an essay about nature and nurture

21 Nature vs Nurture Examples

Viktoriya Sus (MA)

Viktoriya Sus is an academic writer specializing mainly in economics and business from Ukraine. She holds a Master’s degree in International Business from Lviv National University and has more than 6 years of experience writing for different clients. Viktoriya is passionate about researching the latest trends in economics and business. However, she also loves to explore different topics such as psychology, philosophy, and more.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Chris Drew (PhD)

This article was peer-reviewed and edited by Chris Drew (PhD). The review process on Helpful Professor involves having a PhD level expert fact check, edit, and contribute to articles. Reviewers ensure all content reflects expert academic consensus and is backed up with reference to academic studies. Dr. Drew has published over 20 academic articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education and holds a PhD in Education from ACU.

The nature vs. nurture debate is the long-standing argument over whether heredity (nature) or environment (nurture) plays a greater role in developing human characteristics and behaviors. 

Nature refers to the biological characteristics we are born with, including genetic predispositions toward certain traits. In contrast, nurture includes external influences that shape us, such as culture, relationships, and everyday experiences.

For example, when it comes to personality development, some people believe that genetics play a stronger role than environmental factors; this would be considered a nature-focused perspective. 

Others may view the environment as more important. In this case, a nurturing upbringing could help individuals develop their personalities. Therefore, both sides can have valid arguments for their respective positions in the debate.

The Nature Perspective

In the context of the nature vs. nurture debate, nature refers to biological heredity and genetic predispositions inherited by individuals from their parents at birth. 

Buheji (2018) states that:

“in the “nature vs. nurture” debate, nature refers to an individual’s innate qualities (nativism)” (p. 221).

This includes physical characteristics such as eye color, facial features, personality traits, and behavioral tendencies.

Genes determine the unique physical characteristics of each individual while also influencing psychological and social behavior.

Some research implies that roughly 50% of an individual’s personality and disposition are pre-determined by genetics (Bouchard & Loehlin, 2001).

However, Krueger and colleagues (2008) state that the interplay between gene-environment interactions has a consequential effect on one’s character traits. Hence, the heritability of personality isn’t always precisely 50%.

So, nature is the hereditary and genetic characteristics pre-determined at birth and influence a person’s behavior.

The Nurture Perspective

Nurture, in the context of the nature vs. nurture debate, is used to describe environmental factors that influence an individual’s development. 

According to Coon and Mitterer (2014), nurture:

“…refers to the sum of all external conditions that affect a person” (p. 100).

This includes a variety of influences such as parenting style, educational experiences, cultural background, and exposure to different environmental conditions over time.

While “nurture” may naturally invoke ideas of childhood and parental care, environmental components and life experience can shape human mental, emotional, and physical health throughout their lives (Harsha et al., 2020).

For example, lifestyle choices have been found to impact a person’s risk for developing certain diseases and their level of immunity against illness. 

Furthermore, addiction susceptibility can be impacted by environmental factors such as peer group that has been observed throughout an individual’s life (Ducci & Goldman, 2012).

Simply, nurture is an umbrella term for any environmental influences that shape the development of a person’s mental, physical, and emotional health. 

Examples of Nature vs Nurture

Nature examples.

• Eye color : A person’s eye color is determined by their genetic makeup and inherited from their parents.
• Height : As with eye color, height is a physical trait that is determined by a person’s genes and largely determines an individual’s adult height.
• Risk of D iseases : A person’s risk for developing certain diseases can be partially attributed to their genetic predisposition for that illness and influenced by lifestyle factors and personal environment.
• Immune S ystem F unctionality : Genetic predisposition plays an important role in determining an individual’s resistance to disease through the strength of their immune system. However, lifestyle choices can also influence this trait over time (e.g., diet and exercise).
• Hair Color: Hair color is determined by genetic factors. Recessive genes, like the red hair gene, generally have to be present in both parents for the recessive gene to become dominant.
• Balding: Going bald is an inherited trait. Some groups – such as male British Anglo-Saxons – are more likely to go bald in their 30s than the average.
• Adrenaline response : An individual’s ability to react quickly in dangerous situations—their “fight or flight” response—tends to be innate in all of us.

Nurture Examples

• Ethics and Parenting style : An individual’s upbringing and the parenting style they are exposed to can shape their behavior, emotional reactions, and psychological outlook throughout life.
• Linguistic Determinism Theory : In this theory, the language we are taught as a child will determine the ways we think and interact with the world. It goes some way to explaining how people of differing language groups may have differing values and belief systems .
• Values and Cultural background : Depending on their cultural background, different individuals may be exposed to different values and belief systems, which can impact their attitudes toward certain issues or topics/ideas/beliefs.
• Anxiety and Exposure to T rauma : Experiences with violence or traumatic events can have long-term effects on an individual’s psychology which could manifest outwardly as symptoms of anxiety or difficulty coping under pressure in later stages of life.
• Positivity and Social E nvironment : The people an individual interacts with can either positively or negatively affect their development. Individuals need to surround themselves with positive influences while avoiding those that might lead them down the wrong path in life.
• Relationship E xperiences and Sense of Security : Positive relationships throughout a person’s life will tend to improve outlook and well-being. In contrast, unhealthy relationships could leave long-term psychological damage that might need professional help before it can be addressed adequately by an individual suffering firsthand.

Nature and Nurture Examples

• Personality traits: The role of genetics (nature) in determining personality traits, such as extraversion or conscientiousness is balanced against the influence of upbringing and life experiences (nurture).
• Aggression: There is debate over whether aggressive behavior is primarily influenced by genetic factors (nature) or by environmental factors, such as upbringing, social learning , and exposure to violence (nurture).
• Athletic ability: The role of genetics (nature) determines a lot of our natural talent in sports but the importance of training, motivation, and exposure to physical activity (nurture) takes us the rest of the way.
• Musical talent: Musical ability may be affected by genetic predisposition (nature) but also environmental factors, such as exposure to music at a young age, education, and practice (nurture).
• Attachment styles: It is debatable whether a person’s attachment style (secure, anxious, or avoidant) is impacted by genetics (nature) versus the influence of early childhood experiences and caregiver relationships (nurture).
• Empathy and emotional intelligence: The capacity for empathy and emotional intelligence is debatably determined by both genetics (nature) and the result of upbringing, social exposure, and life experiences (nurture).
• Spiritual beliefs: Theological determinism holds that god has pre-selected his chosen people who will be true believers (nature) while others think that belief in god is a choice and we must raise our children to maintain a belief in god (nurture).
• Learning styles: In the 1980s, there was extensive debate over whether preferred learning styles, such as visual, auditory, or kinesthetic, are determined by genetic factors (nature) or influenced by educational experiences and personal development (nurture). Today, most education theorists believe that learning preferences are based on nurture over nature.
• Addiction susceptibility : Scientists have identified genes related to addiction susceptibility, even though this trait is also heavily influenced by the environment (Ducci & Goldman, 2012).
• Intelligence : Education can significantly impact traits such as intelligence levels and knowledge base, with certain experiences inspiring curiosity or creativity in individuals later in life.

Origins of Nature vs. Nurture Debate

The debate surrounding the extent to which human development is influenced by nature (heredity) or nurture (environmental factors) has been around since ancient times.

Plato, the renowned Greek philosopher, argued that beneficial traits in humans were attributable to both nature and nurture. He believed people could adapt to external occurrences throughout their lifetime (Englander, 2010).

However, his mentor Socrates leaned more towards genetics as the primary factor of human development – a notion known as Nativism, which was coined by both philosophers together.

In the late 1800s, Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution and Sir Francis Galton’s article “Hereditary Talent and Character” sparked a resurgence in interest in this topic (Galton, 1865)

So, Galton (1865) suggested hereditary influences to be at least as important as the environment when determining an individual’s outcomes in life.

The debate continued through subsequent decades, with psychologist John B. Watson’s revolutionary suggestion that environment—what he called “nurture”—was more important than hereditary factors or biology (Herrnstein, 1998).

In recent years, researchers have realized that both internal (genetic) and external (environmental) factors play a role in how individuals develop physically and psychologically. 

As such, most experts now subscribe to an approach that looks at how both genetic inheritance and environmental influences work together throughout life to shape each person’s unique character traits and behaviors.

The Role of Epigenetics in the Nature vs. Nurture Debate

Epigenetics is the study of changes in gene expression caused by environmental factors, such as diet and exposure to toxins, without altering the underlying sequences of DNA .

It is an emerging field of research that has been gaining prominence in recent years as scientists try to uncover how and to what extent the environment can shape genetic expression (Harvard University, 2019).

Epigenetic influences are now considered a significant factor in the nature vs. nurture debate, particularly in how individuals develop physically and psychologically throughout life. 

Evidence suggests that epigenetic mechanisms can be used to modulate gene expression depending on the environment, thus having a direct influence on an individual’s characteristics and behaviors (Harvard University, 2019).

This means that while both genetics and environment may play a role in determining an individual’s outcomes in life, epigenetics provides an additional layer of complexity by allowing environmental factors to interact with gene expression.

Nature vs. nurture is a decades-old debate that continues to be studied in various fields. 

Nativists state that genetics play a major role in determining characteristics and behaviors. For example, a person may have inherited certain traits from their family. 

However, empiricists suggest that external factors, such as upbringing and lifestyle choices, can also have a significant influence.

From ancient philosophers to modern-day scientists, this debate has gone through various iterations and continues to evolve today with the introduction of epigenetics. 

More recently, epigenetics have emerged as a key factor in the debate. Its  mechanisms can be used to modulate gene expression depending on the environment, thus having a direct influence on an individual.

So, it appears that both nature and nurture are important factors in determining an individual’s outcomes in life. 

Bouchard, T. J., & Loehlin, J. C. (2001). Genes, evolution, and personality.  Behavior Genetics ,  31 (3), 243–273. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1012294324713

Buheji, M. (2018).  Understanding the power of resilience economy . Mohamed Buheji.

Coon, D., & Mitterer, J. O. (2014).  Psychology: A journey . Wadsworth/Cengage Learning.

Ducci, F., & Goldman, D. (2012). The genetic basis of addictive disorders.  Psychiatric Clinics of North America ,  35 (2), 495–519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psc.2012.03.010

Englander, M. (2010).  The nature and nurture of learners . AuthorHouse.

Galton, F. (1865).  Hereditary talent and character . University of Bristol Library.

Harsha, N., Ziq, L., Lynch, M. A., & Giacaman, R. (2020). Assessment of parental nurturing and associated social, economic, and political factors among children in the West Bank of the occupied Palestinian territory.  BMC Pediatrics ,  20 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-020-02317-0

Harvard University. (2019).  What is epigenetics? The answer to the nature vs. nurture debate . Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University; Harvard University. https://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/what-is-epigenetics-and-how-does-it-relate-to-child-development/

Herrnstein, R. J. (1998). Nature as nurture: Behaviorism and the instinct doctrine.  Behavior and Philosophy ,  26 (1/2), 73–107. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27759383

Krueger, R. F., South, S., Johnson, W., & Iacono, W. (2008). The heritability of personality is not always 50%: Gene-environment interactions and correlations between personality and parenting.  Journal of Personality ,  76 (6), 1485–1522. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00529.x

• Viktoriya Sus (MA) #molongui-disabled-link Cognitive Dissonance Theory: Examples and Definition
• Viktoriya Sus (MA) #molongui-disabled-link 15 Free Enterprise Examples
• Viktoriya Sus (MA) #molongui-disabled-link 21 Sunk Costs Examples (The Fallacy Explained)
• Viktoriya Sus (MA) #molongui-disabled-link Price Floor: 15 Examples & Definition

• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 23 Achieved Status Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 15 Ableism Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 25 Defense Mechanisms Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 15 Theory of Planned Behavior Examples

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

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

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.

While still limited in predictive power, polygenic risk scores provide a way to quantify innate genetic risk, allowing researchers to study how this interacts with environmental factors to influence outcomes.

The high polygenicity of psychiatric disorders (many genes each contributing small effects) revealed by genetic architecture studies shows that there isn’t a simple genetic determinism for most psychiatric conditions. 

This complexity is further increased when you consider how these genes might interact with each other (epistasis) and with environmental factors. The same genetic profile might lead to different outcomes in different environments.

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.

Epigenetics refers to changes in gene expression that don’t involve alterations to the DNA sequence itself. Instead, these changes affect how genes are read and translated into proteins.

Mechanisms of Epigenetic Modification

Epigenetic modifications provide a direct biological mechanism by which environmental experiences (nurture) can alter how our genes (nature) function. This challenges the idea of genes as a fixed, unchangeable blueprint.

Epigenetic changes can occur throughout life, but certain periods (like early development or adolescence) may be particularly sensitive to these modifications.

There are several ways epigenetic changes can occur:

• DNA methylation : Adding methyl groups to DNA, typically suppressing gene expression.
• Histone modification : Changes to the proteins that DNA wraps around, affecting how tightly or loosely genes are packaged.
• Non-coding RNA : RNA molecules that can regulate gene expression.

Environmental Stressors

Environmental stressors have been shown to induce epigenetic changes, with substantial evidence from both animal and human studies (Klengel et al., 2016).

These stressors can include malnutrition, exposure to toxins, extreme stress, or trauma, leading to alterations in DNA methylation patterns, histone modifications, and changes in non-coding RNA expression (Bale, 2015).

Transgenerational Epigenetic Inheritance

Some epigenetic modifications may be passed down to future generations, suggesting that environmental influences on one generation could affect the genetic expression of subsequent generations.

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.

The Concept of “Memories” Being Passed Down

While there’s evidence that environmental stressors can induce epigenetic changes that might affect future generations, the concept of specific “memories” being passed down is not supported by current scientific evidence.

This concept often stems from misinterpretation of studies showing behavioral or physiological changes in offspring related to parental experiences.

Some animal studies have demonstrated that offspring of stressed parents exhibit altered stress responses or behavioral changes.

For example, Dias and Ressler (2014) showed in mice that fear responses to specific odors can be passed down to subsequent generations. However, these are not “memories” in the conventional sense, but rather alterations in stress response systems or sensory sensitivities.

Human studies in this area are much more complex and limited. Research has examined children of trauma survivors (e.g., Holocaust survivors, 9/11 survivors) and found differences in stress hormone levels or risk for PTSD (Yehuda et al., 2016).

However, these studies face significant challenges in separating genetic, epigenetic, and social/cultural factors.

The challenges in interpreting human studies are substantial. Humans have complex social structures and cultural transmission of information, making it often impossible to separate the effects of biological inheritance from social learning and shared environments (Heard & Martienssen, 2014).

The longer lifespan and generation time in humans also make it challenging to study transgenerational effects. What’s often observed is not the transmission of specific memories, but rather altered predispositions or sensitivities.

For example, children of trauma survivors might have an altered stress response system, making them more sensitive to stress, but they don’t inherit specific memories of the trauma (Bowers & Yehuda, 2016).

While specific memories aren’t passed down, changes in gene expression related to stress response systems could potentially be inherited. These could affect how future generations respond to stress or process sensory information (Zannas et al., 2015).

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.

Challenges in Epigenetic Research:

• Epigenetic changes can be tissue-specific, making it challenging to study in the living human brain
• The causal direction (whether epigenetic changes cause disorders or result from them) is often unclear
• The complexity of interactions between multiple epigenetic mechanisms and genetic variants

Bale, T. L. (2015). Epigenetic and transgenerational reprogramming of brain development. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 16 (6), 332-344.

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.

Bowers, M. E., & Yehuda, R. (2016). Intergenerational transmission of stress in humans. Neuropsychopharmacology, 41 (1), 232-244.

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.

Dias, B. G., & Ressler, K. J. (2014). Parental olfactory experience influences behavior and neural structure in subsequent generations. Nature neuroscience, 17( 1), 89-96.

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.

Heard, E., & Martienssen, R. A. (2014). Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance: myths and mechanisms. Cell, 157 (1), 95-109.

Horsthemke, B. (2018). A critical view on transgenerational epigenetic inheritance in humans. Nature communications, 9 (1), 1-4.

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.

Klengel, T., Dias, B. G., & Ressler, K. J. (2016). Models of intergenerational and transgenerational transmission of risk for psychopathology in mice. Neuropsychopharmacology, 41 (1), 219-231.

Meaney, M. J. (2010). Epigenetics and the biological definition of gene× environment interactions. Child development, 81 (1), 41-79.

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.

Yehuda, R., Daskalakis, N. P., Bierer, L. M., Bader, H. N., Klengel, T., Holsboer, F., & Binder, E. B. (2016). Holocaust exposure induced intergenerational effects on FKBP5 methylation. Biological psychiatry, 80 (5), 372-380.

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.

Zannas, A. S., Wiechmann, T., Gassen, N. C., & Binder, E. B. (2016). Gene–stress–epigenetic regulation of FKBP5: clinical and translational implications. Neuropsychopharmacology, 41 (1), 261-274.

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.

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Sweepstakes
• 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

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."

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Affective Science
• Biological Foundations of Psychology
• Clinical Psychology: Disorders and Therapies
• Cognitive Psychology/Neuroscience
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational/School Psychology
• Forensic Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems of Psychology
• Individual Differences
• Methods and Approaches in Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational and Institutional Psychology
• Personality
• Psychology and Other Disciplines
• Social Psychology
• Sports Psychology
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Nature and nurture as an enduring tension in the history of psychology.

• Hunter Honeycutt Hunter Honeycutt Bridgewater College, Department of Psychology
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.013.518
• Published online: 30 September 2019

Nature–nurture is a dichotomous way of thinking about the origins of human (and animal) behavior and development, where “nature” refers to native, inborn, causal factors that function independently of, or prior to, the experiences (“nurture”) of the organism. In psychology during the 19th century, nature-nurture debates were voiced in the language of instinct versus learning. In the first decades of the 20th century, it was widely assumed that that humans and animals entered the world with a fixed set of inborn instincts. But in the 1920s and again in the 1950s, the validity of instinct as a scientific construct was challenged on conceptual and empirical grounds. As a result, most psychologists abandoned using the term instinct but they did not abandon the validity of distinguishing between nature versus nurture. In place of instinct, many psychologists made a semantic shift to using terms like innate knowledge, biological maturation, and/or hereditary/genetic effects on development, all of which extend well into the 21st century. Still, for some psychologists, the earlier critiques of the instinct concept remain just as relevant to these more modern usages.

The tension in nature-nurture debates is commonly eased by claiming that explanations of behavior must involve reference to both nature-based and nurture-based causes. However, for some psychologists there is a growing pressure to see the nature–nurture dichotomy as oversimplifying the development of behavior patterns. The division is seen as both arbitrary and counterproductive. Rather than treat nature and nurture as separable causal factors operating on development, they treat nature-nurture as a distinction between product (nature) versus process (nurture). Thus there has been a longstanding tension about how to define, separate, and balance the effects of nature and nurture.

• nature–nurture
• development
• nativism–empiricism
• innate–learned
• behavioral genetics
• epigenetics

Nature and Nurture in Development

The oldest and most persistent ways to frame explanations about the behavioral and mental development of individuals is to distinguish between two separate sources of developmental causation: (a) intrinsic, preformed, or predetermined causes (“nature”) versus (b) extrinsic, experiential, or environmental causes (“nurture”). Inputs from these two sources are thought to add their own contribution to development (see Figure 1 ).

Figure 1. The traditional view of nature and nurture as separate causes of development. In the traditional view, nature and nurture are treated as independent causal influences that combine during development to generate outcomes. Note that, during development, the effects of nature and nurture (shown in horizontal crossing lines) remain independent so that their effects on outcomes are theoretically separable.

Because some traits seem to derive more from one source than the other, much of the tension associated with the nature–nurture division deals with disagreements about how to balance the roles of nature and nurture in the development of a trait.

Evidence of Nature in Development

Evidence to support the nature–nurture division usually derives from patterns of behavior that suggest a limited role of environmental causation, thus implying some effect of nature by default. Table 1 depicts some common descriptors and conditions used to infer that some preference, knowledge, or skill is nature based.

Table 1. Common Descriptors and Associated Conditions for Inferring the Effects of Nature on Development

It is important to reiterate that nature-based causation (e.g., genetic determination) is inferred from these observations. Such inferences can generate tension because each of the observations listed here can be explained by nurture-based (environmental) factors. Confusion can also arise when evidence of one descriptor (e.g., being hereditary) is erroneously used to justify a different usage (e.g., that the trait is unlearned).

