, storing, and retrieving information and the factors that influence memory accuracy, reliability, and distortion.

• Memory formation and retrieval processes.
• Factors affecting memory accuracy.
• Emotion's impact on memory.
• Stress and memory performance.
• Neurobiology of memory.
• Memory changes with aging.
• False memories and implications.
• Sleep's role in memory consolidation.
• Amnesia and dementia.
• Autobiographical memory.
• Culture's influence on memory.
• Eyewitness testimony reliability.
• Memory and identity.
• Memory enhancement technologies.

Psychology Essay Topics About Famous Experiments

Experiments in the science of the mind are crucial for testing hypotheses, establishing causal relationships between variables, and providing empirical evidence to inform theories and interventions to understand and improve human behavior and mental processes.

• Milgram Experiment.
• Stanford Prison Experiment.
• Hawthorne Effect.
• Bobo doll experiment.
• Little Albert experiment.
• Asch conformity experiments.
• Robbers Cave Experiment.
• Harlow monkey experiments.
• Marshmallow Test.
• Pavlovian conditioning experiments.
• Skinner Box experiments.
• Strange Situation experiment.
• Zimbardo prison study.
• Learned Helplessness experiments.
• Stroop effect experiment.
• Psychology topics | APS. (n.d.). https://psychology.org.au/for-the-public/psychology-topics
• ScienceDirect Topics in Psychology. (n.d.). https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/psychology

Our Latest Blog Posts

Nature vs. Nurture

Nurture in blood brothers.

The question of nature vs. nurture is one of the key debates explored throughout the play. Essentially, how much of a person’s life comes from inherited genetics (nature), and how much is down to their upbringing (nurture)?

Edward's upbringing

• Edward Lyons grows up in a rich and well-connected household, and his parents have provided him with many opportunities to be successful.
• As a result, he goes on to study at university and becomes successful in local government as “Councillor Eddie Lyons” (Act Two).

Mickey's upbringing

• Mickey, on the other hand, grows up in desperate poverty.
• Although very loving towards him, his mother, Mrs. Johnstone, is unable to provide him with the same opportunities as Edward.
• Furthermore, he receives an inferior education and, from a young age, witnesses the criminality of his older brother, Sammy.

Mickey's opportunities

• “Mickey: Leave me alone will y’? I can’t cope with this. I’m not well.” (Act Two).

Nature in Blood Brothers

Edward's attraction to the Johnstone family

• Russell presents a key question as to why Edward is so drawn to the Johnstone family, while he seems not to be fully connected to his own.

Edward's relationship with Mrs. Lyons

• “If you loved me you’d let me go out with Mickey because he’s my best friend. I like him more than you.” (Act One).

Edward preferring Mrs. Johnstone

• Meanwhile, there are several occasions where Edward expresses his admiration for Mrs. Johnstone. He considers her to be “smashing” (Act One) and “fabulous” (Act Two).

Reasons for Edward preferring Mrs. Johnstone

• It could be that Edward finds his own home environment oppressive, and that he simply enjoys the freedom of the Johnstone household where children are allowed to express their feelings and behave in a way that Mrs. Lyons would consider to be indecent.
• Alternatively, however, Russell could be suggesting that Edward has a biological connection to the Johnstone family which is drawing him ever closer towards them.

Similarities between Mickey and Edward

• Both of the boys like swearing and using bad language.
• They both enjoy playing the same kinds of games, mostly involving toy guns, inspired by cowboy and gangster films of the time.
• Mickey and Edward both have strong feelings for Linda.
• Both of them are suspended from their schools, suggesting a natural tendency to rebel against authority.

