Nature vs Nurture Debate

Nature versus Nurture is the issue of the degree to which environment and heredity influence
behavior and development. Nature can be defined as, behaviors due to heredity, which means
behaviors are based on the genetic makeup of an individual and is an influence of the individuals'
growth and development throughout life.
On the other hand, nurture are causes of behaviors that are environmental, which means the
influence is from, parents, siblings, family, friends and all other experiences to which the individual
is exposed to. Throughout our childhood, we didn't grow up free of environmental influences nor
did we develop without being affected by my inherited genetic makeup.
There are many examples of twins who were separated at birth and reunited after couple of years.
In one such example, twins, spent 78 years apart after being separated at birth. When they finally
reunited in 2014 — one lived in USA, the other in the U.K. — the proponents of nature-nurture
found striking similarities (and marked differences) between the two genetically alike but
geographically diverse sisters.
Both had husbands named Jim. Both are religious and like to cut up for the camera. Both had kids
with the same names. Their pets were of the same names.
"Fascinating work on separated twins shows that here are twins growing up in totally different
families, sometimes even totally different cultures, and yet they bring with them similar types of
attitudes — in politics, religion, social behavior,"
"Where do these things come from? It's difficult to know exactly but it seems that their genes
linked to intelligence, personality and temperament just lead them to have similar types of world
views."
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 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.
In reading stories about identical twins my point of view is easily understood. Various types of
psychologist have analyzed the study of identical twins. It shows that individuals with the same
genetic make-up can be totally different, when it comes to personality. Nurture promotes the twins
to grow up as separate individuals. Its a lot better if a twin has his or her own personality rather than
the same exact personality of the other half. I think this great debate weighs heavier on the nurture
side. As a child parents, and sibling overshadowed the genetic make-up. No matter how much I
thought my physical traits made me behave. It did not affect me more than the things that I had seen
and been exposed to. The more things that I had seen around and experienced made me the person
that I am today.
The nature versus nurture debate involves the extent to which particular aspects of behavior are a
product of either inherited (i.e., genetic) or acquired (i.e., learned) influences.
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.
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.
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.
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.

Case Study 1

Is a child’s development influenced by genetics or could most of the influence be found in the
child’s environment? The nature vs. nurture debate has been at the forefront of psychology for
many decades. The purpose of this essay is to try and answer the questions at the end, using the
case study of Genie.

Lenneberg (1957) (cited in Hayes, 1998) asserted that the development for children is before
teenage and if a child had not learnt how to speak, they would never pass the 2-3-word telegraphic
stage. Lenneberg felt that after the development of language would not be achieved normally after
teenage. Chomsky (1957) (cited in Cardwell et al, 2010) stated that all human language has the
same basic rules when it comes to grammar and structure.

For most individual’s development of language comes naturally as they grow. According to
Chomsky (cited in Hayes, 1998), language is foremost a product of the brain and children have an
innate acquisition device. The Chomskyan view supports the nature theory as he believed that
infants are born with an idea of how language works, and this inborn knowledge must be activated
through exposure to language at the appropriate time.
It is commonly known that behaviour is affected by consequences. Skinners’ (1935) (cited in
Cardwell 1996) theory of operant conditioning states that the process does not require repeated
efforts but an immediate reaction to a familiar stimulus.

In the case of Genie, she was raised in isolation where she spent most of her childhood locked up
in a bedroom. It is argued that her lack of language was due to the physical abuse from her mother
when she made a noise. It is noted that her mother never spoke to her even when beating her. He
was said to have barked and growled at her like a dog. In the following months after her discovery
Genie’s father reported that just after Genies’ isolation that she heard her saying words. This would
show that Genie was on course to learn language. This would prove the theory of Chomsky but
would be against Lenneberg as he had theorised that the brain of a child before the age of two has
not matured enough for the acquisition of language (Pines, 1997). However, throughout her life
Genie failed to learn the grammar and sentence structure that according to Chomsky separates the
language of human beings from other species. This could prove that she had passed the critical
stage of language acquisition. With her history of operant conditioning, it can be argued that the
behaviourist approach would be the best way to rehabilitate Genie. This would mean that the team
dealing with Genie would have to change the consequences of an action. If Genie had been in the
care of a modern day multidisciplinary referred to several specialists.