The Origins of Nature Versus Nurture

For much of recorded history, the distinction between nature and nurture was a temporal divide between what a person is innately endowed with at birth, prior to experience (nature), and what happens thereafter (nurture). It was not until the 19th century that the temporal division was transformed into a material division of causal influences (Keller, 2010 ). New views about heredity and Darwinian evolution justified distinguishing between native traits and genetic causes from acquired traits and environmental causes. More so than before, the terms nature and nurture were often juxtaposed in an opposition famously described by Sir Francis Galton ( 1869 ) as that between “nature versus nurture.”

Galton began writing about heredity in the mid-1860s. He believed we would discover laws governing the transmission of mental as well as physical qualities. Galton’s take on mental heredity, however, was forged by his desire to improve the human race in a science he would later call “eugenics.” In the mid- 19th century , British liberals assumed humans were equivalent at birth. Their social reform efforts were geared to enhancing educational opportunities and improving living conditions. Galton, a political conservative, opposed the notion of natural equality, arguing instead that people were inherently different at birth (Cowan, 2016 ), and that these inherited mental and behavioral inequalities were transmitted through lineages like physical qualities. Because Galton opposed the widely held Lamarckian idea that the qualities acquired in one’s lifetime could modify the inherited potential of subsequent generations, he believed long-lasting improvement of the human stock would only come by controlling breeding practices.

To explain the biological mechanisms of inheritance, Galton joined a growing trend in the 1870s to understand inheritance as involving the transmission of (hypothetical) determinative, germinal substances across generations. Foreshadowing a view that would later become scientific orthodoxy, Galton believed these germinal substances to be uninfluenced by the experiences of the organism. His theory of inheritance, however, was speculative. Realizing he was not equipped to fully explicate his theory of biological inheritance, Galton abandoned this line of inquiry by the end of that decade and refocused his efforts on identifying statistical laws of heredity of individual differences (Renwick, 2011 ).

Historians generally agree that Galton was the first to treat nature (as heredity) and nurture (everything else) as separate causal forces (Keller, 2010 ), but the schism gained biological legitimacy through the work of the German cytologist Auguste Weismann in the 1880s. Whereas Galton’s theory was motivated by his political agenda, Weismann was motivated by a scientific, theoretical agenda. Namely, Weismann opposed Lamarckian inheritance and promoted a view of evolution driven almost entirely by natural selection.

Drawing upon contemporary cytological and embryological research, Weismann made the case that the determinative substances found in the germ cells of plants and animals (called the “germ-plasm”) that are transmitted across generations were physically sequestered very early in embryogenesis and remained buffered from the other cells of the body (“somato-plasm”). This so-called, Weismann’s barrier meant that alterations in the soma that develop in the lifetime of the organism through the use or disuse of body parts would not affect the germinal substances transmitted during reproduction (see Winther, 2001 , for review). On this view, Lamarckian-style inheritance of acquired characteristics was not biologically possible.

Galton and Weismann’s influence on the life sciences cannot be overstated. Their work convinced many to draw unusually sharp distinctions between the inherited (nature) and the acquired (nurture). Although their theories were met with much resistance and generated significant tension in the life sciences from cytology to psychology, their efforts helped stage a new epistemic space through which to appreciate Mendel’s soon to be rediscovered breeding studies and usher in genetics (Muller-Wille & Rheinberger, 2012 ).

Ever since, psychology has teetered between nature-biased and nurture-biased positions. With the rise of genetics, the wedge between nature–nurture was deepened in the early to mid- 20th century , creating fields of study that focused exclusively on the effects of either nature or nurture.

The “Middle Ground” Perspective on Nature–Nurture

Twenty-first-century psychology textbooks often state that the nature–nurture debates have been resolved, and the tension relaxed, because we have moved on from emphasizing nature or nurture to appreciating that development necessarily involves both nature and nurture. In this middle-ground position, one asks how nature and nurture interact. For example, how do biological (or genetic) predispositions for behaviors or innate knowledge bias early learning experiences? Or how might environmental factors influence the biologically determined (maturational) unfolding of bodily form and behaviors?

Rejection of the Nature–Nurture Divide

For some, the “middle-ground” resolution is as problematic as “either/or” views and does not resolve a deeper source of tension inherent in the dichotomy. On this view, the nature–nurture divide is neither a legitimate nor a constructive way of thinking about development. Instead, developmental analysis reveals that the terms commonly associated with nature (e.g., innate, genetic, hereditary, or instinctual) and nurture (environmental or learned) are so entwined and confounded (and often arbitrary) that their independent effects cannot be meaningfully discussed. The nature–nurture division oversimplifies developmental processes, takes too much for granted, and ultimately hinders scientific progress. Thus not only is there a lingering tension about how to balance the effects of nature and nurture in the middle-ground view, but there is also a growing tension to move beyond the dichotomous nature–nurture framework.

Nativism in Behavior: Instincts

Definitions of instinct can vary tremendously, but many contrast (a) instinct with reason (or intellect, thought, will), which is related to but separable from contrasting (b) instinct with learning (or experience or habit).

Instinct in the Age of Enlightenment

Early usages of the instinct concept, following Aristotle, treated instinct as a mental, estimative faculty ( vis aestimativa or aestimativa naturalis ) in humans and animals that allowed for the judgments of objects in the world (e.g., seeing a predator) to be deemed beneficial or harmful in a way that transcends immediate sensory experience but does not involve the use of reason (Diamond, 1971 ). In many of the early usages, the “natural instinct” of animals even included subrational forms of learning.

The modern usage of instincts as unlearned behaviors took shape in the 17th century . By that point it was widely believed that nature or God had implanted in animals and humans innate behaviors and predispositions (“instincts”) to promote the survival of the individual and the propagation of the species. Disagreements arose as to whether instincts derived from innate mental images or were mindlessly and mechanically (physiologically) generated from innately specified bodily organization (Richards, 1987 ).

Anti-Instinct Movement in the Age of Enlightenment

Challenges to the instinct concept can be found in the 16th century (see Diamond, 1971 ), but they were most fully developed by empiricist philosophers of the French Sensationalist tradition in the 18th century (Richards, 1987 ). Sensationalists asserted that animals behaved rationally and all of the so-called instincts displayed by animals could be seen as intelligently acquired habits.

For Sensationalists, instincts, as traditionally understood, did not exist. Species-specificity in behavior patterns could be explained by commonalities in physiological organization, needs, and environmental conditions. Even those instinctual behaviors seen at birth (e.g., that newly hatched chicks peck and eat grain) might eventually be explained by the animal’s prenatal experiences. Erasmus Darwin ( 1731–1802 ), for example, speculated that the movements and swallowing experiences in ovo could account for the pecking and eating of grain by young chicks. The anti-instinct sentiment was clearly expressed by the Sensationalist Jean Antoine Guer ( 1713–1764 ), who warned that instinct was an “infantile idea” that could only be held by those who are ignorant of philosophy, that traditional appeals to instincts in animals not only explained nothing but served to hinder scientific explanations, and that nothing could be more superficial than to explain behavior than appealing to so-called instincts (Richards, 1987 ).

The traditional instinct concept survived. For most people, the complex, adaptive, species-specific behaviors displayed by naïve animals (e.g., caterpillars building cocoons; infant suckling behaviors) appeared to be predetermined and unlearned. Arguably as important, however, was the resistance to the theological implications of Sensationalist philosophy.

One of the strongest reactions to Sensationalism was put forward in Germany by Herman Samuel Reimarus ( 1694–1768 ). As a natural theologian, Reimarus, sought evidence of a God in the natural world, and the species-specific, complex, and adaptive instincts of animals seemed to stand as the best evidence of God’s work. More so than any other, Reimarus extensively catalogued instincts in humans and animals. Rather than treat instincts as behaviors, he defined instincts as natural impulses (inner drives) to act that were expressed perfectly, without reflection or practice, and served adaptive goals (Richards, 1987 ). He even proposed instincts for learning, a proposal that would resurface in the mid- 20th century , as would his drive theory of instinct (Jaynes & Woodward, 1974 ).

Partly as a result of Reimarus’ efforts, the instinct concept survived going into the 19th century . But many issues surrounding the instinct concept were left unsettled. How do instincts differ from reflexive behaviors? What role does learning play in the expression of instincts, if any? Do humans have more or fewer instincts than animals? These questions would persist well into the first decades of the 20th century and ultimately fuel another anti-instinct movement.

Instinct in the 19th Century

In the 19th century , the tension about the nature and nurture of instincts in the lifetime of animals led to debates about the nature and nurture of instincts across generations . These debates dealt with whether instincts should be viewed as “inherited habits” from previous generations or whether they result from the natural selection. Debating the relative roles of neo-Lamarckian use-inheritance versus neo-Darwinian natural selection in the transmutation of species became a significant source of tension in the latter half of the 19th century . Although the neo-Lamarckian notion of instincts as being inherited habits was rejected in the 20th century , it has resurged in recent years (e.g., see Robinson & Barron, 2017 ).

Darwinian evolutionary theory required drawing distinctions between native and acquired behaviors, and, perhaps more so than before, behaviors were categorized along a continuum from the purely instinctive (unlearned), to the partially instinctive (requiring some learning), to the purely learned. Still, it was widely assumed that a purely instinctive response would be modified by experience after its first occurrence. As a result, instinct and habit were very much entangled in the lifetime of the organism. The notion of instincts as fixed and unmodifiable would not be widely advanced until after the rise of Weismann’s germ-plasm theory in the late 19thcentury .

Given their importance in evolutionary theory, there was greater interest in more objectively identifying pure instincts beyond anecdotal reports. Some of the most compelling evidence was reported by Douglas Spalding ( 1844–1877 ) in the early 1870s (see Gray, 1967 ). Spalding documented numerous instances of how naïve animals showed coordinated, seemingly adaptive responses (e.g., hiding) to objects (e.g., sight of predators) upon their first encounter, and he helped pioneer the use of the deprivation experiment to identify instinctive behaviors. This technique involved selectively depriving young animals of seemingly critical learning experiences or sensory stimulation. Should animals display some species-typical action following deprivation, then, presumably, the behavior could be labeled as unlearned or innate. In all, these studies seemed to show that animals displayed numerous adaptive responses at the very start, prior to any relevant experience. In a variety of ways, Spalding’s work anticipated 20th-century studies of innate behavior. Not only would the deprivation experiment be used as the primary means of detecting native tendencies by European zoologists and ethologists, but Spalding also showed evidence of what would later be called imprinting, critical period effects and evidence of behavioral maturation.

Reports of pure instinct did not go unchallenged. Lloyd Morgan ( 1896 ) questioned the accuracy of these reports in his own experimental work with young animals. In some cases, he failed to replicate the results and in other cases he found that instinctive behaviors were not as finely tuned to objects in the environment as had been claimed. Morgan’s research pointed to taking greater precision in identifying learned and instinctive components of behavior, but, like most at the turn of the 20th century , he did not question that animal behavior involved both learned and instinctive elements.

A focus on instinctive behaviors intensified in the 1890s as Weismann’s germ-plasm theory grew in popularity. More so than before, a sharp distinction was drawn between native and acquired characteristics, including behavior (Johnston, 1995 ). Although some psychologists continued to maintain neo-Lamarckian notions, most German (Burnham, 1972 ) and American (Cravens & Burnham, 1971 ) psychologists were quick to adopt Weismann’s theory. They envisioned a new natural science of psychology that would experimentally identify the germinally determined, invariable set of native psychological traits in species and their underlying physiological (neural) basis. However, whereas English-speaking psychologists tended to focus on how this view impacted our understanding of social institutions and its social implications, German psychologists were more interested in the longstanding philosophical implications of Weismann’s doctrine as it related to the differences (if any) between man and beast (Burnham, 1972 ).

Some anthropologists and sociologists, however, interpreted Weismann’s theory quite differently and used it elevate sociology as its own scientific discipline. In the 1890s, the French sociologist Emil Durkheim, for example, interpreted Weismann’s germinal determinants as a generic force on human behavior that influenced the development of general predispositions that are molded by the circumstances of life (Meloni, 2016 ). American anthropologists reached similar conclusions in the early 20th century (Cravens & Burnham, 1971 ). Because Weismann’s theory divorced biological inheritance from social inheritance, and because heredity was treated as a generic force, sociologists felt free to study social (eventually, “cultural”) phenomena without reference to biological or psychological concerns.

Anti-Instinct Movement in the 1920s

Despite their differences, in the first two decades of the 20th century both psychologists and sociologists generally assumed that humans and animals had some native tendencies or instincts. Concerns were even voiced that instinct had not received enough attention in psychology. Disagreements about instincts continued to focus on (the now centuries old debates of) how to conceptualize them. Were they complex reflexes, impulses, or motives to act, or should instinct be a mental faculty (like intuition), separate from reasoning and reflex (Herrnstein, 1972 )?

In America, the instinct concept came under fire following a brief paper in 1919 by Knight Dunlap titled “Are There Any Instincts?” His primary concern dealt with teleological definitions of instincts in which an instinct referred to all the activities involved in obtaining some end-state (e.g., instincts of crying, playing, feeding, reproduction, war, curiosity, or pugnacity). Defined in this way, human instincts were simply labels for human activities, but how these activities were defined was arbitrarily imposed by the researchers. Is feeding, for instance, an instinct, or is it composed of more basic instincts (like chewing and swallowing)? The arbitrariness of classifying human behavior had led to tremendous inconsistencies and confusion among psychologists.

Not all of the challenges to instinct dealt with its teleological usage. Some of the strongest criticisms were voiced by Zing-Yang Kuo throughout the 1920s. Kuo was a Chinese animal psychologist who studied under Charles Tolman at the University of California, Berkeley. Although Kuo’s attacks on instinct changed throughout the 1920s (see Honeycutt, 2011 ), he ultimately argued that all behaviors develop in experience-dependent ways and that appeals to instinct were statements of ignorance about how behaviors develop. Like Dunlap, he warned that instincts were labels with no explanatory value. To illustrate, after returning to China, he showed how the so-called rodent-killing instinct in cats often cited by instinct theorists is not found in kittens that are reared with rodents (Kuo, 1930 ). These kittens, instead, became attached to the rodents, and they resisted attempts to train rodent-killing. Echoing the point made by Guer, Kuo claimed that appeals to instinct served to stunt scientific inquiry into the developmental origins of behavior.

But Kuo did not just challenge the instinct concept. He also argued against labeling behaviors as “learned.” After all, whether an animal “learns” depends on the surrounding environmental conditions, the physiological and developmental status of the animal, and, especially, the developmental (or experiential) history of that animal. Understanding learning also required developmental analysis. Thus Kuo targeted the basic distinction between nature and nurture, and he was not alone in doing so (e.g., see Carmichael, 1925 ), but his call to reject it did not spread to mainstream American psychologists.

By the 1930s, the term instinct had fallen into disrepute in psychology, but experimental psychologists (including behaviorists) remained committed to a separation of native from acquired traits. If anything, the dividing line between native and acquired behaviors became more sharply drawn than before (Logan & Johnston, 2007 ). For some psychologists, instinct was simply rebranded in the less contentious (but still problematic) language of biological drives or motives (Herrnstein, 1972 ). Many other psychologists simply turned to describing native traits as due to “maturation” and/or “heredity” rather than “instinct.”

Fixed Action Patterns

The hereditarian instinct concept received a reboot in Europe in the 1930s with the rise of ethology led by Konrad Lorenz, Niko Tinbergen, and others. Just as animals inherit organs that perform specific functions, ethologists believed animals inherit behaviors that evolved to serve adaptive functions as well. Instincts were described as unlearned (inherited), blind, stereotyped, adaptive, fixed action patterns, impervious to change that are initiated (released) by specific stimuli in the environment.

Ethologists in 1930s and 1940s were united under the banner of innateness. They were increasingly critical of the trend by American psychologists (i.e., behaviorists) to focus on studying on how a limited number of domesticated species (e.g., white rat) responded to training in artificial settings (Burkhardt, 2005 ). Ethologists instead began with rich descriptions of animal behavior in more natural environments along with detailed analyses of the stimulus conditions that released the fixed action patterns. To test whether behavioral components were innate, ethologists relied primarily on the deprivation experiment popularized by Spalding in the 19th century . Using these methods (and others), ethologists identified numerous fascinating examples of instinctive behaviors, which captured mainstream attention.

In the early 1950s, shortly after ethology had gained professional status (Burkhardt, 2005 ), a series of challenges regarding instinct and innateness were put forth by a small cadre of North American behavioral scientists (e.g., T. C. Schneirla, Donald Hebb, Frank Beach). Arguably the most influential critique was voiced by comparative psychologist Daniel Lehrman ( 1953 ), who presented a detailed and damning critique of deprivation experiments on empirical and logical grounds. Lehrman explained that deprivation experiments isolate the animal from some but not all experiences. Thus deprivation experiments simply change what an animal experiences rather than eliminating experience altogether, and so they cannot possibly determine whether a behavior is innate (independent of experience). Instead, these experiments show what environmental conditions do not matter in the development of a behavior but do not speak to what conditions do matter .

Lehrman went on to argue that the whole endeavor to identify instinctive or innate behavior was misguided from the start. All behavior, according to Lehrman, develops from a history of interactions between an organism and its environment. If a behavior is found to develop in the absence of certain experiences, the researcher should not stop and label it as innate. Rather, research should continue to identify the conditions under which the behavior comes about. In line with Kuo, Lehrman repeated the warning that to label something as instinctive (or inherited or maturational) is a statement of ignorance about how that behavior develops and does more to stunt than promote research.

Lehrman’s critique created significant turmoil among ethologists. As a result, ethologists took greater care in using the term innate , and it led to new attempts to synthesize or re-envision learning and instinct .

Some of these attempts focused on an increased role for learning and experience in the ontogeny of species-typical behaviors. These efforts spawned significant cross-talk between ethologists and comparative psychologists to more thoroughly investigate behavioral development under natural conditions. Traditional appeals to instinct and learning (as classical and operant conditioning) were both found to be inadequate for explaining animal behavior. In their stead, these researchers focused more closely on how anatomical, physiological, experiential, and environmental conditions influenced the development of species-typical behaviors.

Tinbergen ( 1963 ) was among those ethologists who urged for greater developmental analysis of species-typical behaviors, and he included it as one of his four problems in the biological study of organisms, along with causation (mechanism), survival value (function), and evolution. Of these four problems, Tinbergen believed ethologists were especially well suited to study survival value, which he felt had been seriously neglected (Burkhardt, 2005 ).

The questions of survival value coupled with models of population genetics would gain significant momentum in the 1960s and 1970s in England and the United States with the rise of behavioral ecology and sociobiology (Griffiths, 2008 ). But because these new fields seemed to promote some kind of genetic determinism in behavioral development, they were met with much resistance and reignited a new round of nature–nurture debates in the 1970s (see Segerstrale, 2000 ).

However, not all ethologists abandoned the instinct concept. Lorenz, in particular, continued to defend the division between nature and nurture. Rather than speaking of native and acquired behaviors, Lorenz later spoke of two different sources of information for behavior (innate/genetic vs. acquired/environmental), which was more a subtle shift in language than it was an actual change in theory, as Lehrman later pointed out.

Some ethologists followed Lorenz’s lead and continued to maintain more of a traditional delineation between instinct and learning. Their alternative synthesis viewed learning as instinctive (Gould & Marler, 1987 ). They proposed that animals have evolved domain-specific “instincts to learn” that result from the its genetic predispositions and innate knowledge. To support the idea of instincts for learning, ethologists pointed to traditional ethological findings (on imprinting and birdsong learning), but they also drew from the growing body of work in experimental psychology that seemed to indicate certain types of biological effects on learning.

Biological Constraints and Preparedness

While ethology was spreading in Europe in the 1930s–1950s, behaviorism reigned in the United States. Just as ethologists were confronted with including a greater role of nurture in their studies, behaviorists were challenged to consider a greater role of nature.

Behaviorists assumed there to be some behavioral innateness (e.g., fixed action patterns, unconditioned reflexes, primary reinforcers and drives). But because behaviorists focused on learning, they tended to study animals in laboratory settings using biologically (or ecologically) irrelevant stimuli and responses to minimize any role of instinct (Johnston, 1981 ). It was widely assumed that these studies would identify general laws of learning that applied to all species regardless of the specific cues, reinforcers, and responses involved.

