Nature versus nurture debate
The "nature versus nurture" debate is a longstanding discussion within psychology concerning the extent to which human behavior, personality, and attitudes are determined by genetic factors (nature) versus environmental influences (nurture). This debate has its roots in the late 19th century, influenced by developments in biological evolution, psychology, and anthropology. Over the decades, it has garnered renewed attention, particularly since the 1970s, with many studies exploring behaviors in primates and advancements in understanding human genetics, including the mapping of the human genome.
Controversially, aspects of this debate have been misused to support discriminatory ideologies, particularly regarding race and intelligence. Critics of such misuse argue that socioeconomic factors, rather than innate biological differences, are crucial in understanding variations in intelligence scores among different groups. Recent research suggests a more nuanced view, indicating that human behavior likely arises from a complex interplay between genetics and environmental conditions. This perspective emphasizes that while there may be a genetic basis for certain traits, their expression is significantly influenced by social environments. Overall, the debate continues to be a vital area of inquiry, reflecting diverse perspectives and ongoing discussions in the field of psychology.
Subject Terms
Nature versus nurture debate
One of the longest-running controversies in psychology, the “nature versus nurture” debate is an academic question as to whether human behaviors, attitudes, and personalities are the result of innate biological or genetic factors (the “nature” side of the debate) or life experiences and experiential learning (“nurture”). In effect, this debate centers on whether individual human psyches are the hardwired result of evolutionary biology or are fluid and shaped by condition and circumstance. The origins of the nature-versus-nurture debate date to the late nineteenth century and three different intellectual developments: the growing acceptance of biological evolution as theorized by Charles Darwin, the emergence of psychology as the systematic study of human thought processes, and the development of anthropology as the study of human culture (that is, the traditions, customs, and behaviors by which people live their lives and make sense of the world in which they live). Sometimes the “nature” side of this debate is referred to as sociobiology.
Overview
Although the nature-versus-nurture debate has lingered for some time, it has gained increased scholarly and media attention since the 1970s as a result of a proliferation of academic studies on the topic. Some of the earliest and most influential studies focused on the social behaviors of primates such as gorillas and chimpanzees—humans’ closest relatives, genetically speaking. The mapping of the human genome, which was completed in 2003, has also contributed to this debate by raising the possibility that scientists may soon be able to pinpoint specific genes or sequences of DNA that code for particular behaviors or personality traits.
The nature-versus-nurture debate remains one of the most contentious and controversial of all issues within the sciences, as scholars on both sides of this subject often hold very strong viewpoints. Another aspect that makes this debate so contentious is that over the years, some have attempted to invoke nature-biology arguments to promote racist or sexist ideologies or to justify social inequalities. The debate over race and intelligence is a prime example of this, as some psychologists, such as Arthur Jensen and J. Philippe Rushton, argued that Black students’ lower average scores than White students on intelligence tests is evidence of innate intellectual inferiority. The controversial 1994 book The Bell Curve, written by Richard Hernstein and Charles Murray, revived the debate over race and intelligence. Critics of Jensen and Rushton argue that differences in average IQ scores between different social groups are the result of differences in socioeconomic status and quality of educational opportunities, rather than concrete evidence of biological differences. Furthermore, physical anthropologists have noted that biologically distinct human “races” do not exist within the human species and that races, as we know them, are socially created designations.
Advances in the study of human genetics in the early twenty-first century have shed new light on the nature-versus-nurture controversy. In 2013, researchers identified the DRD4 gene, which regulates levels of dopamine, a neurotransmitter in the brain that is responsible for giving people a sensation of pleasure and excitement. Individuals vary in their production of dopamine, with scientists dubbing persons who produce lesser quantities “dandelions” and those who produce greater quantities “orchids.” Researchers noted that orchids were more heavily affected than dandelions by a negative social atmosphere while also being more positively affected when placed in an optimistic atmosphere. On the other hand, a 2009 study that examined intellectual performance and socioeconomic status among children found that at twenty-two months of age, there was no correlation between social class and intellectual performance, but by the age of seven, social class and intellect were highly correlated. Several studies from the 2020s confirmed the findings that socioeconomic status had an effect on academic performance.
Nature versus Nurture Debate Today
In the final analysis, human behavior and personality is most likely the result of a complex interplay between genetics and environment rather than simply either “nature only” or “nurture only.” Many researchers have moved toward more of a middle ground in this debate, acknowledging that there may be an underlying genetic basis for human thought and behavior that has resulted from millions of years of evolution while also recognizing that the expression of those genes can take a variety of forms, based on interactions with the natural and social environments to which they are exposed.
Bibliography
Baker, Mike. “Nature, Nurture and Exam Results.” BBC News, 15 May 2009, news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk‗news/education/8051986.stm. Accessed 24 July 2024.
Cherry, Kendra. "The Nature vs. Nurture Debate." Very Well Mind, 19 Dec. 2022, www.verywellmind.com/what-is-nature-versus-nurture-2795392. Accessed 24 July 2024.
Cool, Alison. "Twins, Nature and Nurture." Rev. of "The History of Twins, as a Criterion of the Relative Powers of Nature and Nurture," by Francis Galton. BioSocieties, vol. 9, no. 2, 2014, pp. 225–27.
Goldhaber, Dale. The Nature-Nurture Debate: Bridging the Gap. Cambridge UP, 2012.
Langensee, Lara, et al. "Interplay of Socioeconomic Status, Cognition, and School Performance in the ABCD Sample." NPJ Science of Learning, 11 Mar. 2024. Nature, www.nature.com/articles/s41539-024-00233-x#citeas. Accessed 24 July 2024.
McLeod, Saul. “Nature vs. Nurture in Psychology.” Simply Psychology, 16 July 2024, www.simplypsychology.org/naturevsnurture.html. Accessed 24 July 2024.
McGee, R. Jon, and Richard L. Warms. Anthropological Theory: An Introductory History. 5th ed. McGraw, 2012.
Moore, David S. The Dependent Gene: The Fallacy of “Nature vs. Nurture.” Holt, 2002.
Rockoff, Jonathan D. “Nature vs. Nurture: New Science Stirs Debate.” The Wall Street Journal, 16 Sept. 2013, www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323527004579079132234671374. Accessed 24 July 2024.
Sahlins, Marshall. The Use and Abuse of Biology: An Anthropological Critique of Sociobiology. U of Michigan P, 1976.
Tabery, James. Beyond Versus: The Struggle to Understand the Interaction of Nature and Nurture. MIT P, 2014.
Wilson, Edward O. Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. 25th anniv. ed. Belknap-Harvard UP, 2000.