1 Context & Author

1.1 Context

1.1.1 Setting

1.1.2 Political Background

1.1.3 Education & Work

1.1.4 Marilyn Monroe & Pop Culture

1.1.5 Family

1.2.1 Willy Russell

1.2.2 End of Topic Test - Context & Author

2.1 Act One

2.1.1 Overview: Introduction to Mrs Johnstone & Lyons

2.1.2 Analysis: Introduction to Mrs. Johnston and Lyons

2.1.3 Overview: The Birth of Mickey & Edward

2.1.4 Analysis: The Birth of Mickey & Edward

2.1.5 Overview: Mickey Playing at Home

2.1.6 Overview: Mickey & Edward as Seven-year-olds

2.1.7 Analysis: Mickey & Edward as Seven-year-olds

2.1.8 Overview: Mickey & Edward as Seven-year-olds 2

2.1.9 Analysis: Mickey & Edward as Seven-year-olds 2

2.1.10 End of Topic Test - Act One

2.1.11 End of Topic Test - Act One 2

2.2 Act Two

2.2.1 Overview: Mickey & Edward as Teenagers

2.2.2 Analysis: Mickey & Edward as Teenagers

2.2.3 Overview: Mickey & Edward as Teenagers 2

2.2.4 Analysis: Mickey & Edward as Teenagers 2

2.2.5 Overview: Mickey & Edward as Teenagers 3

2.2.6 Analysis: Mickey & Edward as Teenagers 3

2.2.7 Overview: Mickey & Edward as Adults

2.2.8 Analysis: Mickey & Edward as Adults

2.2.9 End of Topic Test - Act Two

2.2.10 End of Topic Test - Act Two 2

3 Characters

3.1.1 Mickey

3.1.2 Mickey as a Damaged Adult

3.2.1 Edward

3.2.2 Edward 2

3.2.3 End of Topic Test - Mickey & Edward

3.3.1 Linda

3.3.2 Linda 2

3.4 Mrs Johnstone

3.4.1 Mrs Johnstone

3.4.2 Mrs Johnstone 2

3.5 Mrs Lyons

3.5.1 Mrs Lyons

3.5.2 Mrs Lyons 2

3.5.3 End of Topic Test - Linda & Mothers

3.6 Mr Lyons

3.6.1 Mr Lyons

3.7.1 Sammy

3.8 The Narrator

3.8.1 The Narrator

3.9.1 Minor Characters

3.9.2 End of Topic Test - Other Characters

3.10 End of Topic Sessions

3.10.1 Grade 9 - Key Characters

4.1 Parents & Children

4.1.1 Parents & Children

4.2 Growing Up

4.2.1 Growing Up

4.3 Friendship & Brotherhood

4.3.1 Friendship & Brotherhood

4.3.2 End of Topic Test - Parents, Growing Up, Friends

4.4 Fate & Superstition

4.4.1 Fate & Superstition

4.5 Nature vs. Nurture

4.5.1 Nature vs. Nurture

4.6 Social Class

4.6.1 Social Class

4.6.2 End of Topic Test - Fate, Upbringing & Class

5 Literary Techniques

5.1 Structure

5.1.1 Structure

5.2 Tragedy

5.2.1 Tragedy

5.3 Dramatic Irony

5.3.1 Dramatic Irony

5.4 Imagery

5.4.1 Imagery

5.5 Character & Voice

5.5.1 Character

5.6 Music & Lyrics

5.6.1 Music & Lyrics

5.7 Accent & Dialect

5.7.1 Accent & Dialect

5.7.2 End of Topic Test - Literary Techniques

5.7.3 End of Topic Test - Literary Techniques 2

Jump to other topics

Unlock your full potential with GoStudent tutoring

Affordable 1:1 tutoring from the comfort of your home

Tutors are matched to your specific learning needs

30+ school subjects covered

Fate & Superstition

Social Class

Nature vs. Nurture: The Biology of Sexuality

MED prof speaks tonight on whether sexual orientation has genetic basis

Kimberly cornuelle.

Homosexuality was considered a mental illness when Richard Pillard was in medical school. It was the 1950s and the School of Medicine professor of psychiatry was at the University of Rochester. At the time, the American Psychological Association still listed homosexuality as a disorder and psychologists and psychiatrists were trained on ways to treat it.