Challenges to the generality assumption began to accumulate in the 1960s. Some studies pointed to failures that occurred during conditioning procedures. Breland and Breland ( 1961 ), for example, reported that some complex behaviors formed through operant conditioning would eventually become “displaced” by conditioned fixed action patterns in a phenomenon they called “instinctive drift.” Studies of taste-aversion learning (e.g., Garcia & Koelling, 1966 ) also reported the failure of rats to associate certain events (e.g., flavors with shock or audiovisual stimuli with toxicosis).

Other studies were pointing to enhanced learning. In particular, it was found that rats could form strong conditioned taste aversions after only a single pairing between a novel flavor and illness. (This rapid “one trial learning” was a major focus in the research from Niko Tinbergen’s ethological laboratory.) Animals, it seemed, had evolved innate predispositions to form (or not form) certain associations.

In humans, studies of biological constraints on learning were mostly limited to fear conditioning. Evidence indicated that humans conditioned differently to (biologically or evolutionarily) fear-relevant stimuli like pictures of spiders or snakes than to fear-irrelevant stimuli like pictures of mushrooms or flowers (Ohman, Fredrikson, Hugdahl, & Rimmö, 1976 ).

These findings and others were treated as a major problem in learning theory and led to calls for a new framework to study learning from a more biologically oriented perspective that integrated the evolutionary history and innate predispositions of the species. These predispositions were described as biological “constraints” on, “preparedness,” or “adaptive specializations” for learning, all of which were consistent with the “instincts to learn” framework proposed by ethologists.

By the 1980s it was becoming clear that the biological preparedness/constraint view of learning suffered some limitations. For example, what constraints count as “biological” was questioned. It was well established that there were general constraints on learning associated with the intensity, novelty, and timing of stimuli. But, arbitrarily it seemed, these constraints were not classified as “biological” (Domjan & Galef, 1983 ). Other studies of “biological constraints” found that 5- and 10-day old rats readily learned to associated a flavor with shock (unlike in adults), but (like in adults) such conditioning was not found in 15-day-old rats (Hoffman & Spear, 1988 ). In other words, the constraint on learning was not present in young rats but developed later in life, suggesting a possible role of experience in bringing about the adult-like pattern.

Attempts to synthesize these alternatives led to numerous calls for more ecologically oriented approaches to learning not unlike the synthesis between ethology and comparative psychology in the 1960s. All ecological approaches to learning proposed that learning should be studied in the context of “natural” (recurrent and species-typical) problems that animals encounter (and have evolved to encounter) using ecologically meaningful stimuli and responses. Some argued (e.g., Johnston, 1981 ) that studies of learning should take place within the larger context of studying how animals develop and adapt to their surround. Others (Domjan & Galef, 1983 ) pointed to more of a comparative approach in studying animal learning in line with behavioral ecology that takes into account how learning can be influenced by the possible selective pressures faced by each species. Still, how to synthesize biological constraints (and evolutionary explanations) on learning with a general process approach remains a source of tension in experimental psychology.

Nativism in Mind: Innate Ideas

Nativism and empiricism in philosophy.

In the philosophy of mind, nature–nurture debates are voiced as debates between nativists and empiricists. Nativism is a philosophical position that holds that our minds have some innate (a priori to experience) knowledge, concepts, or structure at the very start of life. Empiricism, in contrast, holds that all knowledge derives from our experiences in the world.

However, rarely (if ever) were there pure nativist or empiricist positions, but the positions bespeak a persistent tension. Empiricists tended to eschew innateness and promote a view of the mental content that is built by general mechanisms (e.g., association) operating on sensory experiences, whereas nativists tend to promote a view of mind that contains domain-specific, innate processes and/or content (Simpson, Carruthers, Laurence, & Stich, 2005 ). Although the tension about mental innateness would loosen as empiricism gained prominence in philosophy and science, the strain never went away and would intensify again in the 20th century .

Nativism in 20th Century Psychology: The Case of Language Development

In the first half of the 20th century , psychologists generally assumed that knowledge was gained or constructed through experience with the world. This is not to say that psychologists did not assume some innate knowledge. The Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget, for example, believed infants enter the world with some innate knowledge structures, particularly as they relate to early sensory and motor functioning (see Piaget, 1971 ). But the bulk of his work dealt with the construction of conceptual knowledge as children adapt to their worlds. By and large, there were no research programs in psychology that sought to identify innate factors in human knowledge and cognition until the 1950s (Samet & Zaitchick, 2017 )

An interest in psychological nativism was instigated in large part by Noam Chomsky’s ( 1959 ) critique of B. F. Skinner’s book on language. To explain the complexity of language, he argued, we must view language as the knowledge and application of grammatical rules. He went on to claim that the acquisition of these rules could not be attributed to any general-purpose, learning process (e.g., reinforcement). Indeed, language acquisition occurs despite very little explicit instruction. Moreover, language is special in terms of its complexity, ease, and speed of acquisition by children and in its uniqueness to humans. Instead, he claimed that our minds innately contain some language-specific knowledge that kick-starts and promotes language acquisition. He later claimed this knowledge can be considered some sort of specialized mental faculty or module he called the “language acquisition device” (Chomsky, 1965 ) or what Pinker ( 1995 ) later called the “language instinct.”

To support the idea of linguistic nativism, Chomsky and others appealed to the poverty of the stimulus argument. In short, this argument holds that our experiences in life are insufficient to explain our knowledge and abilities. When applied to language acquisition, this argument holds children’s knowledge of language (grammar) goes far beyond the limited, and sometimes broken, linguistic events that children directly encounter. Additional evidence for nativism drew upon the apparent maturational quality of language development. Despite wide variations in languages and child-rearing practices across the world, the major milestones in language development appear to unfold in children in a universal sequence and timeline, and some evidence suggested a critical period for language acquisition.

Nativist claims about language sparked intense rebuttals by empiricist-minded psychologists and philosophers. Some of these retorts tackled the logical limitations of the poverty of stimulus argument. Others pointed to the importance of learning and social interaction in driving language development, and still others showed that language (grammatical knowledge) may not be uniquely human (see Tomasello, 1995 , for review). Nativists, in due course, provided their own rebuttals to these challenges, creating a persistent tension in psychology.

Extending Nativism Beyond Language Development

In the decades that followed, nativist arguments expanded beyond language to include cognitive domains that dealt with understanding the physical, psychological, and social worlds. Developmental psychologists were finding that infants appeared to be much more knowledgeable in cognitive tasks (e.g., on understanding object permanence) and skillful (e.g., in imitating others) than had previously been thought, and at much younger ages. Infants also showed a variety of perceptual biases (e.g., preference for face-like stimuli over equally complex non-face-like stimuli) from very early on. Following the standard poverty of the stimulus argument, these findings were taken as evidence that infants enter the world with some sort of primitive, innate, representational knowledge (or domain-specific neural mechanisms) that constrains and promotes subsequent cognitive development. The nature of this knowledge (e.g., as theories or as core knowledge), however, continues to be debated (Spelke & Kinzler, 2007 ).

Empiricist-minded developmental psychologists responded by demonstrating shortcomings in the research used to support nativist claims. For example, in studies of infants’ object knowledge, the behavior of infants (looking time) in nativist studies could be attributed to relatively simple perceptual processes rather than to the infants’ conceptual knowledge (Heyes, 2014 ). Likewise, reports of human neonatal imitation not only suffered from failures to replicate but could be explained by simpler mechanisms (e.g., arousal) than true imitation (Jones, 2017 ). Finally, studies of perceptual preferences found in young infants, like newborn preferences for face-like stimuli, may not be specific preferences for faces per se but instead may reflect simpler, nonspecific perceptual biases (e.g., preferences for top-heavy visual configurations and congruency; Simion & Di Giorgio, 2015 ).

Other arguments from empiricist-minded developmental psychologists focused on the larger rationale for inferring innateness. Even if it is conceded that young infants, like two-month-olds, or even two-day-olds, display signs of conceptual knowledge, there is no good evidence to presume the knowledge is innate. Their knowledgeable behaviors could still be seen as resulting from their experiences (many of which may be nonobvious to researchers) leading up to the age of testing (Spencer et al., 2009 ).

In the 21st century , there is still no consensus about the reality, extensiveness, or quality of mental innateness. If there is innate knowledge, can experience add new knowledge or only expand the initial knowledge? Can the doctrine of innate knowledge be falsified? There are no agreed-upon answers to these questions. The recurring arguments for and against mental nativism continue to confound developmental psychologists.

Maturation Theory

The emergence of bodily changes and basic behavioral skills sometimes occurs in an invariant, predictable, and orderly sequence in a species despite wide variations in rearing conditions. These observations are often attributed to the operation of an inferred, internally driven, maturational process. Indeed, 21st-century textbooks in psychology commonly associate “nature” with “maturation,” where maturation is defined as the predetermined unfolding of the individual from a biological or genetic blueprint. Environmental factors play a necessary, but fundamentally supportive, role in the unfolding of form.

Preformationism Versus Epigenesis in the Generation of Form

The embryological generation of bodily form was debated in antiquity but received renewed interest in the 17th century . Following Aristotle, some claimed that embryological development involved “epigenesis,” defined as the successive emergence of form from a formless state. Epigenesists, however, struggled to explain what orchestrated development without appealing to Aristotelean souls. Attempts were made to invoke to natural causes like physical and chemical forces, but, despite their best efforts, the epigenesists were forced to appeal to the power of presumed, quasi-mystical, vitalistic forces (entelechies) that directed development.

The primary alternative to epigenesis was “preformationism,” which held that development involved the growth of pre-existing form from a tiny miniature (homunculus) that formed immediately after conception or was preformed in the egg or sperm. Although it seems reasonable to guess that the invention and widespread use of the microscope would immediately lay to rest any claim of homuncular preformationism, this was not the case. To the contrary, some early microscopists claimed to see signs of miniature organisms in sperm or eggs, and failures to find these miniatures were explained away (e.g., the homunculus was transparent or deflated to the point of being unrecognizable). But as microscopes improved and more detailed observations of embryological development were reported in the late 18th and 19th centuries , homuncular preformationism was finally refuted.

From Preformationism to Predeterminism

Despite the rejection of homuncular preformationism, preformationist appeals can be found throughout the 19th century . One of the most popular preformationist theories of embryological development was put forth by Ernst Haeckel in the 1860s (Gottlieb, 1992 ). He promoted a recapitulation theory (not original to Haeckel) that maintained that the development of the individual embryo passes through all the ancestral forms of its species. Ontogeny was thought to be a rapid, condensed replay of phylogeny. Indeed, for Haeckel, phylogenesis was the mechanical cause of ontogenesis. The phylogenetic evolution of the species created the maturational unfolding of embryonic form. Exactly how this unfolding takes place was less important than its phylogenetic basis.

Most embryologists were not impressed with recapitulation theory. After all, the great embryologist Karl Ernst von Baer ( 1792–1876 ) had refuted strict recapitulation decades earlier. Instead, there was greater interest in how best to explain the mechanical causes of development ushering in a new “experimental embryology.” Many experimental embryologists followed the earlier epigenesists by discussing vitalistic forces operating on the unorganized zygote. But it soon became clear that the zygote was structured, and many people believed the zygote contained special (unknown) substances that specified development. Epigenesis-minded experimental embryologists soon warned that the old homuncular preformationism was being transformed into a new predetermined preformationism.

As a result, the debates between preformationism and epigenesis were reignited in experimental embryology, but the focus of these debates shifted to the various roles of nature and nurture during development. More specifically, research focused on the extent to which early cellular differentiation was predetermined by factors internal to cells like chromosomes or cytoplasm (preformationism, nature) or involved factors (e.g., location) outside of the cell (epigenesis, nurture). The former emphasized reductionism and developmental programming, whereas the latter emphasized some sort of holistic, regulatory system responsive to internal and external conditions. The tension between viewing development as predetermined or “epigenetic” persists into the 21st century .

Preformationism gained momentum in the 20th century following the rediscovery of Mendel’s studies of heredity and the rapid rise of genetics, but not because of embryological research on the causes of early differentiation. Instead, preformationism prevailed because it seemed embryological research on the mechanisms of development could be ignored in studies of hereditary patterns.

The initial split between heredity and development can be found in Galton’s speculations but is usually attributed to Weismann’s germ-plasm theory. Weismann’s barrier seemed to posit that the germinal determinants present at conception would be the same, unaltered determinants transmitted during reproduction. This position, later dubbed as “Weismannism,” was ironically not one promoted by Weismann. Like nearly all theorists in the 19th century , he viewed the origins of variation and heredity as developmental phenomena (Amundson, 2005 ), and he claimed that the germ-plasm could be directly modified in the lifetime of the organism by environmental (e.g., climactic and dietary) conditions (Winther, 2001 ). Still, Weismann’s theory treated development as a largely predetermined affair driven by inherited, germinal determinants buffered from most developmental events. As such, it helped set the stage for a more formal divorce between heredity and development with the rise of Mendelism in the early 20th century .

Mendel’s theory of heredity was exceptional in how it split development from heredity (Amundson, 2005 ). More so than in Weismann’s theory, Mendel’s theory assumed that the internal factors that determine form and are transmitted across generations remain unaltered in the lifetime of the organism. To predict offspring outcomes, one need only know the combination of internal factors present at conception and their dominance relations. Exactly how these internal factors determined form could be disregarded. The laws of hereditary transmission of the internal factors (e.g., segregation) did not depend on the development or experiences of the organism or the experiences the organism’s ancestors. Thus the experimental study of heredity (i.e., breeding) could proceed without reference to ancestral records or embryological concerns (Amundson, 2000 ). By the mid-1920s, the Mendelian factors (now commonly called “genes”) were found to be structurally arranged on chromosomes, and the empirical study of heredity (transmission genetics) was officially divorced from studies of development.

The splitting of heredity and development found in Mendel’s and Weismann’s work met with much resistance. Neo-Lamarckian scientists, especially in the United States (Cook, 1999 ) and France (Loison, 2011 ), sought unsuccessfully to experimentally demonstrate the inheritance of acquired characteristics into the 1930s.

In Germany during the 1920s and 1930s, resistance to Mendelism dealt with the chromosomal view of Mendelian heredity championed by American geneticists who were narrowly focused on studying transmission genetics at the expense of developmental genetics. German biologists, in contrast, were much more interested in the broader roles of genes in development (and evolution). In trying to understand how genes influence development, particularly of traits of interest to embryologists, they found the Mendelian theory to be lacking. In the decades between the world wars, German biologists proposed various expanded views of heredity that included some form of cytoplasmic inheritance (Harwood, 1985 ).

Embryologists resisted the preformationist view of development throughout the early to mid- 20th century , often maintaining no divide between heredity and development, but their objections were overshadowed by genetics and its eventual synthesis with evolutionary theory. Consequently, embryological development was treated by geneticists and evolutionary biologists as a predetermined, maturational process driven by internal, “genetic” factors buffered from environmental influence.

Maturation Theory in Psychology

Maturation theory was applied to behavioral development in the 19th century in the application of Haeckel’s recapitulation theory. Some psychologists believed that the mental growth of children recapitulated the history of the human race (from savage brute to civilized human). With this in mind, many people began to more carefully document child development. Recapitulationist notions were found in the ideas of many notable psychologists in the 19th and early 20th centuries (e.g., G. S. Hall), and, as such, the concept played an important role in the origins of developmental psychology (Koops, 2015 ). But for present purposes what is most important is that children’s mental and behavioral development was thought to unfold via a predetermined, maturational process.

With the growth of genetics, maturational explanations were increasingly invoked to explain nearly all native and hereditary traits. As the instinct concept lost value in the 1920s, maturation theory gained currency, although the shift was largely a matter of semantics. For many psychologists, the language simply shifted from “instinct versus learning” to “maturation versus practice/experience” (Witty & Lehman, 1933 ).

Initial lines of evidence for maturational explanations of behavior were often the same as those that justified instinct and native traits, but new embryological research presented in the mid-1920s converged to show support for strict maturational explanations of behavioral development. In these experiments (see Wyman, 2005 , for review), spanning multiple laboratories, amphibians (salamanders and frogs) were exposed to drugs that acted as anesthetics and/or paralytics throughout the early stages of development, thus reducing sensory experience and/or motor practice. Despite the reduced sensory experiences and being unable to move, these animals showed no delays in the onset of motor development once the drugs wore off.

This maturational account of motor development in amphibians fit well with contemporaneous studies of motor development in humans. The orderly, invariant, and predictable (age-related) sequential appearance of motor skills documented in infants reared under different circumstances (in different countries and across different decades) was seen as strong evidence for a maturational account. Additional evidence was reported by Arnold Gessell and Myrtle McGraw, who independently presented evidence in the 1920s to show that the pace and sequence of motor development in infancy were not altered by special training experiences. Although the theories of these maturation theorists were more sophisticated when applied to cognitive development, their work promoted a view in which development was primarily driven by neural maturation rather than experience (Thelen, 2000 ).

Critical and Sensitive Periods

As the maturation account of behavioral development gained ground, it became clear that environmental input played a more informative role than had previously been thought. Environmental factors were found to either disrupt or induce maturational changes at specific times during development. Embryological research suggested that there were well-delineated time periods of heightened sensitivity in which specific experimental manipulations (e.g., tissue transplantations) could induce irreversible developmental changes, but the same manipulation would have no effect outside of that critical period.

In the 1950s–1960s a flurry of critical period effects were reported in birds and mammals across a range of behaviors including imprinting, attachment, socialization, sensory development, bird song learning, and language development (Michel & Tyler, 2005 ). Even though these findings highlighted an important role of experience in behavioral development, evidence of critical periods was usually taken to imply some rigid form of biological determinism (Oyama, 1979 ).

As additional studies were conducted on critical period effects, it became clear that many of the reported effects were more gradual, variable, experience-dependent, and not necessarily as reversible as was previously assumed. In light of these reports, there was a push in the 1970s (e.g., Connolly, 1972 ) to substitute “sensitive period” for “critical period” to avoid the predeterminist connotations associated with the latter and to better appreciate that these periods simply describe (not explain) certain temporal aspects of behavioral development. As a result, a consensus emerged that behaviors should not be attributed to “time” or “age” but to the developmental history and status of the animal under investigation (Michel & Tyler, 2005 ).

Heredity and Genetics

In the decades leading up to and following the start of the 20th century , it was widely assumed that many psychological traits (not just instincts) were inherited or “due to heredity,” although the underlying mechanisms were unknown. Differences in intelligence, personality, and criminality within and between races and sexes were largely assumed to be hereditary and unalterable by environmental intervention (Gould, 1996 ). The evidence to support these views in humans was often derived from statistical analyses of how various traits tended to run in families. But all too frequently, explanations of data were clouded by pre-existing, hereditarian assumptions.

Human Behavioral Genetics

The statistical study of inherited human (physical, mental, and behavioral) differences was pioneered by Galton ( 1869 ). Although at times Galton wrote that nature and nurture were so intertwined as to be inseparable, he nevertheless devised statistical methods to separate their effects. In the 1860s and 1870s, Galton published reports purporting to show how similarities in intellect (genius, talent, character, and eminence) in European lineages appeared to be a function of degree of relatedness. Galton considered, but dismissed, environmental explanations of his data, leading him to confirm his belief that nature was stronger than nurture.

Galton also introduced the use of twin studies to tease apart the relative impact of nature versus nurture, but the twin method he used was markedly different from later twin studies used by behavioral geneticists. Galton tracked the life history of twins who were judged to be very similar or very dissimilar near birth (i.e., by nature) to test the power of various postnatal environments (nurture) that might make them more or less similar over time. Here again, Galton concluded that nature overpowers nurture.

Similar pedigree (e.g., the Kallikak study; see Zenderland, 2001 ) and twin studies appeared in the early 1900s, but the first adoption study and the modern twin method (which compares monozygotic to dizygotic twin pairs) did not appear until the 1920s (Rende, Plomin, & Vandenberg, 1990 ). These reports led to a flurry of additional work on the inheritance of mental and behavioral traits over the next decade.

Behavioral genetic research peaked in the 1930s but rapidly lost prominence due in large part to its association with the eugenics movement (spearheaded by Galton) but also because of the rise and eventual hegemony of behaviorism and the social sciences in the United States. Behavioral genetics resurged in the 1960s with the rising tide of nativism in psychology, and returned to its 1930s-level prominence in the 1970s (McGue & Gottesman, 2015 ).

