Nature vs. Nurture

Abstract

This paper will focus on the Nature vs. Nurture debate and cover both sides of it. There will be a brief history of the beginning of this battle, including the work of Skinner and Kantor, followed by a summary of the current developments in the subject such as the theories of Jack Michael. The social, political and scientific aspects to this topic will be explained and there will be specific examples, including those of twin studies, inheritable diseases, and sexual preference. The nature of this subject will be explained in detail with different studies and cases. It will be shown where this topic is at this point today and where it is likely to go in the future. The interest in the battle between nature and nurture grows as more knowledge is presented about it, and the reason for this will be revealed within the paper.

Introduction

The battle between nature and nurture has been raging on for years and still is today. The interest in this topic grows rapidly as more and more knowledge is gained about genetics and patterns of inheritance. The amount of influence that genes have on personality verses the influence of environment and learning experiences on such complex traits is not only related to genetics, but also to psychology. In taking a psychology course one learns much about the conflict of nature vs. nurture in the minds of those studying psychological remedies for things such as personality disorders. The solution to this nature/nurture battle is important because to be able to give help to people who need it, we need to know more about how the problem was started. This topic is very intriguing and once one knows a little bit about it, there is a need to know more. Whether or not we inherit a set group of traits that make us who we are, or the environment has a more impacting role on who a person is, the answer is still being searched for. Many people who do not know much about the battle between nature and nurture believe that there is no way of proving which one has a greater effect on behavior, in fact surveys have been conducted to see what the people think (see figure 1). Really though, there are many studies that have been done to experiment with this and find the answer to this immense question. The scientific community is getting closer and closer each day and they are finding new things about genes and human behavior that help researchers carry out their experiments. There are several different questions that come up when researching this sort of topic. The first question is this: The nature vs. nurture argument has been going on since the 13^th century; when will our problem be solved? Will we ever know which it is: nature or nurture? The answer is still to be discovered. There is nothing to say that there will ever be a complete and unanimous agreement on this subject. We must keep searching and pondering and studying patterns in behavior and patterns in inheritance. There may be a compromise; a balance between both genetics and learning that make us who we are. Another prominent question that comes up is this: If everything in our personality can be changed by our environment and how we learn, than can we really blame anyone for criminal offenses? This question may seem ridiculous, but we are actually giving criminals an excuse for their actions by suggesting this. The question makes sense because if a thief or a murderer has been found, they can always use the excuse that they had a bad childhood, or they grew up homeless. If this was the case, then no one would want to take the responsibility for their problems. The last and most daunting question is this: If everything about us is predetermined by our genes, then do we really get to choose anything in our lives? This is what really scares us the most, and is probably the reason why the battle between nature and nurture has lasted so long. People want to have control over their lives, and if this isn’t so, chaos, confusion and hopelessness will ensue. This paper is going to cover the history of how this controversy came about, and how it still continues today. There have been many different kinds of studies to try and prove one theory or another, and all come to different conclusions. The controversy of this topic and the problems in studying it will be discussed as will the universal interest in the battle between nature and nurture.

Things like our eye color and face shape and other physical features we of course inherited from our parents. If we are born with a certain bone structure for instance, it can never change. Nothing that the environment does to us can alter what is said in our genes. However, one may wonder if we inherit every single thing about us. Do we inherit our personality or our talents or our values or tastes in music and beauty? These thoughts are what created the argument of nature vs. nurture in the first place. Some think that people learn these things and develop their behavior from the environment. The other half believes that everything that makes us who we are comes from our DNA and the information that we inherit from our parents. The one thing that is known is that both nature and nurture play a part.

One of the most prominent voices of this movement was B. F. Skinner. His teachings are still studied today and he will be forever remembered as the creator of Operant Conditioning. This is a kind of behavioral conditioning that makes the connection between an action or behavior and the consequence that comes after it. His was the first of three theories to be presented in the twentieth century. Skinner’s writings contain extensive consideration for the environmental effects on behavior. The four aspects of outside influence that he focused on were discrimination, deprivation and satiation, emotion, and aversive stimulation (Smith, 1997). The discriminative antecedent is described as a time when a response is followed by a reinforcement (Skinner, 1935). Skinner suggested in deprivation that if an organism was deprived of something for a period of time it would respond when the deprived thing is reinforcing the action. On the other hand, if they are supplied enough of it, their response would decreases (Smith, 1997). He also concluded from his studies that deprivation from certain necessary recourses could actually strengthen other behaviors like physical exercise and social interactions. The emotional aspect to his theory has been concluded as operant because any specific emotion is caused by the outside environment and is often followed by a response (Smith, 1997). Averse stimuli have to do with negative reinforcement, which means that this process strengthens the particular behavior by withdrawing something else. These four things are often explained as specific consequences to a behavior: either something good can be presented, something good can be taken away, something bad can be added, or something bad can be taken away. Skinner also talked a lot about natural selection in that we as a species must choose to learn as we progress to be able to survive as long as possible (Catania, 2003). This theory was a huge part of the battle between nature and nurture because Skinner’s arguments have so much science and testing behind them, and his experimenting proved his hypothesis.