The first psychological test undertaken to determine whether there was a biological explanation for homosexuality was in 1957. With a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health , Karen Hooker studied the relationship between homosexuality and psychological development and illness. Hooker studied both homosexuals and heterosexuals—matched for age, intelligence, and education level. The subjects were then given three psychological tests: the Rorschach, the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT), and the Make-a-Picture-Story Test (MAPS). Hooker found no major differences in the answers given by the two groups. Because of the similar scores, she concluded that sexuality is not based on environmental factors.

In 1973, based on Hooker’s findings, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychological Disorders and in 1975, released a public statement that homosexuality was not a mental disorder.

There have been numerous studies designed to determine whether or not homosexuality has a genetic cause. Among the most notable were a series of studies Pillard and J. Michael Bailey, a professor of psychology at Northwestern University, conducted in the early 1990s that found that homosexuality is largely biologically determined, not environmentally influenced. In their findings, published in the Archives of General Psychiatry , they argued that decades of psychiatric research into social and cultural causes show “small effect size and are causally ambiguous.”

Pillard and Bailey examined identical and fraternal twin brothers—as well as nonrelated brothers who had been adopted—in an effort to see if there was a genetic explanation for homosexuality. They found that if one identical twin was gay, 52 percent of the time the other was also; the figure was 22 percent for fraternal twins, and only 5 percent for nonrelated adopted brothers. Pillard and Bailey’s findings have been debated in the intervening decades.

Pillard is quick to point out that much about how sexual orientation is determined remains a mystery. “It’s really hard to come up with any definite statement about the situation,” he says. “I think some sort of genetic influence seems very likely, but beyond that, what really can we say? And the answer is: not a lot.”

BU Today caught up with Pillard to talk about the lecture he will deliver tonight, titled Born This Way: The Biology of Sexual Orientation. The talk is part of the OUTlook Lecture series , sponsored by the LGBTQ ministry at Marsh Chapel.

BU Today : Has your research found that sexual orientation is biologically determined? Pillard: I think so. But nobody knows for sure what causes a person to be either gay or straight. It’s one of the great mysteries of science, at least of biological science.

Can you talk about the twin research you’ve conducted? What we did was to recruit groups of twins, identical and fraternal twins. And the theory is if a particular trait is genetic, the identical twins would be more alike than the fraternal twins. The results were that they were more alike. The identical twins were far more similar than the fraternal twins.

Is there evidence that life experiences play a role in sexual orientation? It’s a hard question to answer, because by “experience,” we’re talking about when kids are in the very first years of their life. If you’re going to do research about it, you’re doing research on people 20 or 30 years later, so it’s really hard to look back with certainty on what happened to them in those early years.

But a lot of people have tried, and have said things like, ‘Well, it depends on the fact that your mother was overprotective or that your father was distant or absent.’ You have to reconstruct those theories from events of long ago. And how do you know the mother really was overprotective—you have to depend on what the subject in your study is remembering about his early years. And that could be easily falsified.

Your research suggests that there is often a familial pattern in homosexuality. Yes. It seems to us that being gay runs in families much more frequently than you would expect by chance alone. And the pattern is hard to specify: that is, in some cases they’re brothers and sisters, in some cases it’s parents and children, or aunts and uncles. So it’s hard to put that into theory given what we know about genes and behavior, which is to say, not a lot.

What made you decide on this research? What was your motivation? Well, because there are so many gay people in my family, including me. It just seemed like a logical thing to do. At the time that I was searching for a problem, that popped out.

I think that the future of this kind of research belongs to people who are geneticists, people who are expert in gene mapping. These are the sort of bench scientists, where I am more interested in clinical things. I would be very interested if something came of this—that is, when the day comes where genes are mapped, I’d be very interested in that. But, it’s not something that I’m equipped to do.

Do you think that because attitudes are changing and acceptance of the LGBT community is becoming more prevalent, people are more willing to accept the possibility that sexual orientation is determined biologically? It’s hard to say. Insofar as people look at evidence, it’s clearly biological. The objection to homosexuality comes exclusively from the conservative religious streak, who say, ‘Well, the Bible forbids it, therefore we must be guided by what the Bible says.’ But there’s no other evidence. Lesbians and gay men don’t do worse at their jobs, they are just as good as friends and citizens. As more gay people are out and open about their orientation, the general population realizes, ‘Well, they’re pretty much the same as everybody else.’