The resurgence brought with a new statistical tool: the heritability statistic. The origins of heritability trace back to early attempts to synthesize Mendelian genetics with biometrics by Ronald Fisher and others. This synthesis ushered in a new field of quantitative genetics and it marked a new way of thinking about nature and nurture. The shift was to no longer think about nature and nurture as causes of traits in individuals but as causes of variation in traits between populations of individuals. Eventually, heritability came to refer to the amount of variance in a population sample that could be statistically attributed to genetic variation in that sample. Kinship (especially twin) studies provided seemingly straightforward ways of partitioning variation in population trait attributes into genetic versus environmental sources.

Into the early 21st century , hundreds of behavioral genetic studies of personality, intelligence, and psychopathology were reported. With rare exceptions, these studies converge to argue for a pervasive influence of genetics on human psychological variation.

These studies have also fueled much controversy. Citing in part behavioral genetic research, the educational psychologist Arthur Jensen ( 1969 ) claimed that the differences in intelligence and educational achievement in the United States between black and white students appeared to have a strong genetic basis. He went on to assume that because these racial differences appeared hereditary, they were likely impervious to environmental (educational) intervention. His article fanned the embers of past eugenics practices and ignited fiery responses (e.g., Hirsch, 1975 ). The ensuing debates not only spawned a rethinking of intelligence and how to measure it, but they ushered in a more critical look at the methods and assumptions of behavioral genetics.

Challenges to Behavioral Genetics

Many of the early critiques of behavioral genetics centered on interpreting the heritability statistic commonly calculated in kinship (family, twin, and adoption) studies. Perhaps more so than any other statistic, heritability has been persistently misinterpreted by academics and laypersons alike (Lerner, 2002 ). Contrary to popular belief, heritability tells us nothing about the relative impact of genetic and environmental factors on the development of traits in individuals. It deals with accounting for trait variation between people, not the causes of traits within people. As a result, a high heritability does not indicate anything about the fixity of traits or their imperviousness to environmental influence (contra Jensen), and a low heritability does not indicate an absence of genetic influence on trait development. Worse still, heritability does not even indicate anything about the role of genetics in generating the differences between people.

Other challenges to heritability focused not on its interpretation but on its underlying computational assumptions. Most notably, heritability analyses assume that genetic and environmental contributions to trait differences are independent and additive. The interaction between genetic and environmental factors were dismissed a priori in these analyses. Studies of development, however, show that no factor (genes, hormones, parenting, schooling) operates independently, making it impossible to quantify how much of a given trait in a person is due to any causal factor. Thus heritability analyses are bound to be misleading because they are based on biologically implausible and logically indefensible assumptions about development (Gottlieb, 2003 ).

Aside from heritability, kinship studies have been criticized for not being able to disentangle genetic and environmental effects on variation. It had long been known that that in family (pedigree) studies, environmental and genetic factors are confounded. Twin and adoption studies seemed to provide unique opportunities to statistically disentangle these effects, but these studies are also deeply problematic in assumptions and methodology. There are numerous plausible environmental reasons for why monozygotic twin pairs could resemble each other more than dizygotic twin pairs or why adoptive children might more closely resemble their biological than their adoptive parents (Joseph & Ratner, 2013 ).

A more recent challenge to behavioral genetics came from an unlikely source. Advances in genomic scanning in the 21st century made it possible in a single study to correlate thousands of genetic polymorphisms with variation in the psychological profiles (e.g., intelligence, memory, temperament, psychopathology) of thousands of people. These “genome-wide association” studies seemed to have the power and precision to finally identify genetic contributions to heritability at the level of single nucleotides. Yet, these studies consistently found only very small effects.

The failure to find large effects came to be known as the “missing heritability” problem (Maher, 2008 ). To account for the missing heritability, some behavioral geneticists and molecular biologists asserted that important genetic polymorphisms remain unknown, they may be too rare to detect, and/or that current studies are just not well equipped to handle gene–gene interactions. These studies were also insensitive to epigenetic profiles (see the section on Behavioral Epigenetics), which deal with differences in gene expression. Even when people share genes, they may differ in whether those genes get expressed in their lifetimes.

But genome-wide association studies faced an even more problematic issue: Many of these studies failed to replicate (Lickliter & Honeycutt, 2015 ). For those who viewed heritability analyses as biologically implausible, the small effect sizes and failures to replicate in genome-wide association studies were not that surprising. The search for independent genetic effects was bound to fail, because genes simply do not operate independently during development.

Behavioral Epigenetics

Epigenetics was a term coined in the 1940s by the developmental biologist Conrad Waddington to refer to a new field of study that would examine how genetic factors interact with local environmental conditions to bring about the embryological development of traits. By the end of the 20th century , epigenetics came to refer to the study of how nongenetic, molecular mechanisms physically regulate gene expression patterns in cells and across cell lineages. The most-studied mechanisms involve organic compounds (e.g., methyl-groups) that physically bind to DNA or the surrounding proteins that package DNA. The addition or removal of these compounds can activate or silence gene transcription. Different cell types have different, stable epigenetic markings, and these markings are recreated during cell division so that cells so marked give rise to similar types of cells. Epigenetic changes were known to occur during developmental periods of cellular differentiation (e.g., during embryogenesis), but not until 2004 was it discovered that these changes can occur at other periods in the life, including after birth (Roth, 2013 )

Of interest to psychologists were reports that different behavioral and physiological profiles (e.g., stress reactivity) of animals were associated with different epigenetic patterns in the nervous system (Moore, 2015 ). Furthermore, these different epigenetic patterns could be established or modified by environmental factors (e.g., caregiving practices, training regimes, or environmental enrichment), and, under certain conditions, they remain stable over long periods of time (from infancy to adulthood).

Because epigenetic research investigates the physical interface between genes and environment, it represents an exciting advance in understanding the interaction of nature and nurture. Despite some warnings that the excitement over behavioral epigenetic research may be premature (e.g., Miller, 2010 ), for many psychologists, epigenetics underscores how development involves both nature and nurture.

For others, what is equally exciting is the additional evidence epigenetics provides to show that the genome is an interactive and regulated system. Once viewed as the static director of development buffered from environment influence, the genome is better described as a developing resource of the cell (Moore, 2015 ). More broadly, epigenetics also points to how development is not a genetically (or biologically) predetermined affair. Instead, epigenetics provides additional evidence that development is a probabilistic process, contingent upon factors internal and external to the organism. In this sense, epigenetics is well positioned to help dissolve the nature–nurture dichotomy.

Beyond Nature–Nurture

In the final decades of the 20th century , a position was articulated to move beyond the dichotomous nature–nurture framework. The middle-ground position on nature–nurture did not seem up to the task of explaining the origins of form, and it brought about more confusion than clarity. The back-and-forth (or balanced) pendulum between nature- and nurture-based positions throughout history had only gone in circles. Moving forward would require moving beyond such dichotomous thinking (Johnston, 1987 ).

The anti-dichotomy position, referred to as the Developmentalist tradition, was expressed in a variety of systems-based, metatheoretical approaches to studying development, all of which extended the arguments against nature–nurture expressed earlier by Kuo and Lehrman. The central problem with all nativist claims according to Developmentalists is a reliance on preformationism (or predeterminism).

The problem with preformationism, they argue, besides issues of evidence, is that it is an anti-developmental mindset. It presumes the existence of the very thing(s) one wishes to explain and, consequently, discourages developmental analyses. To claim that some knowledge is innate effectively shuts down research on the developmental origins of that knowledge. After all, why look for the origins of conceptual knowledge if that knowledge is there all along? Or why search for any experiential contributions to innate behaviors if those behaviors by definition develop independently of experience? In the words of Developmentalists Thelen and Adolph ( 1992 ), nativism “leads to a static science, with no principles for understanding change or for confronting the ultimate challenge of development, the source of new forms in structure and function” (p. 378).

A commitment to maturational theory is likely one of the reasons why studies of motor development remained relatively dormant for decades following its heyday in the 1930–1940s (Thelen, 2000 ). Likewise, a commitment to maturational theory also helps explain the delay in neuroscience to examine how the brain physically changes in response to environmental conditions, a line of inquiry that only began in the 1960s.

In addition to the theoretical pitfalls of nativism, Developmentalists point to numerous studies that show how some seemingly native behaviors and innate constraints on learning are driven by the experiences of animals. For example, the comparative psychologist Gilbert Gottlieb ( 1971 ) showed that newly hatched ducklings display a naïve preference for a duck maternal call over a (similarly novel) chicken maternal call (Gottlieb, 1971 ), even when duck embryos were repeatedly exposed to the chicken call prior to hatching (Gottlieb, 1991 ). It would be easy to conclude that ducklings have an innate preference to approach their own species call and that they are biologically constrained (contraprepared) in learning a chicken call. However, Gottlieb found that the naïve preference for the duck call stemmed from exposure to the duck embryos’ own (or other) vocalizations in the days before hatching (Gottlieb, 1971 ). Exposure to these vocalizations not only made duck maternal calls more attractive, but it hindered the establishment of a preference for heterospecific calls. When duck embryos were reared in the absence of the embryonic vocalizations (by devocalizing embryos in ovo ) and exposed instead to chicken maternal calls, the newly hatched ducklings preferred chicken over duck calls (Gottlieb, 1991 ). These studies clearly showed how seemingly innate, biologically based preferences and constraints on learning derived from prenatal sensory experiences.

For Developmentalists, findings like these suggest that nativist explanations of any given behavior are statements of ignorance about how that behavior actually develops. As Kuo and Lehrman made clear, nativist terms are labels, not explanations. Although such appeals are couched in respectable, scientific language (e.g., “X is due to maturation, genes, or heredity”), they argue it would be more accurate simply to say that “We don’t know what causes X” or that “X is not due to A, B, or C.” Indeed, for Developmentalists, the more we unpack the complex dynamics about how traits develop, the less likely we are to use labels like nature or nurture (Blumberg, 2005 ).

On the other hand, Developmentalists recognize that labeling a behavior as “learned” also falls short as an explanatory construct. The empiricist position that knowledge or behavior is learned does not adequately take into account that what is learned and how easily something is learned depends on (a) the physiological and developmental status of the person, (b) the nature of the surrounding physical and social context in which learning takes place, and the (c) experiential history of the person. The empiricist tendency to say “X is learned or acquired through experience” can also short-circuit developmental analyses in the same way as nativist claims.

Still, Developmentalists appreciate that classifying behaviors can be useful. For example, the development of some behaviors may be more robust, reliably emerging across a range of environments and/or remaining relatively resistant to change, whereas others are more context-specific and malleable. Some preferences for stimuli require direct experience with those stimuli. Other preferences require less obvious (indirect) types of experiences. Likewise, it can still be useful to describe some behaviors in the ways shown in Table 1 . Developmentalists simply urge psychologists to resist the temptation to treat these behavioral classifications as implying different kinds of explanations (Johnston, 1987 ).

Rather than treat nature and nurture as separate developmental sources of causation (see Figure 1 ), Developmentalists argue that a more productive way of thinking about nature–nurture is to reframe the division as that between product and process (Lickliter & Honeycutt, 2015 ). The phenotype or structure (one’s genetic, epigenetic, anatomical, physiological, behavioral, and mental profile) of an individual at any given time can be considered one’s “nature.” “Nurture” then refers to the set of processes that generate, maintain, and transform one’s nature (Figure 2 ). These processes involve the dynamic interplay between phenotypes and environments.

Figure 2. The developmentalist alternative view of nature–nurture as product–process. Developmentalists view nature and nurture not as separate sources of causation in development (see Figure 1 ) but as a distinction between process (nurture) and product (nature).

It is hard to imagine any set of findings that will end debates about the roles of nature and nurture in human development. Why? First, more so than other assumptions about human development, the nature–nurture dichotomy is deeply entrenched in popular culture and the life sciences. Second, throughout history, the differing positions on nature and nurture were often driven by other ideological, philosophical, and sociopolitical commitments. Thus the essential source of tension in debates about nature–nurture is not as much about research agendas or evidence as about basic differences in metatheoretical positions (epistemological and ontological assumptions) about human behavior and development (Overton, 2006 ).

• Amundson, R. (2000). Embryology and evolution 1920–1960: Worlds apart? History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences , 22 , 335–352.
• Amundson, R. (2005). The changing role of the embryo in evolutionary thought: Roots of evo-devo . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
• Blumberg, M. S. (2005). Basic instinct: The genesis of novel behavior . New York, NY: Thunder’s Mouth Press.
• Breland, K. , & Breland, M. (1961). The misbehavior of organisms. American Psychologist , 16 , 681–684.
• Burkhardt, R. (2005). Patterns of behavior: Konrad Lorenz, Niko Tinbergen and the founding of ethology . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
• Burnham, J. C. (1972). Instinct theory and the German reaction to Weismannism. Journal of the History of Biology , 5 , 321–326.
• Carmichael, L. (1925). Heredity and environment: Are they antithetical? The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 20 (3), 245–260.
• Chomsky, N. (1959). A review of B. F. Skinner’s verbal behavior. Language , 35 , 26–57.
• Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Connolly, K. (1972). Learning and the concept of critical periods in infancy. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology , 14 (6), 705–714.
• Cook, G. M. (1999). Neo-Lamarckian experimentalism in America: Origins and consequences. Quarterly Review of Biology , 74 , 417–437.
• Cowan, R. S. C. (2016). Commentary: Before Weismann and germplasm there was Galton and eugenics: The biological and political meaning of the inheritance of acquired characteristics in the late 19th century . International Journal of Epidemiology , 45 , 15–20.
• Cravens, H. , & Burnham, J. C. (1971). Psychology and evolutionary naturalism in American thought, 1890–1940. American Quarterly , 23 , 635–657.
• Diamond, S. (1971). Gestation of the instinct concept. History of the Behavioral Sciences , 7 (4), 323–336.
• Domjan, M. , & Galef, B. G. (1983). Biological constraints on instrumental and classical conditioning: Retrospect and prospect. Animal Learning & Behavior , 11 (2), 151–161.
• Dunlap, K. (1919). Are there any instincts? Journal of Abnormal Psychology , 14 , 307–311.
• Galton, F. (1869). Hereditary genius . London, U.K.: Macmillan.
• Garcia, J. , & Koelling, R. A. (1966). Relation of cue to consequence in avoidance learning. Psychonomics , 4 (1), 123–124.
• Gottlieb, G. (1971). Development of species identification in birds . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
• Gottlieb, G. (1991). Experiential canalization of behavioral development: Results. Developmental Psychology , 27 (1), 35–39.
• Gottlieb, G. (1992). Individual development and evolution: The genesis of novel behavior . New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
• Gottlieb, G. (2003). On making behavioral genetics truly developmental. Human Development , 46 , 337–355.
• Gould, J. L. , & Marler, P. (1987). Learning by instinct. Scientific American , 256 (1), 74–85.
• Gould, S. J. (1996). The mismeasure of man (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Norton.
• Gray, P. H. (1967). Spalding and his influence on research in developmental behavior. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences , 3 , 168–179.
• Griffiths, P. E. (2008). Ethology, sociobiology, and evolutionary psychology. In S. Sarkar & A. Plutnsky (Eds.), A companion to the philosophy of biology (pp. 393–414). New York, NY: Blackwell.
• Harwood, J. (1985). Geneticists and the evolutionary synthesis in interwar Germany. Annals of Science , 42 , 279–301.
• Herrnstein, R. J. (1972). Nature as nurture: Behaviorism and the instinct doctrine. Behaviorism , 1 (1), 23–52.
• Heyes, C. (2014). False belief in infancy: A fresh look. Developmental Science , 17 (5), 647–659.
• Hirsch, J. (1975). Jensenism: The bankruptcy of “science” without scholarship. Educational Theory , 25 , 3–27.
• Hoffman, H. , & Spear, N. E. (1988). Ontogenetic differences in conditioning of an aversion to a gustatory CS with a peripheral US. Behavioral and Neural Biology , 50 , 16–23.
• Honeycutt, H. (2011). The “enduring mission” of Zing-Yang Kuo to eliminate the nature–nurture dichotomy in psychology. Developmental Psychobiology , 53 (4), 331–342.
• Jaynes, J. , & Woodward, W. (1974). In the shadow of the enlightenment. II. Reimarus and his theory of drives. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences , 10 , 144–159.
• Jensen, A. (1969). How much can we boost IQ and scholastic achievement. Harvard Educational Review , 39 , 1–123.
• Johnston, T. (1981). Contrasting approaches to a theory of learning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 4 , 125–173.
• Johnston, T. (1987). The persistence of dichotomies in the study of behavior. Developmental Review , 7 , 149–172.
• Johnston, T. (1995). The influence of Weismann’s germ-plasm theory on the distinction between learned and innate behavior. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences , 31 , 115–128.
• Jones, S. (2017). Can newborn infants imitate? Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science , 8 , e1410.
• Joseph, J. , & Ratner, C. (2013). The fruitless search for genes in psychiatry and psychology: Time to reexamine a paradigm. In S. Krimsky & J. Gruber (Eds.), Genetic explanations: Sense and nonsense (pp. 94–106). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Keller, E. F. (2010). The mirage of space between nature and nurture . Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
• Koops, W. (2015). No developmental psychology without recapitulation theory . European Journal of Developmental Psychology , 12 (6), 630–639.
• Kuo, Z. Y. (1930). The genesis of the cat’s response to the rat. Journal of Comparative Psychology , 11 , 1–36.
• Lehrman, D. S. (1953). A critique of Konrad Lorenz’s theory of instinctive behavior. Quarterly Review of Biology , 28 , 337–363.
• Lerner, R. (2002). Concepts and theories of human development (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Lickliter, R. , & Honeycutt, H. (2015). Biology, development and human systems . In W. Overton & P. C. M. Molenaar (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science . Vol. 1: Theory and method (7th ed., pp. 162–207). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
• Logan, C. A. , & Johnston, T. D. (2007). Synthesis and separation in the history of “nature” and “nurture.” Developmental Psychobiology , 49 (8), 758–769.
• Loison, L. (2011). French roots of French neo-Lamarckisms,1879–1985 . Journal of the History of Biology , 44 , 713–744.
• Maher, B. (2008). Personal genomes: The case of the missing heritability . Nature , 456 , 18–21.
• McGue, M. , & Gottesman, I. I. (2015). Behavior genetics . In R. L. Cautin & S. O. Lilienfeld (Eds.), The encyclopedia of clinical psychology (Vol. 1). Chichester, U.K.: Wiley Blackwell.
• Meloni, M. (2016). The transcendence of the social: Durkheim, Weismann and the purification of sociology . Frontiers in Sociology , 1 , 1–13.
• Michel, G. F. , & Tyler, A. N. (2005). Critical period: A history of transition of questions of when, to what, to how . Developmental Psychobiology , 46 (3), 156–162.
• Miller, G. (2010).The seductive allure of behavioral epigenetics. Science , 329 (5987), 24–27.
• Moore, D. S. (2015). The developing genome. An introduction to behavioral epigenetics . New York, NY: Oxford University Press
• Morgan, C. L. (1896). Habit and instinct . New York, NY: Edward Arnold.
• Muller-Wille, S. , & Rheinberger, H.-J. (2012). A cultural history of heredity . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
• Ohman, A. , Fredrikson, M. , Hugdahl, K. , & Rimmö, P.A. (1976). The premise of equipotentiality in human classical conditioning: Conditioned electrodermal responses to potentially phobic stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General , 105 (4), 313–337.
• Overton, W. F. (2006). Developmental psychology: Philosophy, concepts, methodology. In R. Lerner (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development (pp. 18–88). New York, NY: Wiley.
• Oyama, S. (1979). The concept of the sensitive period in developmental studies. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly , 25 (2), 83–103.
• Piaget, J. (1971). Biology and knowledge: An essay on the relation between organic regulations and cognitive processes . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
• Pinker, S. (1995). The language instinct: How the mind creates language . London, U.K.: Penguin.
• Rende, R. D. , Plomin, R. , & Vandenberg, S. G. (1990). Who discovered the twin method? Behavioral Genetics , 20 (2), 277–285.
• Renwick, C. (2011). From political economy to sociology: Francis Galton and the social-scientific origins of eugenics . British Journal for the History of Science , 44 , 343–369.
• Richards, R. J. (1987). Darwin and the emergence of evolutionary theories of mind and behavior . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
• Robinson, G. E. , & Barron, A. B. (2017). Epigenetics and the evolution of instincts. Science , 356 (6333), 26–27.
• Roth, T. L. (2013). Epigenetic mechanisms in the development of behavior: Advances, challenges, and future promises of a new field . Development and Psychopathology , 25 , 1279–1291.
• Samet, J. , & Zaitchick, D. (2017). Innateness and contemporary theories of cognition . In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy . Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
• Segerstrale, U. (2000). Defenders of the truth: The battle for science in the sociobiology debate and beyond . New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
• Simion, F. , & Di Giorgio, E. (2015). Face perception and processing in early infancy: Inborn predispositions and developmental changes . Frontiers in Psychology , 6 , 969.
• Simpson, T. , Carruthers, P. , Laurence, S. , & Stich, S. (2005). Introduction: Nativism past and present . In P. Carruthers , S. Laurence , & S. Stich (Eds.), The innate mind: Structure and contents (pp. 3–19). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
• Spelke, E. , & Kinzler, K. D. (2007). Core knowledge . Developmental Science , 10 (1), 89–96.
• Spencer, J. P. , Samuelson, L. K. , Blumberg, M. S. , McMurray, R. , Robinson, S. R. , & Tomblin, J. B. (2009). Seeing the world through a third eye: Developmental systems theory looks beyond the nativist-empiricist debate. Child Development Perspectives , 3 , 103–105.
• Thelen, E. (2000). Motor development as foundation and future of developmental psychology. International Journal of Behavioral Development , 24 (4), 385–397.
• Thelen, E. , & Adolph, K. E. (1992). Arnold L. Gesell: The paradox of nature and nurture. Developmental Psychology , 28 (3), 368–380.
• Tinbergen, N. (1963). On the aims and methods of ethology. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie , 20 , 410–433.
• Tomasello, M. T. (1995). Language is not an instinct. Cognitive Development , 10 , 131–156.
• Winther, R. G. (2001). Weismann on germ-plasm variation. Journal of the History of Biology , 34 , 517–555.
• Witty, P. A. , & Lehman, H. C. (1933). The instinct hypothesis versus the maturation hypothesis. Psychological Review , 40 (1), 33–59.
• Wyman, R. J. (2005). Experimental analysis of nature–nurture. Journal of Experimental Zoology , 303 , 415–421.
• Zenderland, L. (2001). Measuring minds. Henry Herbert Goddard and the origins of American intelligence testing . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Psychology. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 30 August 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [81.177.182.174]
• 81.177.182.174

Character limit 500 /500

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.