It can be assumed that Genie had expressive and receptive language disorders due to her isolation.
It is possible that part of her language issue may have related to the fact that her oral muscles had
not developed enough for her to produce the correct sounds. During her years of isolation Genie
was fed on baby food and soft foods. It has been documented that she would leave food in her
mouth until the enzymes in her saliva started to digest the food. Genie would receive one to one
attention from a speech and language therapist to try and overcome her speech and feeding
difficulties. Language intervention activities would be effective with Genie as the therapist would
interact and built a therapeutic relationship by appropriately playing and talking with her. The
therapist would demonstrate how sounds are made and how to move the tongue to make certain
sounds and use a variety of exercises to strengthen the muscles of the mouth.

Genie could be sent to an occupational therapist (OT) to assess her needs and develop a care
intervention plan. OTs’ believe that behaviour is learned and that poor or non-advantageous
behaviours can be unlearned and replaced by lasting habits. The OT could design a program for
Genie that incorporates social skill training, anxiety management and behaviour modification. The
use of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) (appendix 1) would measure
Genies progress and ensure that a humanistic approach is taken regarding her care and
rehabilitation. The COPM put Genie at the centre of her care plan and seeks to help her find
meaning to her life in her everyday activities.

As the months progressed Genie showed numerous breakthroughs. One such break through was
noticed when Dr James Kent left Genie and she showed a change of facial expression. Genie had
treated everyone the same and showed no emotional reaction to anyone or anything, however Dr
Kent noticed her expression changed from happy to sad. She had always shown the ability to
explore her environment but had never shown emotion. This showed that she could develop
emotional attachments therefore she was able to learn. Bowlby (1969, 1973) (cited in Cardwell et
al, 1996) stated that the importance of emotional attachment to a caregiver ensures that the child
will be fed, protected from harm and educated. There is evidence to say that an infants’ need to
form attachments is innate. This would also suggest that the parent also has an innate tendency to
form attachments with their children. From an evolutionary point of view, it is in the mothers’ best
interest to see her children grow up.

The early life of Genie is unknown. However, it is evident that she was not emotionally attached
to either of her parents. This could have played a part in the inability to form any emotional
attachment that led to her years of abuse. David Rigler had advised that he felt that it was important
for Genie to develop strong emotional attachments as part of her development. David Rigler and
his wife Marilyn ended up fostering Genie. The Riglers took on the roles of Genies’ therapy,
teacher, principal investigator, and foster parents. While living with the Riglers Genie showed
improvements in her therapy sessions. This could be due to her being in a nurturing environment
where she was praised for making progress. This theory on learning is support by behaviourists’
Skinner (1957) (cited in Hayes, 1998) and Thorndyke (1911) (cited in Cardwell, 1996), who saw
learning as happening mainly through the law of (positive) effect. This was demonstrated in the
Skinner box experiment (Cardwell, 1996), which rewarded rats with food for a positive action.
Initially the trap animal would demonstrate escape seeking behavior; however, one of the actions
would provide the subject with a food reinforcer. This would result in the subject changing its
behavior to seek the reward. So, in Genies’ case, every time she received praise for a positive
action, she was more likely to repeat the action.

While Genie was in isolation, her physiological needs were not completely met. According to
Maslow’s (1954), there are two sets of human needs. One set concern basic survival needs such as
physiological and basic safety needs. The other set concerns self-actualization, the realization of
an individual’s full potential as shown in creativity and the use of intellect. Since her physiological
needs were not met Maslow’s’ theory states that she would not have been able to ascend the
hierarchy and begin to satisfy her creative and intellectual drives.