When I was in my medical school training in the 1950s, the only places you heard about gay people being were in prison or a mental hospital. So the assumption was, well they’re all quite bizarre. Then in the late 1960s, when civil rights were being granted to people of color and to women and finally to gays, it was realized that they’re like everybody else. I think most people now have friends or acquaintances who are gay. The average college student doesn’t think much about it.

Are you amazed at how far attitudes have changed? Yes, but it’s taken a long time—50 years is a long time. But it absolutely is changing. Even so, there are people who think that gays shouldn’t be teachers or who are against gay marriage.

Since we don’t really know all the answers, people can have any opinion that crosses their mind. But I think most scientists, most people who are familiar with the science of the area, would say it’s very likely that something genetic is afoot here.

Will you be talking about sexual orientation in any kind of religious context? I have to say I’m a hard-core atheist. I’m the last person who is qualified in any way to comment on theological matters. But I wonder what college students at BU think. Because I’m on the Medical Campus, I just don’t get the chance to rub shoulders with those on the Charles River Campus. It’ll be interesting to exchange views with them.

Because you’ll be presenting your evidence, and there’s no guesswork. It’s just the facts, ma’am.

Richard Pillard will discuss Born This Way: The Biology of Sexual Orientation at 7 p.m. Tuesday, November 16, in Stone Science Building, 675 Commonwealth Ave., Room B50. Questions will follow the presentation. At 7 p.m. on November 18, Ellen Perrin, a Tufts University professor of pediatrics, will talk about Where Did We Go Right: Children Raised by Same Sex Couples, at the School of Education, 2 Silber Way, Room 130. Charles Morris, a Boston College professor of communications, will talk about Queer(ing) Public Memory: LGBTQ Pasts and Their Presence at 7 p.m. December 7, in SED 130. The events, sponsored by the LGBTQ Ministry of Marsh Chapel, are free and open to the public. For more information, contact Liz Douglass at [email protected] .

Kimberly Cornuelle can be reached at [email protected] .

Explore Related Topics:

• Share this story
• 33 Comments Add

Kimberly Cornuelle Profile

Comments & Discussion

Boston University moderates comments to facilitate an informed, substantive, civil conversation. Abusive, profane, self-promotional, misleading, incoherent or off-topic comments will be rejected. Moderators are staffed during regular business hours (EST) and can only accept comments written in English. Statistics or facts must include a citation or a link to the citation.

There are 33 comments on Nature vs. Nurture: The Biology of Sexuality

Maybe you should also present the viewpoint of some notable researchers who believe homosexuality is NOT necessarily biologcallh predetermined. Because there is overwhelming evidence that points the other way too.

Personally I think it falls out somewhere in the middle between 100% nature and 100% nurture.

Christianity takes a lot of hits for being anti-gay but I have to say that in my Catholic high school the students were by far more supportive of gays than my public high school friends and especially my non-religious friends.

Doesn’t research that shows that family members are more likely to be gay if another is equally lend itself to the conclusion that “nurture” is the root cause? (seems this research could lead to either conclusion if they are not involving genetics, etc…_

That is exactly what I was thinking, if you have 2 kids and they both grow up in the same household (assuming how they are raised causes being gay), if one is gay than the other would most likely be gay as well since they are both in the same conditions

To “Maybe you should also”:

The speaker is not saying that it is 100% nature or nurture. I think he is saying that nature plays a big role, and now we have stronger evidence to confirm this. This does not imply that it is all nature. It only implies that the evidence we have for saying nature is now stronger. This is natural, because our tools for gathering and examining evidence have improved many fold over the past few decades.

It shows it is largely genetic because the experimenters used a control group. The control group, adopted siblings who are gay, had only a 5% correlation – the nurture made little impact and the genomes were utterly different. Furthermore, fraternal twins, who have genes as different as siblings but the same basic nurture, are 22% correlated, while nonfraternal twins, ones with much closer genetics, are 52% correlated. So nature plays a big role.