Most believe that Pavlovian conditioning is a form of learning that is limited to simple reactions like salivation. But Pavlov's own view of conditioning was vastly more expansive.

Shakespeare was gifted with the ability to reveal, on stage, his characters' hidden thoughts, feelings and motivations. He was a psychologist of sorts.

Personal Perspective: Nature may not have the power to erase childhood trauma, but it can offer a dose of comfort and nurturing to counteract its effects.

Is misophonia neurological or behavioral? Genetic or learned? Understanding misophonia defies binary thinking. Learn how to apply both/and thinking to conceptualize misophonia.

Genes, microtubules, early development.

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.

• 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

Sticking up for yourself is no easy task. But there are concrete skills you can use to hone your assertiveness and advocate for yourself.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

• Type 2 Diabetes
• Heart Disease
• Digestive Health
• Multiple Sclerosis
• Diet & Nutrition
• 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.

• 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:

• [81.177.182.174]
• 81.177.182.174

80 Nature vs Nurture Essay Topics & Examples

Have some suggestions and questions about nature vs nurture? On this page, find research and essay topics to explore a particular aspect of the discussion.

📑 Aspects to Cover in a Nature vs Nurture Essay

🏆 best nature vs nurture essay topics & essay examples, 📌 most interesting nurture vs nature topics to write about, 👍 good nature vs nurture topics, ❓ questions about nature vs nurture.

What affects human development: nature or nurture? Are gender roles and differences come naturally, or does society impose them? What can be argued about the personalities of identical twins? Explore any of the issues with us! Our IvyPnada team has prepared nurture vs nature topics to write about. Check essay examples via the links as well.

At first glance, a nature vs nurture essay seems to be easy. However, a limited view of the subject matter may cost you marks, which is why it is crucial to offer a well-rounded account of the debate. Here are some of the aspects that you might want to include in your essay on nature vs nurture.

• The importance of the topic. The debate on what influences one’s personality, intelligence, and character is among the most prominent ones in psychology and other social sciences. Your task is to reflect this and to attempt to justify why the debate is so important. What could be done if it were resolved one day? How does the dispute affect other subject fields and topics in psychology? How would the resolution help the study of psychology and human behavior to move forward? Would it help to prove certain theories or refute the others, and what would be the effect on professional practice?
• The origins of the debate. While you explore the first aspect, you might stumble upon the history of the nature vs nurture debate. Covering this theme in your essay could also earn you some extra marks. Merely summarizing historical facts is not enough, though, because your tutor is probably aware of them already. Instead, you should focus on why the debate started. Were there any developments in psychology that prompted it?
• Prominent views. It is hard to omit the opinions expressed by famous scholars while writing an essay on this subject. John Locke, John B. Watson, Calvin Hall, and other authors had all shared ideas on the issue. If you need more names, try searching sample essays on nature and nurture online since most of them point out the key names. This might also help you to identify possible nature vs nurture essay titles.
• Results of research studies. Research evidence is among the key nature vs nurture essay topics because there were many attempts to prove one or the other view. Examples of such studies may be cited in your textbook, so it should be the first point of your research. Your school’s library and Google Scholar might also give you more information. If you find any sources online, make sure that they are of academic quality, or you might lose marks.
• Your personal experience and thoughts. Because the controversy is so prominent, nearly all people who study psychology or social studies have an opinion on it. If the instructions don’t prevent you from doing this, you should share your thoughts on the debate between nature and nurture. Support your opinion with credible research evidence and link it to the work of other scholars. If you believe that the environment is more important than genes, why is that? What other theorists supported this view, and why did they? Your opinion, supported by relevant facts and views, may become an excellent nature vs nurture essay thesis.
• Suggestions for further research. Try to think about what could be done to resolve the debate once and for all. What are the main gaps in studies on nature vs nurture and how could they be addressed by scholars?

Covering all of the themes above will help you to produce an outstanding essay. Make sure to check our website for a nature vs nurture essay prompt, titles, and other useful materials!

• Nature vs. Nurture In most cases, nature determines the physical characteristics which in effect influence the behavior of an individual. These are traits which largely determined by the socio-cultural environmental factors or the way the individuals are socialized […]
• As Nature Made Him: Summary and Analysis As aforementioned, the author of this book provides useful analysis of this aspect of personality. One of the greatest questions that readers get answer from this book is the question of nature vs.nurture in sexuality […]
• Nature vs. Nurture: “In Cold Blood” by Truman Capote Thus, by contrasting Dick’s nurturing in love and affection and the conditions of his blissful childhood and adolescence with the details of a horrible crime committed by him and his attitude to it, the author […]
• Human Development: Nature or Nurture? With studies and theories carried out to examine the impact of nature on the personal development and personality traits, heredity is an important factor in the development.
• Physical and Mental Wellbeing: Nature Versus Nurture In conclusion, the debates on nature versus nurture reveal that both innate health conditions and external factors shape the outcomes for physical and mental wellbeing of an individual.
• Nature Versus Nurture and Learning Among Children Of much concern among modern researchers is the determination of the degree of influence of nature and nurture on the development of a child and the provision of learning experiences.
• Nature vs. Nurture: New Science Stirs Debate How Behavior Is Shaped A prime example of this nature of debates is the debate on whether nature or nurture has a greater bearing on the development of the diverse individual behavioral differences that exist.
• “Nature” Versus “Nurture”: Effects on Child Development Consequently, a child’s behavior cannot be viewed as solely attributable to the genetic composition of the parents and the hereditary characteristics.
• Alcoholism-Nature vs. Nurture Debate The analysis on physiological physiology regarding alcohol shows that, alcohol displays feelings of superiority and fearless behavior and also, it reduces an individual’s fear.
• The Relationship Between Nature and Nurture on the Intelligence
• The Controversies Surrounding the Topic of Nature Versus Nurture
• The Nurture Side of the Dichotomy Nature Versus Nurture
• The Formula For Fruition: The Age Old Debate of Nature Versus Nurture by Kendra Cherry
• The Meaning of Nature and Nurture in Psychology
• The Role of Nature vs. Nurture in Violent Behavior
• Influence of Nature Versus Nurture on Child Development
• The Role of Nature and Nurture: Adolescence Eating Disorders
• The Nature vs. Nurture Debate in Learning More About Alcoholism
• The Psychological Argument Between Nature vs. Nurture
• The Role of Nature and Nurture in Human Development
• The Influence of Nature Versus Nurture on an Individual Human Behavior
• Use of Nature and Nurture Based Studies on Epigenetics
• The Impact of Nature and Nurture on Huck’s and Finn’s Personality and Behavior in the Adventure of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
• The Correlation Between Nature and Nurture in the Personal Development
• Role of Nature and Nurture in Language Development
• Personality, Behavior, and the Significance of Nature vs. Nurture
• The Disputes Concerning the Popular Nature vs. Nurture Argument
• Understanding the Role of Nature Versus Nurture in Alcohol Addiction
• Wild Child vs. Nature and Nurture
• The Importance of Nature Verses Nurture in Shaping Behavior and Personality
• The Differences Between Boys and Girls from Combination Between Nature and Nurture
• The Role of Nature and Nurture in Human Homosexuality
• The Nature Versus Nurture Debate in the Blasphemy of Talking Politics During Bach Year, an Article by Susan McClary
• What Roles Do Nature and Nurture Play on Children’s
• What Differentiates the Entrepreneurs From Non-Entrepreneurs on Nature and Nurture
• The Source of Violence: Nature vs. Nurture
• Gender and Socialization: Nature or Nurture
• How Nature and Nurture Affects the Pies in Adolescence and Adulthood
• The Debate Between Criminal Nature and Criminal Nurture: William Sheldon Theory
• The Nurture and Care From Nature and the Damage Caused by Humans to Our Environment
• The Evolutionary Theory of Nature vs. Nurture
• The Personality and Biology Differences in Nature Versus Nurture and Man Versus Woman Situations in Daily Life
• The Importance of Twin Studies in the Nature Versus Nurture Debate
• The Scientific and Cultural Debate of Nature vs. Nurture
• The Issue of Nature Versus Nurture in the Development of Serial Killers
• The Role of Nature vs. Nurture, Culture and Gender, and Family
• What Makes a Monster Nature vs. Nurture in Mary Shelleys Frankenstein
• The Theme of Nature Versus Nurture in Shelly’s Frankenstein
• The Psychology Field of Study About Nature and Nurture
• How Children Develop and the Interplay of Nature vs. Nurture?
• How Nature vs. Nurture Affect Human Development?
• Homosexuality: Nature vs. Nurture?
• How Do Nature vs. Nurture Work Together Example?
• How Does Nature vs. Nurture Affect Human Behavior?
• Why Is Nature vs. Nurture Called a False Debate?
• Nature vs. Nurture: Do Our Genes Affect Our Personalities?
• Nature vs. Nurture: Which Has a More Significant Influence on Child Development?
• How Do You Argue Nature vs. Nurture?
• Nature vs. Nurture: Who’s to Blame for Acts of Violence?
• How Does Nature vs. Nurture Affect Intelligence?
• Nature vs. Nurture: Which Is the Origin of Virtue?
• How Does Shelley Represent the Nature vs. Nurture Debate?
• Nature vs. Nurture: Which Determines Personality?
• What Are Examples of Nature vs. Nurture?
• Nature vs. Nurture: What Does Matter More?
• What Is Stronger Nurture vs. Nature?
• Why Nurture Is Better Than Nature?
• How Does the Nature vs. Nurture Debate in May Affect the Physical?
• What Is Nature vs. Nurture in Child Development?
• How Nature vs. Nurture Influence Substance Abuse?
• Twin Studies: What Can They Tell Us About Nature vs. Nurture?
• How Does Nature vs. Nurture Affect the Development of Social-Emotion Attributes?
• Who Won Nature vs. Nurture?
• How Nature vs. Nurture Apply the Principles of Life?
• What Is the Difference Between Nature vs. Nurture in Child Development?
• What Is the Main Idea of Nature vs. Nurture?
• Is Nature vs. Nurture Misleading?
• Nature vs. Nurture: What Impacts a Child’s IQ?
• How Does Nature vs. Nurture Affect Human Development?
• Literacy Development Titles
• Personality Development Ideas
• Social Development Essay Topics
• Human Nature Essay Titles
• Academic Achievements Research Topics
• Bioethics Titles
• Emotional Intelligence Paper Topics
• Genetics Research Ideas
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, March 2). 80 Nature vs Nurture Essay Topics & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/nature-vs-nurture-essay-examples/

"80 Nature vs Nurture Essay Topics & Examples." IvyPanda , 2 Mar. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/nature-vs-nurture-essay-examples/.

IvyPanda . (2024) '80 Nature vs Nurture Essay Topics & Examples'. 2 March.

IvyPanda . 2024. "80 Nature vs Nurture Essay Topics & Examples." March 2, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/nature-vs-nurture-essay-examples/.

1. IvyPanda . "80 Nature vs Nurture Essay Topics & Examples." March 2, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/nature-vs-nurture-essay-examples/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "80 Nature vs Nurture Essay Topics & Examples." March 2, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/nature-vs-nurture-essay-examples/.

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

Nature vs. Nurture Debate: What Really Matters in Psychology

Is your life and personality shaped by your genes or environment? This is the big question of the nature vs. nurture debate, science has the answer.

Subscribe to our weekly newsletter

Are you simply a product of your environment, or do your genes have the final say? This is the ultimate question of the nature vs. nurture debate. Take a deep dive into the origins of the debate, and learn how epigenetics has upended the argument once and for all.

What is Nature vs. Nurture?

Nature vs. nurture can be defined as the difference between the genetics that people inherit (nature) vs. the environmental influences that accumulate over a lifetime (nurture). For years, many people have believed that nature rules supreme and reject the idea that environment or parenting has a large role in shaping people. 

The big question in the debate is this––how much of a person’s personality is a result of genes, and how much is related to environment and experiences? People have been arguing about this for years for political, personal, and social reasons. 

So, what’s the answer…are we shaped by nature or nurture? The answer is both, and it depends on which traits. Read on for the science of nature or nurture below.

Examples of Nature vs. Nurture

Let’s look at some examples to see how nature and nurture impact a person’s development. 

Examples of Nature Impacting Human Development:

• Genetically predisposed to be tall.
• Inherited red hair and blue eyes from the maternal side of the family.
• ADHD, when it appears together with conduct disorder, is attributed to genes 1 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3303131/ .
• Genes contribute to genetic disorders such as Edwards syndrome, Patau syndrome, and Warkany syndrome.
• Anxiety and depression occurring together 1 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3303131/ are considered to be connected to a genetic predisposition.

Examples of Nurture Impacting Human Development:

• The mother experienced high amounts of prenatal stress 2 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9676865/#:~:text=Overall%2C%20maternal%20anxiety%20and%20depression,2017%3B%20Takegata%20et%20al.%2C , contributing to a fearful personality in the child, who is likely to express positive emotions. 
• Lack of healthy attachment to the caregiver impacts relationships with others throughout life.
• Growing up malnourished 3 https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01886/full can stunt height and contribute to obesity.
• A supportive community environment 4 https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1583&context=jhdrp contributed to feelings of confidence and the ability to succeed.
• Growing up during political instability causes heightened aggression and revenge-seeking 5 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3712526/#:~:text=There%20is%20now%20convincing%20documentation,disorders%2C%20fear%20and%20panic%2C%20poor later in life. 

How Has Nature vs. Nurture Changed Over Time? 

Nature vs. nurture has changed in many ways, perhaps the most significant change being the understanding of nurture. Early developmentalists saw nurture as the care given to the child by their parents (usually with an emphasis on the mother). Today scientists continue to discover that nurture includes many environmental influences––from prenatal to end-of-life. 

While the nature vs. nurture debate was once hotly disputed, most human developmentalists agree that both nature and nurture have a hand in shaping individuals. 

What you should know: The study of epigenetics 6 https://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/what-is-epigenetics-and-how-does-it-relate-to-child-development/ has changed the nature vs. nurture debate landscape. Genes are not static but are impacted by nurture (environment), making it possible to change and override gene expression. 

We’ll get to even more examples below, but let’s look at a couple of scenarios of how nurture can impact genes.

Scenario 1: You are genetically predisposed to obesity, but your mom had excellent dietary health during pregnancy; this impacts your epigenome 7 https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.8700?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%20%200pubmed , reducing the risk for obesity and increasing your lifespan. 

Scenario 2: In early childhood, you have several negative experiences that deeply impact you. These experiences have the ability to override your natural gene expression 8 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306452212003028?via%3Dihub and “increase the risk not only for poor physical and mental health outcomes but also for impairments in future learning capacity and behavior.”

Everything from social interactions to diet to air quality can impact how genes interact and are expressed. 

“Contrary to popular belief, the genes inherited from one’s parents do not set a child’s future development in stone.” — Harvard Center on the Developing Child

The question, as we’ll see, isn’t nature or nurture, but rather nature and nurture. 

What Does Nature vs. Nurture Have to Do With Psychology, Sociology, and Genetics?

The nature vs. nurture debate has both been influenced by and has influenced psychology, sociology, and genetics. 

• Psychology is largely concerned with the mind and behavior of the individual.
• Sociology is concerned with the collective experiences and behavior of society.
• Genetics studies how genes and traits are passed down through families. 

Ultimately, all three are concerned with studying how and why people behave the way they do. But this isn’t just about behavior; nature vs. nurture has been extensively studied in relation to the body. Scientists want to know how genes and the environment impact everything from low back pain 9 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23335362/ to obesity 10 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3224976/ . 

Let’s dive deeper so you can decide for yourself how much nature or nurture may have had a hand in shaping your own personality. 

How To Set Better Goals Using Science

Do you set the same goals over and over again? If you’re not achieving your goals – it’s not your fault! Let me show you the science-based goal-setting framework to help you achieve your biggest goals.

Who Came Up With Nature vs. Nurture?

Sir Francis Galton is credited with first coining the nature vs. nurture phrase. To better understand the beginning of the nature vs. nurture debate, we have to go back to the 1800s to look at why Galton came up with “nature vs. nurture” in the first place. Hold on because it’s not pretty.

Galton was a particularly unlikable anthropologist who gave us fingerprinting (great!) and invented eugenics (why was he knighted?). 

He sought to defend his beliefs with science and set out to prove that nature, not nurture, determined the intelligence and “excellence” of a person 11 https://galton.org/books/hereditary-genius/ . His cousin, Darwin, gave his stamp of approval on the “capital account” 12 https://galton.org/letters/darwin/correspondence.htm given by Galton in his book, Hereditary Genius 13 https://galton.org/books/hereditary-genius/text/v5/galton-1869-hereditary-genius-v5.htm#_Toc68688332 . 

In the book, Galton used the nature over nurture argument to propose and legitimize the ultimate elimination of criminals, “worthless” individuals, and “inferior” races (including Africans, Australians, Jews, working-class women in London, etc.) by controlling who could procreate and who couldn’t.  

While it’s unfortunate Galton had such a negative impact on science, it provides important context. Understanding where the debate originated helps us understand the ethical implications of how an unbalanced view of nature has been used to justify ongoing injustice both in policymaking and the treatment of individuals. 

Even though the argument for nature had a sordid start, let’s not throw it out completely! There is a lot we can learn about  ourselves, as both nature and nurture have a hand in shaping who we are. 

How Nature and Nurture Impact Human Development & Personality

Most developmentalists believe each person is unique and responds to a situation or experience based on many factors. As you try to understand the impact of nature and nurture on yourself or others, please remember while human development is a refined science, people are not computers. People can, and often do, defy the expectations of science, either becoming more or less resilient in the face of challenges. 

How Nature Impacts Personality

Now remember, nature involves the genetics that impact a person’s development and personality. Studies have found a person’s genes impact 30-60% of personality 14 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-018-0263-6 . If this sounds like a broad range, it is! But, we must consider all the variables that interact with a person’s genes. 