Dr. J. Shirley the psychiatrist, wanted to determine her mental capabilities. The sleep test that was
carried out showed Genie had patterns that indicated mental retardation. It is not known if Genie
was born this way or if the severe neglect contributed in her mental health. It is documented that
at 14 months, Genie was diagnosed as being mentally retarded. It can be argued that Genie was
not born mentally retarded but was handicapped due to lack of normal childhood development
during her early years. Further test results showed that Genie did not display any left-brain activity
because it appeared not to have developed during her pre-pubescent years. The left part of the brain
is the area that is responsible for language acquisition and development. Psychological tests
showed that her mental age increased by one year, every year since her discovery. This is not
characteristic of mental retardation. It can be argued that because the critical stage was missed, the
biological ability for the brain to fully develop was therefore impaired.

There are several flaws in the nature versus nurture debate. The flaw in the use of Skinners rats is
that breeding within a family, as rats do, is known to cause genetic problems that can impair
intelligence. There is also the question relating to Genies’ mental retardation. If she was born
retarded, then her ability to develop at the relevant stage was impaired from birth by nature. In
Genie’s case it can be argued that nurture seemed to play a greater role than nature. She suffered
from an environment where she was not nurtured positively. Most present-day researchers agree
that human traits are determined by both nature and nurture. They may disagree on which part has
the greater influence.

Questions:

(a) In development of a personality, which one do you think plays an important role – nature or
nurture?
(b) If an individual grows up in a wealthy household, is it likely that he would acquire the best
nature as well as nurture?
(c) In your opinion, which side would you pick – “Human mind is a blank state at birth” or “A
child, when born into this world, comes with certain knowledge about the world”?
(d) Based on the conclusion of this case study, please discuss one example from your personal
experience where you felt nature is important than nurture or vice versa.

Case Study 2

Francis Galton counted many gifted individuals among his relatives, including the evolutionary
biologist Charles Darwin. So, it’s not surprising that Galton was interested in the extent to which
abilities are either inborn or learned. He was the first person to identify “nature” and “nurture” as
two separate influences whose effects could be measured and compared, maintaining that these
two elements alone were responsible for determining personality. In 1869, he used his own family
tree, as well as those of “judges, statesmen, commanders, scientists, literary men… diviners,
oarsmen, and wrestlers,” to research inherited traits for his book Hereditary Genius. As predicted,
he found more highly talented individuals in certain families than among the general population.
However, he could not safely attribute this to nature alone, as there were also conferred benefits
from growing up in a privileged home environment. Galton himself grew up in a wealthy
household with access to unusually good educational resources.

Galton proposed several other studies, including the first large survey by questionnaire, which was
sent out to members of the Royal Society to inquire about their interests and affiliations. Publishing
his results in English Men of Science, he claimed that where nature and nurture are forced to
compete, nature triumphs. External influences can make an impression, he says, but nothing can
“efface the deeper marks of individual character.” However, he insists that both nature and nurture
are essential in forming personality, since even the highest natural endowments may be “starved
by defective nurture.” Intelligence, he says, is inherited, but must be fostered through education.
In 1875, Galton studied 159 pairs of twins. He found that they did not follow the “normal”
distribution of similarity between siblings, in which they are moderately alike, but were always
extremely similar or extremely dissimilar. What really surprised him was that the degree of
similarity never changed over time. He had anticipated that a shared upbringing would lessen
dissimilarity between twins as they grew up but found that this was not the case. Nurture seemed
to play no role at all. The “nature–nurture debate” continues to this day. Some people have favored
Galton’s theories, including his notion—now known as eugenics—that people could be “bred”
like horses to promote certain characteristics. Others have preferred to believe that every baby is
a tabula rasa, or “blank slate,” and we are all born equal. Most psychologists today recognize that
nature and nurture are both crucially important in human development and interact in complex
ways.
Questions:
a). In development of a personality, which one do you think plays an important role – nature or
nurture?
b). Based on the Galton’s study of Twins, is it likely that twins will have more dissimilarities as
compared to similarities in their personalities?
c). If an individual grows up in a wealthy household, is it likely that he would acquire the best
nature as well as nurture?
d). In your opinion, which side would you pick – “Human mind is a blank state at birth” or “A
child, when born into this world, comes with certain knowledge about the world”?
e). Based on the conclusion of this case study, please discuss one example from your personal
experience where you felt nature is important than nurture or vice versa.