That is not a control group. A control would be identical twins raised together versus identical twins raised apart, in sufficient numbers so as to form a usable sample.

Using identical twins and fraternal twins raised in practically the same environment isn’t a control. It’s very interesting, but it makes no case for biological determinance. Twins are treated very differently from non-twin siblings. This really can’t be controlled for in a non-longitudinal study.

A person is no more born a homosexual than they are born a heterosexual. If my sexuality is genetic, then there also has to be a gene that explains the behavior of those involved in beastiality and sex with children (even infants). It is substantially more reasonable that a person is born sexual, period; and for any number of reasons, chooses how to act on that sexuality. This also explains how people’s views on how to “act out” their sexuality change over time.

Christian or not — sin or not — legal or not — people will act out their desires. Making this a genetic issue suddenly makes this “not my fault”. If I’m a drug addict, chances are somewhere along the line, I made a decision. If I’m a practicing homosexual, same thing. I choose.

If it’s genetic, then it isn’t my choice. My eyes are blue. That’s genetic.

wrong. first, the a priori “reasonableness” of your position is debatable. the notion that anyone chooses whom to be attracted to seems eminently unreasonable. second, even if the nurture side were more reasonable than the nature side, science does not answer questions by adverting to reasonableness. if it did, the earth would still be flat and an electron would be either a particle or a wave. while homosexuals do make the decision to have gay sex, that hardly implies that they decided to be attracted to same-sex partners. finally, because one element of sexuality is genetically determined, that does not mean that all elements of sexuality are. your eyes may be blue but mostly they just appear to be closed.

Sorry, nothing is debatable about it. If something is sexually genetic, then what makes incest wrong? Besides, the only reason people are against incest is because of deformations, but science and technology has invented… Wait for it… Birth Control and Condoms. OMG don’t say it is so?!

Besides, you seem to forgotten how we get over our ex’s.

Nothing in the results of this study are definitive and the “reasonableness” on both sides of this issue are about equally valid at this point in time. What should be obvious to every one though is the gay community is desperately looking for science to back them up that: they were born that way. It is about equally true that conservative are equally determined to have supporting evidence that being gay is environmental. The real scientists have yet to weigh in with any factual data that proves things either way. The Pyschologist leader of this study rightly said he is unqualified to make a genetic statement on the subject. Meanwhile both sides of this issue should be a little more humble and kindly toward each other. They have only anecdotal information and minor correlations. And that is not science.

This is a free country. Everyone is free to identify themselves with any gender they want, express themselves the way they want and sexually orient themselves to any gender they want, as long as they are not imposing their views on other adults.

Homosexuality is not a choice. Just like you don’t choose the color of your skin, you cannot choose whom you are sexually attracted to. If you can, sorry, but you are not heterosexual, you are bi-sexual. Virtually all major psychological and medical experts agree that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. Most gay people will tell you its not a choice. Common sense will tell you its not a choice. While science is relatively new to studying homosexuality, studies tend to indicate that its biological.

(Change *** to www) ***-news.uchicago.edu/releases/03/differential-brain-activation.pdf ***.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html Gay, Straight Men’s Brain Responses Differ ***.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155990,00.html ***.livescience.com/health/060224_gay_genes.html ***.springerlink.com/content/w27453600k586276/

Sure I can choose who I am sexually attracted to. Example: My ex’s.

Ah, but why are you not attracted to a person you once were before? The answer: the personality of the other person. At first, you were attracted to your “ex.” Over time, that attraction dissipated as you learned more about them, and no longer wanted to be with that person. What difference does the person’s scientific sex make? Not very much. Every person has their own distinct personality, which is where (I believe) the nurture element of this debate comes into play. For instance, does one choose to be viewed as annoying for telling the same stories over and over again? No. Most likely, that is the type of person they were raised around; however, that does not change the fact that for some reason, they were initially attracted to you. Surely, you’ve met someone who was attracted to you but you were not at all attracted to them. Maybe they were a normal person with no real “deformities,” mental or physical, you just simply did not want to be with that person on a more intimate level. Why? That’s just how you were wired. You do not choose who you want to be friends with if the other person does not want to be your friend as well. Love is not a conquest to be chosen; it is a treasure to be found.

the nature/nurture distinction is one that is increasingly irrelevant in current biological work, with the advance of epigenetics and the advanced understanding of developmental biology. framing this debate and most other discussions in these terms is not very fruitful… let’s say you have a whole array of genetic dispositions – what your physical and cultural environment exposes you to will have an enormous effect on which genes get turned on and off. this starts in the womb and never stops. nature or nurture? exactly.