• A number of studies 15 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00295.x have found a connection between genetics and emotional well-being. 
• While personality seems to be heritable, to some extent, researchers are still trying to understand the actual “genetic basis of personality 16 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7012279/ .”

What this really means: Researchers would like to attribute personality traits like neuroticism or extroversion to a specific gene in your body, but, at the end of the day, they can’t. Studies have linked genetics with certain behavior and traits, but studies are often difficult to replicate 16 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7012279/ and may have gaps in the research. Nature clearly impacts a person, but science isn’t as hard and fast as some might think. 

Watch our video below to learn what type of personality you have:

How Nurture Impacts Personality

Remember the variables we mentioned that impact nature? Those variables are largely introduced by nurture. Here are some examples of how nurture can impact personality. 

• Maternal stress during pregnancy 17 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5052760/ has been found to increase the child’s stress. This, in turn, impacts the temperament of the child 18 https://srcd.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1995.tb00851.x . 
• A study in Germany 19 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22275337/ found that military training decreased agreeableness in personalities, and this change persisted even after a person left the military and re-entered the workforce.  
• Social expectations create the most profound personality changes 20 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21859226/ in the young and the elderly. 
• Food insecurity harmfully impacts mental health 21 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7282962/ , causing everything from anxiety to maternal depression. Interestingly, food insecurity also increases the risk of obesity 3 https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01886/full . 

As you can see, nurture isn’t just how much a mother holds and comforts her baby! This is a limited view of nurture when in reality, there are so many external factors involved. The psychologist Urie Bronfenbrenner identified six key ecological systems that profoundly impact a person. All of these systems are an element of nurture. 

• Microsystem: Immediate social relationships, including family and peers.  
• Exosystem: Local institutions such as school, churches, temples, mosques, etc.
• Macrosystem: The larger setting that a person inhabits, such as culture, economics, and politics, creates a sense of shared beliefs and expectations of behavior. 
• Mesosystem: How other systems are interconnected.
• Chronosystem: The historical context that a person lives in, including values, events, technologies, and birth cohort (e.g., Boomer, Gen X, Millennial, Gen Z).
• Bioecological: The internal biology of a person. 

The ecological systems don’t just impact a person during childhood development. Psychology recognizes that people change through all phases of life! Personality is not set in stone 22 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12757147/ . As a person ages and lives in various environments, this impacts how the person experiences the world around them. 

“In the real world, there is no nature vs. nurture argument, only an infinitely complex and moment-by-moment interaction between genetic and environmental effects” — Gabor Maté, Physician and Author

Can You Change Your Genes? 

At the end of the day, your genes (nature) are directly impacted by your environment (nurture). This means you have the power to change your genes! 

If that doesn’t make sense and you’re still wondering which is more important––nature or nurture, the delightful world of epigenetics has the answers. Let’s start with this beautifully explained infographic from Harvard 6 https://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/what-is-epigenetics-and-how-does-it-relate-to-child-development/ .

Image: Harvard Center on the Developing Child

Essentially, epigenetics put to rest the old question of whether nature or nurture is more important in shaping identity and personality. Because of how epigenetics work in your body, nature, and nurture have a symbiotic relationship––one impacting the other and creating an ebb and flow in personality. 

You can change your genes by changing your behavior and your environment. 

Pro Tip: Studies have found you can begin to modify your epigenetic patterns 23 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3752894/ when you…

• Adjust your diet
• Add in physical exercise
• Reduce alcohol consumption
• Remove tobacco
• Limit exposure to environmental pollutants
• Learn to manage stress
• Avoid working night shifts 
• Have supportive, safe relationships

How Nature and Nurture Impacted Your Own Development

As you think about how nature and nurture have impacted you, we encourage you to reflect on your experiences both in the past and the present. Think about the experiences of your parents. What was it like for your mom when she was pregnant with you, the environment you grew up in, and where you find yourself today? 

Your life is an intricate story woven with tiny threads of your experiences, the experiences of your environment and community, and the experiences of your ancestors. The past had a hand in shaping the person you are today, but you have the amazing ability to change the direction of who you will become. 

The Highlights:

• Inherited genes may impact things like height, personality, and health.
• Experiences and environment impact how genes are activated and released. This is epigenetics and impacts everything from what triggers you to how you respond in social situations. 
• Safe relationships and supportive environments can positively impact the epigenome. 
• As much as possible, choose to be in positive environments. Surrounding yourself with beauty, clean air, nature, and healthy relationships builds your capacity for change. 

As you identify the areas of your life that you’d like to improve or change, emotional intelligence is an excellent place to start. This is a skill that will help you connect with yourself and others. Check out our article on 10 Emotional Intelligence Traits to Master for Self-Growth .

Article sources

Popular guides, how to deal with difficult people at work.

Do you have a difficult boss? Colleague? Client? Learn how to transform your difficult relationship. I’ll show you my science-based approach to building a strong, productive relationship with even the most difficult people.

Related Articles

Science of People offers over 1000+ articles on people skills and nonverbal behavior.

Get our latest insights and advice delivered to your inbox.

It’s a privilege to be in your inbox. We promise only to send the good stuff.

Nature vs Nurture Examples: Genes or Environment

Categories Development

The nature versus nurture debate focuses on the question of whether genetic or environmental factors matter most in the course of human development.

What is it that makes you who you are? Some might say that it is your genes that have the greatest influence in controlling your personality and preferences. Others might say that it is your environment and the unique experiences you have had over the course of your life that have a greater role.

In this article, learn more about the nature vs. nurture debate and what research has found about the contributions of genetic and environmental factors.

Table of Contents

What Is the Nature vs Nurture Debate?

The nature vs. nurture debate is often described as one of the big philosophical and scientific questions facing psychologists. So what exactly does this debate mean? Why is it important for understanding the human mind and behavior?  

Let’s start by learning more about each of these factors.

• Nature: This side of the debate argues that genes have the greatest influence over who we are, from the way we look to the way we behave. Genes determine physical traits such as height, eye color, hair color, and face shape, but they can also contribute to other attributes such as your personality traits and cognitive abilities.
• Nurture: This side of the debate argues that environmental variables such as upbringing, individual experiences, and other social relationships play a more important role. Your upbringing, early social interactions, school, and peers all shape who you are and how you behave.

Let’s consider an example. If a student excels at math, is it because they inherited that ability from their parents or because they work hard to learn the subject?

Nature would suggest that they do well because they are genetically inclined to do so, while nature argues that their talent stems from their upbringing and educational background.

History of Nature vs. Nurture

The debate over nature and nurture predates psychology and goes back to the days of the ancient philosophers. In philosophy, this is often referred to as the nativism versus empiricism debate. What do these terms mean and how do they relate to nature and nurture?

The nativist approach suggests that inheritance plays the greatest role in determining characteristics. Nativism proposes that people’s characteristics, both physical and mental, are innate. These are things that are passed down genetically from our ancestors. The nativist approach essentially espouses the nature side of the argument.

Noam Chomsky’s theory of language acquisition is one of the best-known examples of nativism in psychology.  Chomsky suggested that language develops as a result of an innate language acquisition device. He believed that people are able to learn language because they have an innate, hard-wired capacity for what he referred to as universal grammar.

Empiricism represents the nurture side of the debate. The empiricist approach suggests that all learning is the result of experience and environmental factors.

The philosopher John Locke took an empiricist approach and proposed a concept known as tabula rasa, which means “blank slate.” This approach that the mind is essentially that —a blank slate—and that it is through learning and experience that all knowledge, skill, and behavioral patterns are acquired.

Behaviorism is one example of an empirical approach to understanding human behavior. Behaviorists such as John B. Watson and B.F. Skinner believed that all human behavior was the result of conditioning, either classical (associative) or operant ( reinforcement and punishment ).

Watson was famously known for proclaiming that he could train anyone to be anything using the principles of conditioning, regardless of that individual’s genetics and background.

Approaches to Psychology

While few contemporary psychologists take an extreme, hard-lined empiricist or nativist approach, different branches of psychology do sometimes tend to emphasize one influence over the other.

Biological Psychology

Biological psychology, for example, tends to focus more on the nature side of the debate. This area of psychology focuses on how biological factors influence human behavior, so things such as the brain, neurons, and neurotransmitters are of greater interest than external factors.

Behavioral Psychology

Behavioral psychology tends to take the nurture side of the debate, focusing on how environmental factors and learned associations contribute to how people think and act.

Health Psychology

Health psychology is an example of an approach that tends to lie somewhere in the middle. Health psychologists are focused on understanding how both biological and environmental factors contribute and interact to affect an individual’s health.

Nature vs. Nurture Examples

Looking at examples can be helpful to understand why the nature vs nurture debate has been so crucial throughout psychology’s history. The topic is not just an important philosophical debate. It has been critical for understanding what factors influence different aspects of human behavior and has been the source of considerable controversy at times.

Consider the long debate over the factors that influence intelligence. Those on the nature side of the debate suggest that the greatest influence on IQ is inheritance. Some early thinkers such as Francis Galton believed that intelligence could largely be attributed to genetic factors.

Such views have been used to justify discriminatory social policies and attitudes. When some research suggested that some groups of people had lower IQ scores, for example, some researchers interpreted these results to suggest that these individuals scored lower as a result of genetics.

Those taking the nurture side of the debate point out that other factors, including biased test construction, racism, and systemic discrimination impacting educational access and quality, play a more important role.

Inequality, discrimination, and lack of access play a role in shaping how well people perform on intelligence tests and other assessments of educational outcomes.

Gender Differences and Education

Sex differences in school performance and attainment is another area where the debate between the contributions of nature vs nurture comes into play. Girls often perform better on verbal tests but less well on math. As they advance in school, girls also become less likely to enter STEM courses and STEM fields.

Those taking a nature perspective might suggest that girls are inherently less capable in these subjects. Nature advocates, however, would point out that social variables, including gender stereotypes and discrimination, have a greater influence.

Many researchers today believe that human behavior is influenced by both nature and nurture, and that it is often the interaction of the two variables that is even more important.

Examples of the Impact of the Nature and Nurture Debate

Few modern psychologists would take an extreme nature or nurture position. Rather than asking which one controls specific variables, researchers are more likely to wonder about the degree to which each of these forces plays a role. So what exactly are the relative contributions of nature and nurture?

According to the research, the answer is about 50/50. Researchers collected the results of nearly every twin study conducted over the last half-century. Doing this allowed them to determine which factors played a role in determining certain characteristics.

Twin studies examine similarities and differences by looking at twins who are either raised together or raised apart. This allows researchers to determine the impact of genes versus the environment.

Researchers analyzed more than 2,700 twin studies involving a whopping 14.5 million pairs of twins from 39 different countries and discovered that genes and environment share a roughly equal role in determining who we are.

Variations in personality traits and disease were determined to be 49% due to genetics and 51% due to environment.

One important thing to note is that while the research suggests a 50/50 split, the findings did reveal that genes do play a greater role in the risk of certain diseases. Bipolar disorder, for example, was found to be approximately 70% heritable.

Examples of How Nature and Nurture Interact

Today, many experts suggest that we should be more concerned with how nature and nurture interact to determine how we develop. For example, we might be genetically inclined toward a certain trait, but our experiences can determine to what degree that trait is expressed.

Height is a good example of how genes and the environment can interact to make you who you are. Even if you inherit genes for tallness, proper nourishment is important for reaching that height. Kids who come from tall families might not become tall if they do not receive proper nutrition during their childhood.

So while we know that both factors are equally important, the question we are left to ponder is just how much of a role each factor plays in the development of certain characteristics. As the research suggests, some diseases are more strongly linked to genetics than to the environment.

As researchers continue to explore how nature and nurture interact, we will continue to gain a deeper understanding of the factors that contribute to who we are.

Haworth CM, Davis OS, Plomin R. Twins Early Development Study (TEDS): a genetically sensitive investigation of cognitive and behavioral development from childhood to young adulthood .  Twin Res Hum Genet . 2013;16(1):117-125. doi:10.1017/thg.2012.91

Institute of Medicine (US) Forum on Neuroscience and Nervous System Disorders. From Molecules to Minds: Challenges for the 21st Century: Workshop Summary. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2008. Grand challenge: Nature versus nurture: How does the interplay of biology and experience shape our brains and make us who we are ? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK50991/

Sravanti L. (2017). Nurture the nature .  Indian journal of psychiatry ,  59 (3), 385. https://doi.org/10.4103/psychiatry.IndianJPsychiatry_341_17

Essay on Nature And Nurture Influence

Students are often asked to write an essay on Nature And Nurture Influence in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Nature And Nurture Influence

Introduction to nature and nurture.

The debate about what shapes us, our genes (nature) or our environment (nurture), is very old. Nature means the traits we are born with, while nurture is about our experiences. Both play key roles in making us who we are.

Genetics: Our Natural Blueprint

Our genes give us our physical looks like eye color and height. They can also affect our chances of getting certain diseases. But that’s not all; they might even influence our personality and talents.

The Role of Environment

Where and how we grow up matters a lot. Our family, culture, schooling, and friends teach us and shape our beliefs and behaviors. Life experiences can change how our genes work, too.

Working Together

Nature and nurture work together like a team. For example, a child might inherit a love for music, but they need practice and teaching to become a musician. It’s like having seeds but needing good soil to grow.

250 Words Essay on Nature And Nurture Influence

What are nature and nurture.

Nature and nurture are two forces that shape who we are. Nature refers to the genes we get from our parents, like the color of our eyes or how tall we grow. Nurture is about the experiences we have, such as the lessons we learn and the people we meet.

The Role of Nature

Our genes can guide many parts of our lives. They can affect simple things like hair color and more complex stuff like how we handle stress. Some health issues can also be passed down in families through genes. This shows that nature has a strong role in shaping us.

The Role of Nurture

Nurture is also powerful. The way our family, friends, and teachers treat us can change how we see the world and ourselves. The skills we learn, like playing an instrument or a sport, come from nurture. If we’re encouraged and given chances to practice, we can get really good at these skills.

Nature and nurture work together. For example, you might have a natural talent for music because of your genes, but you need practice and support to become a great musician. This shows that both nature and nurture are important in making us who we are.

In conclusion, both nature and nurture are important. Our genes give us a starting point, but our experiences and the people around us help shape our path. Understanding this helps us see why everyone is unique and special in their own way.

500 Words Essay on Nature And Nurture Influence

Nature, or our genes, gives us certain traits from the moment we are born. Think about the color of your eyes or how tall you are. These things are decided by the genes passed down from your mom and dad. Our genes can also affect how we behave. Some scientists believe that genes might make some people naturally better at sports or music. But it’s not just about being good at something. Genes can also influence how likely we are to get certain illnesses.

Nurture is like the gardener who takes care of a plant. Just as a plant needs water and sunlight to grow, we need love, learning, and experiences. If you learn how to play an instrument or speak a new language, that’s nurture at work. The encouragement we get from our parents to study hard or the lessons we learn when we make friends all count as nurture. It’s not just about positive experiences, though. Tough times, like moving to a new school or dealing with a loss, also shape who we become.

Nature and Nurture Working Together

Studies on twins.

To understand how nature and nurture work together, scientists sometimes study twins. Identical twins have the same genes, so they are a great way to see how nurture plays a role. If twins grow up in different places and turn out very different, it shows that experiences have a big impact. But if they’re still a lot alike, it suggests that genes are really powerful.

In the end, both nature and nurture are key parts of what makes us, us. We can’t change the genes we’re born with, but we can always add new experiences and learn new things. It’s like being given a basic model of a car. The genes are the model, but how you drive it and take care of it can make a big difference. So, while we may have natural talents or challenges because of our genes, our experiences and choices have a big say in who we grow up to be.

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Warning: The NCBI web site requires JavaScript to function. more...

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it's official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

National Research Council (US) and Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Integrating the Science of Early Childhood Development; Shonkoff JP, Phillips DA, editors. From Neurons to Neighborhoods: The Science of Early Childhood Development. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2000.

From Neurons to Neighborhoods: The Science of Early Childhood Development.

• Hardcopy Version at National Academies Press

2 Rethinking Nature and Nurture

As developmental psychologists stand at the threshold of a new era in understanding the biological bases for human growth and continue to address fundamental questions about parenting influences, it is time for a new appreciation of the coactivity of nature and nurture in development. Beginning at the moment of conception, hereditary potential unfolds in concert with the environment. The dynamic interplay between gene action and environmental processes continues throughout life. Although their influences are so often distinguished in ancient philosophy and modern science, the inseparability of nature and nurture has profound implications for how we study and understand human development. 1 In this chapter, we trace these implications drawing first on the literature on developmental behavioral genetics, then undertaking a discussion of molecular genetics. We close with a brief discussion of brain development, foreshadowing the focused attention that is given to this topic in Chapter 8 .

Nature and nurture are partners in how developing people interact with the surrounding environment. Nature and nurture are partners also in the transactions between the gene 2 and the variety of internal environments that surround it within the body (Greenough, 1991; Greenough and Black, 1992). The environment of the cell influences which of the tens of thousands of genes are expressed to affect cell characteristics. Hormones and growth factors in the cell can turn some genes on and turn others off. These substances can arise from the nucleus of the cell, its cytoplasm, or the surrounding cells or organs. The substances that influence gene expression arise also from the functioning of other genes within the cell (so-called regulator genes) and the products of earlier protein synthesis.

It is impossible to think of gene expression apart from the multiple environments in which it occurs. It is impossible to think of the manifestation of hereditary potential independently of the hierarchy of environments that shape its appearance. It is impossible to think of an organism that interacts with the environment without considering the genotypical uniqueness of that individual. It is impossible, in short, to consider nature apart from nurture.

Why, then, are these two forces of human development so persistently differentiated in efforts to understand human development? From ancient Platonic and Confucian philosophy to the present, the dichotomy between inherited capabilities and environmental incentives and pressures has guided human self-understanding in Western and Eastern thought. All contemporary scientists acknowledge the interaction of heredity and environment (see Elman et al., 1996, for a recent and sophisticated version of the interactionist view). Yet an emphasis on whether hereditary constraints or environmental incentives are the preeminent influence in human development can still be observed not only in scholarship in psychology but also, more significantly, in public discourse concerning the importance of parenting and early education, and in policy debates about early intervention programs, family support, delinquency and criminality, and other issues of child and family policy.

It is time to reconceptualize nature and nurture in a way that emphasizes their inseparability and complementarity, not their distinctiveness: it is not nature versus nurture, it is rather nature through nurture. If gene expression is inconceivable apart from the environment, then it is useless and potentially misleading to try to finely distinguish the relative importance of nature and nurture in the course of human development. Nature is inseparable from nurture, and the two should be understood in tandem. Moreover, by contrast with a traditional view that heredity imposes limitations and environments induce change in developmental pathways, research in developmental psychobiology shows that the coactivity of nature and nurture accounts for both stability and malleability in growth. This view is, indeed, one important way of integrating the science of early childhood development, and it is also reflected in recent scientific advances in some of the research fields that are currently generating greatest interest among developmental scientists: developmental behavioral genetics, molecular genetics, and brain development.

• DEVELOPMENTAL BEHAVIORAL GENETICS

In animal species, the importance of genetic influences on behavior can often be studied directly through selective breeding research. In humans, less intrusive procedures are necessary, and for the past several decades developmental behavioral genetics has provided a powerful means of understanding the strength of heritable influences on individual differences in human development, and the environmental contexts in which they are expressed (see Lemery and Goldsmith, 1999; Plomin et al., 1997a; and Rutter et al., 1999a, for overviews of this field). By taking advantage of naturally occurring variation in genotypes and environments, behavioral geneticists seek to partition behavioral variability into its genetic and environmental components and describe their interaction.

They have two primary research strategies for doing so. In adoption research, genetic contributions are estimated by comparing the characteristics of an adoptive child with those of the birth mother (to whom the child is genetically related, but they do not share an environment) and the adoptive mother (who shares the child's environment, but not genes). Sometimes biologically related and unrelated siblings are also studied. The second approach is twin research. Because identical (monozygotic) twins are genetically identical, comparing the similarity of their characteristics with those of fraternal (dyzygotic) twins, who on average share half their genes, is another way of estimating genetic contributions.