The next influential character to come about a decade or so later was Jacob Robert Kantor (Smith, 1997). He developed the idea of Interbehavioral Psychology. This is the concept that the most important part of how people develop is the one’s interaction with their surroundings. In his paper, Kantor tried to go beyond the explanations of Skinner, but was still on the nurture side of the universal argument. He believed that operant and respondent concepts were good guidelines for behavior, but some situations would not fall under that particular category. He accounted for other stimuli such as age, hygiene, the presence or absence of events or other people, and previously experienced behavioral interactions (Kantor, 1970). This man was important in the search for the answer to nature vs. nurture in that he added many aspects to Skinner’s original theory and contributed his beliefs to the scientific community.

The third and final leader to come about for the side of nurture is Jack Michael (Smith, 1997). He is a more modern influence and still is working today on studying behavioral patterns and psychology. He has worked with the process called the Establishing Operation, which was termed by Keller and Schoenfeld in 1950 in their book entitled Principles of Psychology. This expression is described as a variable that temporarily changes the reinforcement of some other object or event. This operation provides a means for interpreting the effects of situations that weren’t covered by either Skinner or Kantor (Smith, 1997).

This topic is not solely about genetics and psychology; but it has political and social aspects as well. The government has set up a Task Force on Public Policy to try and develop more efficient ways for Behavior Analysts to be involved in policymaking. Behavior Analysts have contributed immensely to public policy by their analysis of the policymaking process and experimental evaluations of the effects of policy studies on actual legislative behavior (Faweett 1988). This task force was originally formed to contribute ideas to make the policymaking business relevant to the public interest (Faweett 1988). These Behavior Analysts are the same people contributing to the nature vs. nurture battle and are at the same time helping government and the people connect on a higher level. One social aspect of this topic is the actual individuals who are affected by genetic and/or learned disorders. One study that was done at the University of Pittsburgh Medical School was on the effects that depressed and non-depressed mothers had on their toddlers. Basically what was found was that the toddlers with depressed mothers tended to have less social skills than the ones with a normal maternal influence (Dietz, 2005). It was concluded that the exposure to maternal depression may affect the child’s social development and his/her later relationship with his/her mother. Another individual case is a study of children with anxious parents. It was found by testing that the offspring of these tense, nervous people had higher levels of electro dermal activity and some even developed anxiety disorders later on in life. The ones who didn’t were still different from the offspring of normal parents (Turner, 2005). All of these studies can help with determining the cause of particular problems in families as well as provide a better solution if one is possible.

It seems as if more and more evidence is being found that is in support of the nurture argument. Although nothing is for sure, many tests have been done in terms of family-related problems and/or tendencies. Even so, the one thing that may pull the nature side back into the game is twin studies. In a semi-recent study, twins were examined in terms of multiple sclerosis, diabetes, and osteoarthritis. With type 1 diabetes and osteoarthritis, genetic factors were very important in females, but unfortunately they were inconclusive with multiple sclerosis (Hawkes, 1997). This shows, however, that these particular diseases are contributed by the parent’s DNA, and not by learning. Other studies show dependence on drugs having a higher proportion in identical twins than in fraternal twins (see figure 2). Another social and yet moral issue that surrounds the nature vs. nurture topic is sexuality. This can also relate back to a political standpoint because of all the controversy over gay marriages. A twin study was actually conducted in which one or both identical twins filled out a questionnaire that had to do with their sexuality. The results show that the biological factors are more influential in determining one’s sexual preference (Whitam, 1993). Another kind of study in 2003 gives another insight into the nature/nurture debate. Young monkeys that were reared by another unrelated female still acted more similar to their birth mothers and nothing like their foster mothers. This helps researchers by showing them that it is possible for humans to inherit social behavior traits, especially since there is other research that points to the possibility of people inheriting social characteristics and impulsive aggressiveness. These studies show us that the argument isn’t over now and never will be solved, because both genetics and the environment have an effect on how we turn out as humans.