I’m sorry. I know this type of argument encourages critical thinking and the mind in general, but your comment is simply stupid.

Of course it isn’t. It is logical, but you disagree with the conclusion. Either there are genetic elements to sexual preference or there are not.

The choice isn’t necessarily the attraction, as gay people and pedophiles will tell you. The choice is to act upon the attraction. If one isn’t religious and doesn’t believe homosexuality is immoral, it shouldn’t matter if a person acts on that attraction, as long as it is legal. If it is not legal, then regardless of one’s predilictions, one should not act on it.

We should not conflate the individual moral and biological arguments with societal decisions about what makes a society “work.”

There is nothing wrong with making a genetical sexual case for all matters of attraction. What is the difference between sexual attraction and those who can’t stop gambling? Or hoarding cats? Or addiction? The same reinforcing pleasure mechanisms in the brain are at work. That isn’t a causal argument, but there is no reason to exclude that premise because if one accepts that, one must accept a marriage argument for siblings and multiple partners. There is simply no biological distinction.

Policy matters should be argued on a basis of societal worth, not individuals’ preferences.

I agree entirely with this post. Especially the part about the comparison with bestiality and pedophilia; it logically makes sense. Reason triumphs in your argument…however, you will most likely be met with hostility…that is the way of the “emotionally driven”.

I agree with Pillard completely in that I believe homosexuality is a function of the way you’re wired; you’re born with it. No one would willingly choose to be a minority that society has ridiculed and deemed less than equal. I’m not gay but I am a middle-aged woman and I’ve dealt with discrimination from men my entire life. It is very difficult to be a minority – so why would anyone choose that if they could avoid it? I believe that Pillard’s work will be supported soon and there will be additional evidence brought forward to corroborate it.

What I found disturbing about the interview though was his assertion that he is a hard-core atheist. I would like to appeal to Pillard’s scientific side and ask that he read the book: “The Case for Christ: A Journalist’s Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus” by Lee Strobel. It is written by an ex-atheist who set about making a case to debunk Jesus as the Christ. Instead he found, after extensive scientific and legal analysis, that it was impossible to draw that conclusion. As a result of his research Strobel is no longer an atheist.

It was Evelyn Hooker.

Ah Richard — what a delight to read your comments. Brought back so many wonderful memories of our work together at HCHS! Guess at our mutual age of 80 we are both still in there working to end discrimination toward GLBT persons. I have used the twin study in lectures here in Florida and found the audience excited about the results. I have no doubt orientation is genetic – how it is expressed, lived is nurture. That is no different than heterosexual orientation. It is curious how in the 21st century homosexuality still scares the hell out of people. Fear then brings corrupt theology and philosophy, and pseudoscience. Keep up the good work dear friend.

My 16 yr. old daughter recently “came out” to me. She expressed having felt “different” for quite some time and was only now able to understand what she was feeling. I held off telling my husband because I didn’t think he would accept what she was telling me. I finally did tell him and sure enough his response was, “let’s see how she feels in a few years”. I was speechless. We are at complete opposing sides on whether she was “born this way” or whether she is “choosing” to be gay. I’m so saddened by his response and I’m not sure how I deal with him going forward. I love and support my daughter 100% and want her to know that (I have told her so) If she knew how my husband felt I believe it would push them even farther apart (she chose not to tell him herself and told me I could)Do you have any advice?

You should know, Evelyn Hooker, not Karen Hooker, did the 1957 study.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/facts_mental_health.html http://dsmistory.umwblogs.org/dsm-iii/case-studies/ http://www.apa.org/monitor/2011/02/myth-buster.aspx

Anne Heche chose a man after being with a woman…Seems happy to me

Would this just be an anomaly?