Twin and adoption research designs each have assumptions or limitations that can make the interpretation of findings difficult and sometimes controversial. In adoption research, for example, prenatal influences (e.g., teratogenic exposure) can also account for the resemblance of biological mothers to their offspring, and this can inflate estimates of genetic contributions. In addition, adoption designs assume that the selective placement by adoption agencies of children into the homes of parents who are like them (or their biological parents) does not occur. It is possible to estimate the potential biases introduced by selective placement or prenatal influences, but this is very difficult in most research designs. Twin studies also have certain assumptions: that identical twins do not share a more similar environment than do fraternal twins, and that the development of twin pairs is fairly representative of the growth of children in general. These assumptions, too, have been tested, with some researchers concluding that these assumptions are valid and others disagreeing.

Adoption and twin studies each provide means of estimating quantitatively the proportion of variance in human characteristics that is attributable to heredity and to the environment, and of examining how these influences interact in development. During the past decade, developmental behavioral genetics research has expanded considerably in sophistication and analytic methods, using variations on the basic adoption and twin research designs (sometimes combining these methods) and employing structural equations modeling and other quantitative model-fitting methods for estimating genetic and environmental contributions to behavioral variability. These efforts have yielded important new insights into the heritability of individual differences in cognitive abilities, extraversion, emotionality, self-control, and other characteristics and have shown how inherited propensities to childhood disorders like autism, schizophrenia, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and antisocial behavior need to be considered by practitioners (see reviews by Plomin et al., 1997b and Rutter et al., 1999b).

Even more important is how this research contributes to an appreciation of how nature and nurture influence development in concert. A recent study of the development of antisocial behavior in children by Ge, Conger, Cadoret, Neiderhiser, Yates, Troughton, and Stewart (1996) is exemplary. Using an adoption design, these researchers found that when biological parents had substance abuse problems or antisocial personality disorder, their adopted children were much more likely to be hostile and antisocial than were adoptees from untroubled biological parents. Children's inherited antisocial tendency may have been manifested as difficult temperaments, problems with emotional self-control, impulsivity, or other difficulties. It was not surprising, therefore, that children's antisocial tendency was also associated with greater harshness and less nurturance and involvement by their adoptive mothers and fathers. This illustrates how children's inherited characteristics can evoke complementary responses from their parents (called “gene-environment correlation”).

Parents and children in these adoptive families influenced each other. Children with greater hostility tended to evoke more severe disciplinary responses, but harsh discipline also tended to exacerbate children's antisocial behavior. Parents' treatment of their adoptive offspring was influenced not only by the child's demandingness, but also by influences that were found to be independent of the child's inherited characteristics, such as the quality of the parents' marital relationship (see Figure 2-1 ). Thus the development of antisocial behavior in children was influenced by heritable characteristics—which altered the childrearing climate of the home—and by family influences that arose independently of the child. Other studies offer a similar portrayal of the coactivity of nature and nurture in human development (see Cadoret et al., 1996; O'Connor et al., 1998; Pike et al., 1996; and Reiss, 1997).

Model of hereditary and environmental influences on children's antisocial behaviors. SOURCE: Adapted from Ge et al. (1996).

These studies have important practical implications. Since parenting and other environmental influences can moderate the development of inherited tendencies in children, efforts to assist parents and other caregivers to sensitively read a child's behavioral tendencies and to create a supportive context for the child are worthwhile. A good fit between environmental conditions and the child's characteristics is reflected, for example, in family routines that provide many opportunities for rambunctious play for highly active children, or in child care settings with quiet niches for shy children to take a break from intensive peer activity. Thoughtfully designed caregiving routines can incorporate helpful buffers against the development of behavior problems among children with inherited vulnerabilities by providing opportunities for choice, relational warmth, structured routine, and other assists. Interventions to assist children at risk for other psychological disorders must also be individualized and emphasize the creation of a good fit between inherited vulnerabilities and behavioral demands, especially for children at greater heritable risk for problems like antisocial behavior, depression, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

Heritability

Twin and adoption research designs each permit behavioral geneticists to calculate a heritability statistic (h 2 ), which is an estimate of the proportion of variability in individual characteristics that is due to genetic differences. A heritability of .45, for example, indicates that 45 percent of the measured variability in a particular characteristic is due to genetic differences in the sample. There are comparable statistics that estimate environmental contributions to individual characteristics. Unfortunately, the distillation of many complex findings in behavioral genetics research to a single heritability figure has led to considerable misunderstanding of its meaning, especially when heritability estimates in the range of 30 to 70 percent are derived from studies of the genetic contributions to individual differences in intelligence, personality, and psychopathology. This misunderstanding derives, in part, from the traditional tendency to seek to distinguish the effects of nature and nurture in development. Thus it is important to appreciate several principles:

• Heritability estimates are proportions based on environmental as well as genetic diversity. As a proportion, heritability reflects the extent of environmental influences as well as genetic influences. On one hand, if the environment could be made the same for everyone, heritability would inevitably be large because individual differences would then be due entirely to genetic factors (Lemery and Goldsmith, 1999; Plomin et al., 1997b). On the other hand, if people are studied in environments with diverse influences on them (varying significantly in socioeconomic status, ethnicity, or culture, for example), environmental contributions are magnified and heritability is lower. In short, a heritability estimate is uninterpretable without an appreciation of the extent of the environmental variability that also influences behavior in a particular sample.
• Heritability estimates are sample- and context-specific. Heritability estimates reflect the environmental diversity of the sample under study, as well as their genetic diversity. Heritability estimates tend to be higher in samples with greater variability in relevant genetic influences and, conversely, lower in samples that are genetically homogeneous. Because research samples can vary in both their environmental and genetic diversity, a heritability estimate must always be understood as pertaining to observed differences between individuals in a particular sample at a particular time in a specific environment.
• Heritability estimates change with development. A characteristic that is highly heritable at one age may not be particularly heritable at another (Lemery and Goldsmith, 1999). There are many reasons for this, including the changes that occur in gene activation with human growth, changes in environmental influences with increasing age, and changes in the nature of a person's engagement with the environment over time. The heritability of variations in general cognitive ability tends to increase with age, for example, as does the heritability of certain behavioral difficulties, such as those associated with antisocial behavior (Goldsmith and Gottesman, 1996; Plomin et al., 1997b). Heritability estimates are thus not consistent over the course of development.
• Perhaps most important, heritability estimates describe what is in a particular population at a particular time, rather than what could be (Plomin et al., 1997b). Changes in either genetic influences or environmental influences are likely to alter the relative impact of heredity and environment on individual characteristics. Phenylketonuria is a highly heritable genetic disorder that leads to mental retardation. But with a combination of early detection and environmental interventions, retardation can be completely prevented (Birch et al., 1992). Thus contrary to the common belief that highly heritable characteristics are impervious to environmental modification, interventions that alter the relevant environment—such as educational opportunities, therapeutic support, improved nutrition—can significantly alter the development of that characteristic.

Moreover, it is important to remember that a heritability estimate describes influences on individual differences in a characteristic. Environmental influences can have a profound effect on that characteristic, however, even when heritability is high. During the past century, for example, there have been significant increases in average height owing to improved nutrition and medical care, even though individual differences in height are strongly influenced by heredity. This is because environmental changes (such as improved diet and medical care) have markedly increased average height from one generation to the next, while individual differences in height have remained highly heritable (i.e., smaller parents still have smaller children; see Figure 2-2 ). In a similar manner, other research (see Chapter 10 ) indicates that the socioeconomic status of adoptive homes has a powerful effect in elevating the IQ scores of adopted children, even though the heritability of individual differences in IQ remain high (see Maccoby, 1999; Schiff et al., 1982).

Illustration of the effect of environmental changes on group differences and genetic influence on individual differences over time. NOTE: Each line represents a family lineage, with P representing parents, and c representing off-spring.

High heritability therefore does not mean low malleability. Environmental interventions—which can include improved education, health care, nutrition, and caregiving—can significantly improve developmental outcomes for children, even though individual differences in those outcomes may be strongly influenced by genetic processes. Heritability does not imply constraints on change. It is instead more relevant to appreciating how developmental outcomes can be changed. In particular, heritability may be relevant to considering the kinds of interventions that might be most effective in relation to the genetically based characteristics of children.

Some developmental behavioral genetics researchers are dissatisfied, however, with the heritability estimate because it provides a quantitative but frequently misunderstood index of genetic influence that distracts attention from the ways that behavioral genetics research can contribute to a better understanding of risk and protective factors in development (e.g., Rutter, 1997; Rutter et al., 1999a; Wahlsten, 1990; Wahlsten and Gottlieb, 1997). An authoritative review of this field noted (Rutter, 1997:391):

It has gradually come to be accepted that the precise quantification of heritability has little value because it provides no unambiguous implications for theory, policy, or practice. . . . There is little to be gained by merely quantifying the relative importance of the contributions of genetic and environmental influences because any estimates will be specific to the population studied and will be subject to change if environmental circumstances alter.

Shared and Nonshared Environmental Effects

Research in developmental behavioral genetics has also elucidated features of environmental influence on individual differences. In particular, researchers have helpfully distinguished between shared and nonshared environmental influences. Shared environmental influences are those that make individuals similar in their common environment. Nonshared environmental influences are those that distinguish among individuals within the same environment. Within a family, for example, shared environmental influences make siblings alike independent of their genetic similarity, while nonshared environmental influences make siblings different independent of genetic factors. For instance, parental divorce is a source of shared environmental influence if siblings within the family are affected similarly by this event (e.g., because of moving to a new neighborhood, loss of contact with one parent). Parental divorce can also be a source of nonshared environmental influence if siblings are affected differently by the same event (e.g., older and younger children may interpret their parents' divorce differently). This example illustrates how the terms “shared” and “nonshared” refer not to events or people, but to the effects they have on different children within the family.

Both shared and nonshared environmental influences can be estimated from adoption and twin research designs, although in different ways and with different assumptions. Within each design, however, shared and nonshared environmental effects are inferred from the resemblances among genetically related family members and are rarely observed directly or experimentally manipulated. This has caused some scholars to criticize how shared and nonshared environmental influences are estimated (see, e.g., Baumrind, 1993; Rutter et al., 1999a) and to caution that direct measurement is necessary before firm conclusions can be drawn about shared and nonshared influences (e.g., Plomin et al., 1997b).

Like heritability estimates, the difference between shared and nonshared environmental influences is often misunderstood. Some studies have shown, for example, that within families the most important environmental influences are nonshared, making siblings different from each other (Plomin and Daniels, 1987; Rowe, 1994). Some commentators have interpreted this to mean that conventional portrayals of parenting influences (such as the view that parents who use reasoning and gentle sanctions raise responsible children, or that parents who read frequently inspire their offspring to do so) are no longer valid because the important parental influences are those that make siblings different rather than alike in their characteristics (e.g., Rowe, 1994; Scarr, 1992; see also Harris, 1995, 1998). But parenting influences have long been understood by developmental scientists as sources of differences between siblings for many reasons (Collins et al., 2000; Maccoby, 1999). Parents develop unique and special relationships with each of their offspring, their childrearing efforts are experienced differently by siblings because of each child's distinctive characteristics (e.g., temperament, personality, gender, age), and good parents take these characteristics into account in adapting their general childrearing practices to their specific encounters with each child (Grusec and Goodnow, 1994). Indeed, even when parents use the same child-rearing practices with different children, they evoke different reactions because of each child's temperament, age, and other characteristics. These influences contribute to why, as every parent knows, siblings develop unique and distinctive characteristics, and parental practices help to account for these differences.

The distinction between shared and nonshared family influences is important to refining an understanding of how family processes affect children. Most importantly, it emphasizes that parental practices and family events are unlikely to have uniform effects on offspring because of how children experience, understand, and respond in individualized ways. But the distinction between shared and nonshared influences does not radically change current views of the importance of parental influences in the context of genetic individuality (see Box 2-1 ). Moreover, until findings about the nature of shared and nonshared family influences are based on observational and experimental studies, strong conclusions from developmental behavioral genetics research about how parents influence their children in shared or nonshared ways must remain tentative. Furthermore, current research indicates that it is extremely difficult to identify objective features of the environment that are “shared” or “nonshared” between siblings, and that shared and nonshared effects may depend, in part, on the hereditary characteristics of the child (Rutter, in press; Rutter et al., in press; Turkheimer and Waldron, 2000). This form of gene-environment interaction is discussed in the next section.

Understanding—and Misunderstanding—Parenting Influences. Most parents are concerned about doing the right things for their children. In recent years, however, they have had reason to question whether what they do really matters. In public (more...)

Like the focus on the heritability estimate, a strong emphasis on the relative influence of shared and nonshared family influences risks missing the important conclusion of developmental behavioral genetics research: specifically, that the action is in the interaction between heredity and environment. The manner in which the family environment accommodates to and modifies a child's heritable characteristics shapes the development of those characteristics in a family environment that is also evolving over time.

• MOLECULAR GENETICS

Developmental behavioral genetics examines nature and nurture indirectly through the behavioral characteristics of genetically related and unrelated individuals. But it would be far more informative if researchers could identify specific, individual genes associated with distinctive human characteristics, examining their behavioral consequences in concert with particular environmental influences. That goal is slowly being realized because of advances in molecular genetics, a relatively new science that is based on significant technological advances in mapping the human genome and conceptual advances in studying the connections between genes and behavior.

Molecular genetics begins with the scientifically complex task of identifying DNA markers for specific genes and connecting genes and behavior through relative linkage studies and association strategies (for overviews of these procedures, consult Plomin et al., 1997a; Plomin and Rutter, 1998; Rutter et al., 1999a). There have been significant advances in molecular genetics during the past decade owing to advances in mapping the human genome and the development of less intrusive and expensive technologies for extracting and genotyping DNA from human biological samples. There is every reason for confidence that further advances in genetic mapping and in linkage and association studies will soon provide a strong foundation for the integration of molecular genetics into the behavioral research of psychologists.

For developmental psychologists of the future, therefore, molecular genetics offers the remarkable possibility of identifying the genetic markers associated with specific behavioral propensities in children and examining the manifestations of these propensities in relation to environmental factors, developmental changes, and the influence of other genes. Molecular genetics will also enable researchers to develop more powerful analytic methods and theoretical models for understanding the influence of heredity on behavioral development. Perhaps most important, molecular genetics will help developmental psychopathologists understand the genetic bases for childhood disorders, which will include a better appreciation of the continuities between typical variability in personality functioning and atypical deviation, improved detection of continuities in psychopathological risk across developmental transitions, and the potential of reconceptualizing clinical syndromes according to their genetic bases (Plomin and Rutter, 1998). There have already been promising discoveries, such as advances toward the identification of a susceptibility gene for autism and autistic-like characteristics, and research findings suggesting inherited propensities to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder through genes regulating neurotransmitter receptors (Rutter et al., 1999b). Furthermore, impending discoveries from molecular genetics studies will provide added evidence that: (a) hereditary influences are polygenic and multifactorial, involving the impact of multiple genes coacting with environmental influences to increase the likelihood of certain behavioral propensities; (b) genetic bases for developmental disorders reflect, in most cases, extreme variations on a continuum that includes normal variants of the same characteristics; and (c) genetic effects on behavior are probabilistic (rather than predetermined) because they increase the likelihood that certain characteristics will occur, but do not directly cause them (Plomin and Rutter, 1998).

Consistent with the more complex portrayal of nature and nurture emerging from molecular genetics is a new appreciation of the importance of gene-environment interaction. Gene-environment interaction indicates that genetic susceptibility may increase an individual's sensitivity to specific environmental influences. Such an interaction is especially important in understanding hereditary vulnerability to environmental stresses that might lead to psychopathology. Gene-environment interaction is demonstrated when researchers find, for example, that there is small to moderate risk for antisocial behavior in individuals who have either a genetic susceptibility for this disorder or grow up in a stressful environment, but for individuals with both genetic and environmental risk for antisocial behavior, the probability of pathology is sharply higher (Cadoret et al., 1995a, 1995b, 1996; Rutter et al., 1999b).

Comparative studies with animals can specify these gene-environment interactions more precisely. In one investigation, for example, rhesus monkeys with a specific genetic vulnerability affecting neuroendocrine functioning who grew up under adverse (peer-rearing) conditions consumed more alcohol in experimental conditions (Campbell et al., 1986a) than did monkeys without this vulnerability. However, monkeys raised under advantageous (mother-reared) conditions with the same genetic vulnerability consumed less alcohol than those without it, suggesting that a genetic risk factor under adversity was a protective factor in advantaged conditions. Other forms of gene-environment interaction were apparent with respect to dominance-related assertive behavior in this sample, showing that positive early rearing significantly buffered the detrimental social impact of specific genetic vulnerability in young rhesus monkeys (Bennett et al., 1998; Suomi, 2000). These studies underscore how significantly developmental outcomes depend on the interaction of heredity and environment, rather than the direct effects of either. They also indicate how the behavioral effects of genetic vulnerability can be altered in the context of positive or negative early rearing.

As this research shows, the identification of gene-environment interaction is important not only to understanding developmental psychopathology but also to its prevention, since it indicates how individuals with a genetic propensity to the development of a disorder may be buffered from its emergence if their environments are made more protective. A child with an inherited vulnerability to antisocial personality is much less likely to develop this disorder in supportive, nonstressful family, school, and community environments.

Typical research designs in developmental behavioral genetics lack power to detect these interactions and, in fact, they are often not measured at all (Lemery and Goldsmith, 1999), but molecular genetics research has the potential for identifying gene-environment interactions, as the susceptibility genes to personality characteristics become identified. Behavioral studies suggest the existence of many such gene-environment interactions, such as the heightened responsiveness of temperamentally fearful, inhibited young children to maternal discipline efforts (Kochanska, 1993, 1995, 1997), the stronger impact of mother-infant synchrony on the growth of self-control of temperamentally difficult children (Feldman et al., 1999), and other illustrations of what Belsky (1997) describes as children's differential susceptibility to rearing influences. As the field of molecular genetics matures, in other words, it will become possible to understand how the hereditary characteristics of children influence their responsiveness to parental incentives, their susceptibility to environmental stresses and demands, and their vulnerability (in concert with environmental risk) to psychopathology.

Psychology is thus at the dawn of a new era. Not only will molecular genetics enable scientists in the near future to better understand how the interaction of multiple genes influences behavioral characteristics, but it will also illuminate how gene action can augment vulnerability or resistance to environmental demands. This view of the multifactorial origins of behavior, reflected especially in gene-environment interaction, is another reflection of the essential integration of nature and nurture in behavioral development.

• BRAIN DEVELOPMENT

Brain development also reflects the coaction of nature and nurture. The traditional view of early brain development describes a process under tight genetic control, and to a great extent this portrayal is true. Important regulatory genes, such as the “homeobox” genes discovered in the fruit fly, control the timing of the expression of other genes and can direct the development of an entire segment of the insect's anatomy, such as an eye or a limb. Comparable genes have been shown to exist in mammals, including humans, which play similarly significant developmental roles. There is no question that there are genetically driven developmental processes that guide the basic organization of the body and the brain, and these processes influence the growth of single cells and entire systems.

But as the opening paragraphs of this chapter illustrate, gene expression always occurs within the context of the intracellular and extracellular environments within the body, and in the context of experience in the outside environment. These multilevel environmental influences are necessary to coordinate the complex behavioral and developmental processes that are influenced by heredity, as well as to provide catalysts to gene expression that enable behavior to become fine-tuned to the external settings in which the organism lives. When songbirds first hear their species' song, or when patterned light first hits the retina of the human eye, these experiences provoke a cascade of gene expression that commits neural development to certain growth patterns rather than others. This is because the genetically guided processes of neural development are designed to capture experience and to incorporate the effects of experience into the developing architecture of the nervous system. This is especially true of human brain development.

The purpose of a brain is to store, use, and create information. The amount, complexity, and contingency of the information required for humans is far greater than that of the fruit fly, and this is one reason why the strong regulatory influence of homeobox genes in the fruit fly provides a poor model for human brain development. A limited amount of information is required to enable a fruit fly to function successfully for a short life span, and much of the necessary information can be encoded genetically. By contrast, humans acquire information primarily from experience, including their systems for thinking, feeling, and communicating. Most of human knowledge cannot be anticipated in a species-typical genome (e.g., variations in culture, language, and technology), and thus brain development depends on genetically based avenues for incorporating experience into the developing brain. This developmental integration of nature and nurture enables humans to grow and adapt as a species in a manner unequalled by any other (fruit flies don't have books, movies, radio, or television from which to learn, and the only webs available to them are dangerous ones), permitting unparalleled flexibility in behavior and development. The incorporation of experience into the genetically driven plan for human brain development helps to account for many of the unique qualities of the species.