The battle between nature and nurture is a fierce one since there is so much evidence to support either side. There is never a gap where information is lacking. So many scientists and psychologists want to find out much more about the reasons behind behavioral patterns and inherited diseases versus learned disorders. The more they know about nature and nurture, the more they can do to help. This topic is a fulfilling one because it never runs dry. So many studies have been done and so many papers have been written and so many opinions are present out there, and finding them and putting them together is the most exciting part. When will the battle be over? The answer to that is never. There is no right or wrong or nature or nurture. Everything in our genes makes us the people we are today, but if one thing in our environment hadn’t been present, than our whole lives would be changed. Since we know that as humans we have the privilege of choice, there is no need to worry about people not taking the blame for what they do. There is no excuse for being a criminal even if it was a learned trait. And the question that has been burning into people’s minds since the 13^th century France: What if we have no choice and everything about us is predetermined by our inherited DNA? Well, this is just silly. Everyone on this planet is unique not only because of their genes, but because of the experiences they have had and the people they have met. Everyone is who they are because they made themselves that way. We were given a starting kit when we inherited our parent’s genes, and now we are molding that information into what we want to become. Not many problems in researching came up. Although finding scientific journals online is quite difficult, there is a lot out there if one searches hard enough. Many times an author will be missing, or some other crucial piece of information but the article itself is exactly what is needed. That is what is hard about this sort of research: it can only be used if all the information is there. Going to a library would have made everything much easier. Finding sources wouldn’t have been so hard and being in a library atmosphere for an hour or so would have helped tremendously. If there was more time, it would be interesting to take an actual survey of people in high school about what they think: Nature or Nurture? The battle rages on, in the scientific world and also in the minds of all humans. We will always ponder the meaning of life and other things of that nature. Something like this, that no one really can ever know the answer to is intriguing to all of us. This topic will always be on mind and it wont be moving anywhere far in the future. Someone will find something to prove the theory of nurture, then someone else will follow with proof of nature. This conflict is what has kept the argument going for so long and will keep it going for years to come. We may never find the truth, but we will never be able to stop ourselves from trying.

How Life Turns Out:

God?

            RESPONSE CATEGORY         % RESPONSES

                 Very Important                            23%

                    Important                                  28%

            Somewhat Important                       22%

             Not At All Important                        23%

Genes?

          RESPONSE CATEGORY          % RESPONSES

                Very Important                             3%

                    Important                                 28%

           Somewhat Important                       29%

             Not At All Important                       30%

Society?

          RESPONSE CATEGORY           % RESPONSES

                Very Important                            13%

                    Important                                 37%

           Somewhat Important                       33%

            Not At All Important                        13%

Work Ethic?

        RESPONSE CATEGORY            % RESPONSES

              Very Important                              57%

                  Important                                   36%

          Somewhat Important                         4%

           Not At All Important                          1%

Chance?

       RESPONSE CATEGORY               % RESPONSES

             Very Important                                  3%

                 Important                                      16%

         Somewhat Important                           37%

          Not At All Important                            42%

 1. Catania, C. (2003). B.F. Skinner’s Science and Human Behavior: Its Antecedents and its Consequences. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 80, 313-320.

2. Dietz, L.J., Jennings, K.D., and A.J. Abrew (2005). Social Skill in Self-Assertive Strategies of Toddlers With Depressed and Nondepressed Mothers. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 166, 94-116.

3. Faweett, S.B., Bernstein, G.S., Czyzewski, M.J., Greene, B.F., Hannah, G.T., Iwata, B.A., Jason, L.A., Mathews, R.M., Morris, E.K., Otis-Wilborn, A., Seekins, T., and R.A. Winett (1988). Behavior Analysis and Public Policy. The Behavior Analyst, 11, 11-25.

4. Hawkes, C.H. (1997). Twin Studies in Medicine – What Do They Tell Us? Q.J. Med, 90, 311-321.

5. Kantor, J.R. (1970). An Analysis of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior (TEAB). Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 13, 101-108.

6. Skinner, B.F. (1935). The Generic Nature of the Concepts of Stimulus and Response. The Journal of General Psychology, 12, 40-65.

7. Smith, R.G., and B.A. Iwata (1997). Antecedent Influences on Behavior Disorders. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 343-375.

8. Turner, S.M., Beidel, D.C., and R. Roberson-Nay (2005). Offspring of Anxious Parents: Reactivity, Habituation, and Anxiety-proneness. Behavior Research and Therapy, 43, 1263-1279.

9. Wahler, R.G., and J.J. Fox (1981). Setting Events in Applied Behavior Analysis: Toward a Conceptual and Methodological Expansion. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 14, 327-338.

10. Whitam, F.L. (1993). Homosexual Orientation in Twins: A Report on 61 Pairs and Three Triplet Sets. Archives of Sexual Behavior (Historical Archive), 22, 187-206.