To say that being attracted to the same sex is a choice is simplifying the debate to a fault. Like, I choose to have mashed potatoes over fries…REALLY? Ask most gay men about the earliest memories. Mine is typical. When I was 5 years old, I “knew I was different”… could I define “that” then (?), of course not. I didn’t know didly about sexuality then, much less morality. It wasn’t until I was 8 that I started acting out my sexuality, being only attracted to boys, and still, not really attaching “morality to it”…. then, as I hit my teens, I started noticing it as being anti social behavior, and not until then did I realize that society would treat me differently, thus, the struggle began. Please don’t inject into the fray terms like beastiality as a genetic phenomenon, and link it too sexual preference. We are discussing attraction to men or woman here.

1. Epigenetics: environmental factors and genes interact. 2. Abuse in childhood seems to be a pattern looking at my gay friends. I assume that often it feels safer to not become perpetrator themselves by abstaining from heterosexual sexuality. Have seen strong dissociative symptoms there and quite some violent behavior once sexuality switched from homosexuality to heterosexuality (yes, it did, in the gayest gay one can imagine). 3. Twin studies: it’s likely that identical twins identify more with each other than fraternal twins. From a psychological perspective it doesn’t make sense to believe twin studies to be indicator for genetic aspects. Then again: Epigenetics. 4. Fear and vulnerability: Gay people I know have a lot more of that than the usual heterosexual I know (who have a lot too). I don’t lie what stupid test this was for proving its not about environmental factors. There ARE differences. But it’s unlikely to detect them with a Rorschach test.

There are too many taboo topics intermingled. As long as researchers are not willing to look at these the findings won’t be anywhere near useful.

Um, plenty of researchers investigate sexual orientation. There is no evidence that child abuse causes male homosexuality, but instead that the early gender nonconformity that homosexuals usually show makes them targets for abuse and maltreatment. You can’t explain the fact that 2% of men are Fa’afafine in Samoa by claiming its a result of social influence, the Samoans (who are deeply Christian!) would laugh at you! They recognise this gender nonconformity early and put them into a third gender category (a man in the manner of a woman) because they do not approve of homosexuality. If you want to learn something I recommend the Bailey et al. review from 2016 which was authored by a number of leading researchers in this area: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1529100616637616

At the moment, however, I suspect that rather than biology being destiny, our sexual preference is shaped by a combination of early experiences, peer pressure, opportunity, circumstances and fate. Do the heterosexuals reading this ever wonder how they ended up straight, especially since so many of you will have had crushes on or even sexual contact with someone of the same sex at some stage?

A bit disturbing. How does one explain t-e human anatomy? Men having organs specifically designed for a particular purpose and so are women? What of the reproduction function? If born that way, would that mean the end of the human race?

In response to Mukasa ^ . . .most heterosexual sex is not practiced with regard to ‘procreation’ anyway but rather for ‘recreation’. Is THIS ‘against nature’?

Post a comment. Cancel reply

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

Latest from BU Today

Bu hub turns six—and it’s more important than ever, leading womanist ethicist and theologian named new mlk professor of religion and black studies at sth, to do today: free dunder-mifflin paint night, can animal organ transplants save thousands of dying people, to do today: knit & crochet night at fenway community center, boston university removes the myles standish name from dorm, pov: remembering charlie pohonich, a final look back at bu’s 151st commencement, how to make the most of memorial day weekend in boston, did you win the free furiosa: a mad max saga tickets for tonight, karen antman stepping down as bu’s medical school dean and medical campus provost, a bu class tackles the massachusetts housing crisis, zesty potato salad, my reflections on the last four years of college: why small life events matter, exploring bu’s vibrant asian student communities for aapi heritage month, photo essay: behind the scenes at a bu commencement, how three class of 2024 grads landed jobs before graduating, protests unfold in and around nickerson field during bu’s 151st commencement, quotes, comments, and cheers from bu’s 151st commencement, sights and sounds from boston university’s 151st commencement.