Developmental neurobiologists have begun to understand how experience becomes integrated into the developing architecture of the human brain (see Chapter 8 for further details). First, developmental processes of brain growth are based on the expectation that certain experiences will occur that will organize and structure essential behavioral systems. These developmental processes have been called “experience-expectant” because normal brain growth expects and relies on these forms of environmental exposure (Greenough and Black, 1992). Not surprisingly, the experiences that are incorporated into normative brain development are ubiquitous in early life: exposure to patterned light and auditory stimulation are two of the best studied, and there are likely to be others (such as acquiring physical coordination in gravity). Deprivation of these essential forms of environmental exposure can cause life-long detriments in behavioral functioning.

Second, throughout life, new experiences also help to trigger new brain growth and refine existing brain structures. This is, in fact, how learning, memories, and knowledge are acquired and retained throughout the life course. These developmental processes are called “experience-dependent” because they rely not on species-typical environmental exposures but instead on the idiosyncratic and sometimes unique life experiences that contribute to individual differences in brain growth (Greenough and Black, 1992). For example, there is evidence that brain functioning is changed in subtle ways if a person is a stringed instrument musician, which can alter neural areas governing the finger movements of each hand (Elbert et al., 1995). Experience-dependent brain development is thus a source of the human brain's special adaptability and lifelong plasticity (Nelson, 1999). Each person has a unique history of experience-dependent influences on brain growth.

Brain development therefore depends on an intimate integration of nature and nurture throughout the life course. Indeed, processes of brain development that were traditionally regarded as genetically hard-wired (such as visual capability) have now been discovered to depend on an exquisitely coordinated dance between experiential catalysts and the hereditary design for brain growth. Both nature and nurture are essential to the development of a brain of uniquely human capacities and potential. These developmental processes are discussed in further detail in Chapter 8 .

The integration of nature and nurture, revealed in the findings of behavioral genetics, molecular genetics, and brain development research, should significantly influence how human development is understood. Contrary to the traditional view that heredity imposes constraints and environments induce change in developmental pathways, research in developmental psychobiology shows that nature and nurture are each sources of stability and malleability in human growth. More importantly, their coaction provides the impetus for development, whether it is viewed from the perspective of “experience-expectant” brain growth or the interplay between of genes and environments. The developmental action is in the interaction of nature and nurture.

Although work in developmental psychobiology has contributed most significantly to a revised view of hereditary influences, it also causes us to regard the environment in a different way. Most importantly, we now appreciate that how children respond to environmental incentives is based, in part, on hereditary predispositions (gene-environment interaction), that the social environment adapts itself to a child's inherited characteristics (O'Connor et al., 1998), and that one of the most important ways of understanding environmental influences is how children are individually affected (the nonshared environment). Environmental influences are not just externally “out there”: a child's responses to the family, the neighborhood, and the culture hinge significantly on genetically based ways of feeling, interpreting, and responding to environmental events. For parents and practitioners, this underscores the importance of taking into account each child's individuality to create conditions of care that accord with the child's inherited attributes and which, for some children, provide buffers to modify the expression of heritable vulnerabilities. Indeed, the importance of the goodness of fit between the environment and heritable characteristics also shows why human relationships are so profoundly important in early development, since human partners who know a child well are the environmental influences that can most easily accommodate helpfully to a child's individuality.

The inextricable transaction between biology and experience also contributes to a better understanding of developmental disorders and the effects of early intervention. Hereditary vulnerabilities establish probabilistic, not deterministic, developmental pathways that evolve in concert with the experiential stressors, or buffers, in the family, the neighborhood, and the school. That is why early experiences of abuse, neglect, poverty, and family violence are of such concern. They are likely to enlist the genetic vulnerabilities of some children into a downward spiral of progressive dysfunction. By contrast, when children grow up in more supportive contexts, the hereditary vulnerabilities that some children experience may never be manifested in problematic behavior. Understanding the coaction of nature and nurture thus contributes to early prevention.

Early intervention, especially when it is well tailored to a child's individual characteristics, can be helpful in shifting the odds toward more optimal pathways of later growth, but because the nature-nurture interaction is dynamic over time, there are no guarantees. Each new developmental stage provokes new forms of gene-environment transactions that may alter, or maintain, previous pathways. This means that giving young children a good early start increases but does not guarantee later success, and that children who begin life at a disadvantage are not doomed to enduring difficulty. The interaction of nature and nurture underscores the importance of creating current conditions of care that respect inherited characteristics, recognizing that nature-nurture is a source of continuing potential change across the life course.

Finally, research in developmental psychobiology emphasizes the continuity that exists between typical and atypical variability in human characteristics. One of the important emerging insights of molecular genetics is that many psychological difficulties arise not from single-gene mutations, but instead from extreme variations on a biological continuum that includes normal variants of the same characteristics. There is, in other words, a very broad range of individual differences in which the boundaries between the normative and the atypical are matters of degree rather than quality. This means that, in studying the growth of typical children, researchers gain insight into the developmental dynamics of atypicality and that, conversely, efforts to understand the challenges of children with developmental disorders yield insights into normative growth.

These conclusions are consistent with the broader themes of this report and of the findings of research on early childhood development. Taken together, they indicate that despite a long historical tradition of dissociating the effects of nature and nurture on human character and development, their influences are, in the end, indissociable.

Although this chapter focuses primarily on genetic influences that contribute to individual differences among children, it is essential to remember that genetic influences also account for the characteristics that humans share as a species, such as upright walking and language. Indeed, the inseparability of nature and nurture is also reflected in the fact that both nature and nurture are required for children to acquire these and other attributes that all humans share.

Within the nucleus of every cell are chromosomes containing genes, which are segments of DNA. Genes direct the synthesis of proteins that are incorporated into the structure of the cell, regulate its biochemistry, and guide other genetic activity. Genes ultimately affect physical and behavioral characteristics through these influences on the cells within every living being. Although each cell contains genes that are identical to the genes of every other cell, not all genes function in the same way, and this accounts for why cells function differently from one another. Some genes act continuously, for example, while other genes in the same cells turn on temporarily, and others are never expressed. As one colorful description notes, if each gene is represented as a light bulb that is either activated or not, we would see a distinct twinkling of lights within each cell during its normal functioning (Leger, 1992). This is why organisms can have trillions of cells, all of which have the same DNA but many different forms and functions.

• Cite this Page National Research Council (US) and Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Integrating the Science of Early Childhood Development; Shonkoff JP, Phillips DA, editors. From Neurons to Neighborhoods: The Science of Early Childhood Development. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2000. 2, Rethinking Nature and Nurture.
• PDF version of this title (5.0M)

In this Page

Recent activity.

• Rethinking Nature and Nurture - From Neurons to Neighborhoods Rethinking Nature and Nurture - From Neurons to Neighborhoods

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

Home / Newsstand / Podcasts

At the Lab Episode 21: Nature versus nurture

• autism spectrum disorders
• Gabrielle Pouchelon
• neurodevelopment
• Neuroscience

What makes you, you? We know your genes, your parents’ genes, and their parents’ genes all play a big role. But what about everything else—your individual circumstances and surroundings … your life? This week At the Lab , CSHL Assistant Professor Gabrielle Pouchelon gets at the heart of the matter—in your head.

Read the related story: Finding the sweet spot in brain development

Sam Diamond: You’re now At the Lab with Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. My name is Sam Diamond and this week At the Lab , “Nature versus nurture.”

SD: It’s one of humanity’s oldest arguments. Are we solely the product of our genetics? Or is it our upbringing and surroundings that determine who we are? Today, we understand that the answer is a bit of both.

SD: What we don’t know is precisely how this works. How do nature, in the form of our individual biological makeup, and nurture, in the form of environmental and experiential factors, interact during our brain’s development?

SD: That question is central to the work of CSHL Assistant Professor Gabrielle Pouchelon. To answer it, she starts with our earliest neural connections.

Gabrielle Pouchelon: In mice, they happen during the first week after birth. So, right after birth, they’re highly connected to their sensory system. And that is also very important because we’re not yet able to create sensorimotor action to integrate the world. But we’re definitely receiving all those sensory inputs.

SD: Pouchelon’s team identified a specific protein that helps regulate the timing of the mouse brain’s early neural connections. Importantly, these connections are temporary and highly dynamic.

SD: That’s critical because it means the brain can adapt to minor mishaps in development without a significant impact. In fact, that’s exactly what Pouchelon’s team observed. When the timing of these connections was altered in mice, the resulting changes were so minute they were hardly detectable.

GP: Indeed, there is no huge defect. They run fine. They explore the same way. And it’s only when we take all of those little behavior sequences and look at them together that we see a difference. So, what we see is nothing that we can interpret as dysfunctional. We can just say that they use their system differently.

SD: Sound familiar? While Pouchelon’s research does not directly connect this atypical behavior with autism, she is willing to speculate that disruptions in the timing of early neural connections could impact how we think and act later in life.

SD: And this speaks to an overarching theme of Pouchelon’s work. Long before we utter our first words, our genetic programming and environmental cues are in regular conversation—nature and nurture talking it out and always listening.

SD: Thank you for listening as we talk out our latest science. If you like what you heard, please subscribe to get another fascinating story like this delivered each week. You can also find more at CSHL.edu. For Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, I’m Sam Diamond, and I’ll see you next time At the Lab .

Privacy Overview

• International
• Education Jobs
• Schools directory
• Resources Education Jobs Schools directory News Search

Nature Nurture Issues and Debates Essay 16 Mark Model Answer AQA Psychology New Spec

Subject: Psychology

Age range: 16+

Resource type: Assessment and revision

Last updated

23 August 2024

• Share through email
• Share through twitter
• Share through linkedin
• Share through facebook
• Share through pinterest

A grade answer written by a teacher in line with AQA mark schemes, specification and approved textbooks.

AO1 = Nativists, empiricists, tabula rasa, twin studies, interactionism, diathesis stress model

AO3 = Balance of strengths and limitations relating to practical application and societal implications

Approximately one page long to reflect the amount a student can write under exam conditions.

Tes paid licence How can I reuse this?

Get this resource as part of a bundle and save up to 34%

A bundle is a package of resources grouped together to teach a particular topic, or a series of lessons, in one place.

Issues and Debates Essays AQA Psychology A-Level Bundle

16 mark answers for the entire unit. All answers are based on the AQA specification, mark schemes and textbooks. Answers include AO1 (description) AO2 (application to units studied in the course) and AO3 (evaluation). References to methodological criticisms, issues and debates and practical applications are made where appropriate. All answers are A grade and can be differentiated to meet different abilities. Answers are approximately one page long to reflect the amount a student can write under exam conditions.

Your rating is required to reflect your happiness.

It's good to leave some feedback.

Something went wrong, please try again later.

This resource hasn't been reviewed yet

To ensure quality for our reviews, only customers who have purchased this resource can review it

Report this resource to let us know if it violates our terms and conditions. Our customer service team will review your report and will be in touch.

Not quite what you were looking for? Search by keyword to find the right resource:

Home — Essay Samples — Psychology — Nature Versus Nurture — Difference Between Nature And Nurture

Difference Between Nature and Nurture

• Categories: Nature Versus Nurture

About this sample

Words: 580 |

Published: Mar 13, 2024

Words: 580 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

Table of contents

Genetic inheritance, implications.

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

Dr Jacklynne

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

2 pages / 990 words

3 pages / 1170 words

1 pages / 493 words

1 pages / 433 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

Music, G. (2019). Nurturing Children: From Trauma to Growth Using Attachment Theory, Psychoanalysis, and Neurobiology. Routledge.Howe, D. (2005). Attachment Across the Lifecourse: A Brief Introduction. Palgrave Macmillan.Bowlby, [...]

Victor Frankenstein, the titular character in Mary Shelley's classic novel "Frankenstein," is a complex and enigmatic figure whose actions and motivations are the subject of much debate and analysis. One of the key themes that [...]

Human growth and development involve a variety of complex processes, periods, and theories that contribute to the understanding of how individuals change and develop over time. In this essay, we will explore the developmental [...]

The Call of the Wild, written by Jack London, is a classic novel that explores the themes of survival, nature, and the instinctual desire for mastery. The story follows the journey of Buck, a domesticated dog who is stolen from [...]

Johnson, B. R., & Becker, J. V. (1997). Natural Born Killers?: The Development of the Sexually Sadistic Serial Killer . Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law , 25(3), 335–348.Mehra, N., & Samavati Pirouz , A. [...]

If a student excels in education, is it because they were more genetically inclined to prevail in their studies, or is it due to them being in a more advantageous position? If a man kills someone was it because he was born with [...]

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

Site Navigation

Latest stories.

This content includes information from experts in their field and is fact-checked to ensure accuracy.

Our team of editors strives to be objective, unbiased, and honest.

We are committed to bringing you researched, expert-driven content to help you make more informed decisions as it pertains to all aspects of your daily life. We constantly strive to provide you with the best information possible.

I'm a Dog Trainer and This is How to Tell if a Dog is About to Attack

Spot these red flags in your furry friend's behavior to keep them happy and healthy..

As a professional dog trainer with over two decades of experience, I've encountered countless canine personalities and behaviors. One question I'm frequently asked is, "Why does my dog behave the way it does?" The answer isn't always simple. Dog behavior is a complex interplay of genetics, early experiences, and ongoing environmental factors. In this comprehensive guide, we'll explore the fascinating world of canine behavior, focusing on the delicate balance between nature and nurture. Whether you're a new dog owner or a seasoned enthusiast, understanding these principles will help you build a stronger, more harmonious relationship with your furry companion. Let's dive in and unravel the mysteries of dog behavior together.

RELATED: Avoid these 8 dog owner mistakes!

Understanding Dog Behavior: Nature vs. Nurture

All dogs inherit traits from their parents that may either be breed-specific or temperament-specific.

For example, working dog breeds like Australian Shepherds and Border Collies tend to be high-energy dogs that like to be active all day and have a tendency to chase and herd other animals. When playing with other dogs, you may notice a herding dog breed loves to play chase and tends to nip at the heels of dogs when playing with them.

However, depending on their lineage, an Australian Shepherd may inherit personality traits from their parents that make them lean more toward being cautious or possessive by nature (dogs with these personality traits tend to guard the home or their possessions and may behave more aggressively around other dogs) or tolerant and outgoing (dogs with these personality traits tend to be less confrontational/aggressive when encountering unfamiliar stimuli and more friendly with everyone).

The Impact of Environment on Dog Personality

In my experience, a dog's inherent disposition/temperament will determine their personality and how they respond to the world around them more so than their specific breed.

All that being said, the environment a dog grows up in can also affect its personality. The early socialization window for puppies is between 3 to 16 weeks of age, so if a puppy is not socialized properly starting with the breeder and continuing with whomever adopts it, it may not readily accept unfamiliar stimuli as it matures and respond to anyone or anything new with an aggressive stance.

If someone adopts a dog older than 16 weeks, they may have no way of knowing the dog's early socialization history. If this is the case, they can only hope that their new pet will adapt to their new surroundings and do their best to ensure that all their encounters with new and unfamiliar stimuli remain positive (I recommend using lots of treats to create positive associations with novel stimuli).

Common Triggers for Aggressive Behavior

Any dog has the potential to be aggressive under the following circumstances:

When encountering new and unfamiliar stimuli. This includes meeting new dogs or people on the go or at home.

When defending its territory. All dogs are territorial and will alarm bark when they hear activity in and around the home or if someone comes to the door. Cautious dogs are more wary than outgoing dogs and may behave more aggressively when strangers/ guests/other dogs come to the house. Since they view the presence of "strangers" as a threat (whether they're human or canine), they may attack and try to chase them off.

When defending a valued resource. Resource guarding is when a dog guards something of value to them and is willing to fight for it. This may include bones, toys, places of rest (like a bed, crate, or spot on the couch), and their pet parent.

Some dogs are very competitive by nature and will try to size up or bully other dogs. These are dogs that like to be "first in line" to get something or who like to fight (much like aggressive men and women who like to argue or get into physical fights). Sometimes, older dogs like to pick on puppies much like bullies in the schoolyard preying on younger, smaller kids.

Frustration when a dog is prevented from following its impulses, which can lead to displays of anger (like when a dog is confronted with barriers like a fence or held back when walking on a leash);

When their prey drive is activated. All dogs are predators and biologically designed to hunt. That's why most dogs will get excited when they see squirrels, cats, or ground-dwelling animals roaming around and if given the chance, will chase them and try to catch them. Dogs who haven't been socialized properly may see other small dogs like toy and teacup breeds as prey.

When they are sick or in pain. Some dogs may get "grouchy" when they don't feel well and behave aggressively much like a grouchy old person.

Recognizing Warning Signs of Aggression

Shutterstock

When determining how a dog feels about another dog, you must look at their overall body language. You need to observe what their ears, eyes, mouth, and tail are doing and what kind of physical stance they are taking to understand what they are feeling.

Dogs who are stressed, worried, or sensing a threat will tense up and their bodies will become rigid. Their body movements will also slow down as they "proceed with caution" inspecting another dog. Depending on the dog, their tail may stop wagging, raise in a flag, or unfurl (if it's curly). They may freeze completely or start to lean slightly forward with a puffed-up chest just before attacking.

RELATED: 23 Amazing Facts About Your dog .

Key Body Language Signals to Watch

Here are more signs to look out for:

Piloerection - This is when the hair on the back of a dog's neck stands up. This indicates a dog is nervous or on edge about something and usually happens when they encounter novel stimuli (something new and unfamiliar). It doesn't always mean a dog will attack but it does indicate they are unsure about something. If it doesn't subside after a dog meets another dog, it could lead to an attack.

Whale eye/Bulging eyes/Side Eye - If a dog is stressed or anxious, the whites of their eyes will become more prominent. When a dog is feeling defensive, they may display side eye, also called a "hard sideways stare," accompanied by growlingl just before attacking.

Growling - Growling is a warning that a dog is feeling uncomfortable or threatened by something.

Mouth - A dog may pull in its tongue in and close its mouth, and slow its breathing down upon meeting another dog it doesn't know. If a dog curls its lip to show a tooth, this is a threat display indicating the dog wants the other dog to back off.

Tongue flicks before meeting a dog - A dog may flick its tongue upwards to indicate it's feeling anxious or uncomfortable before meeting a dog.

Lowering of the head - If a dog lowers its head toward the ground and flicks its tongue a lot before meeting a dog, this is a predatory stance and not a good sign.

Freezing - Freezing can go either way but generally indicates a dog is uncomfortable.

Position and movement of the tail - Tail wagging may continue but slow down or seem tense and the tail may tuck or raise in a flag. Freezing of the tail much like freezing of the entire body is a bad sign.

Resting its chin on the other dog's neck/upper back - Some dogs will do this before mounting a dog and some dogs will do this as a precursor to attacking a dog. It appears to be a way for a dog to size up another dog to determine if they can "take them on" in a fight.

Signs of a Friendly Dog

What does your dog do when it is feeling friendly? Below are some examples:

• Their tail wags from side to side at mid-range height (this may change based on the type of tail your dog has).
• They display a soft, "smiley" mouth.
• The body is relaxed or "wiggly" from excitement.
• Their eyes look soft and blinky.
• They initiate the interaction or receive attention willingly by remaining engaged with the other dog or person.

Progression of Aggressive Behavior

These behaviors can lead to them behaving aggressively:

• Senses the presence of the stimulus it's worried or concerned about (a person, another dog, etc.) in some way (sight, sound, smell, etc.)
• Looks at the trigger and starts to fixate on it
• Ears may twitch or pin back
• Slows down or freezes / Stiffening of the neck / Lowering of the head
• Pulls tongue inside mouth / Closes Mouth / Slows breathing / Tongue flicks may follow
• Piloerection (hair goes up on the back of the neck)
• The tail raises high in a flag and wags tensely or stiffens (the tail unfurls if it's curly)
• Growls / gets huffy (pre-barking sounds)
• Their body gets rigid and leans forward or seems to "puff up"
• Ears may flatten or pin back
• Pushes corners of lips forward, closer to nose / displays a tooth
• Backs up or bends back legs
• Moves forward quickly
• Launches toward a person or dog
• Barks Aggressively

Preventing Aggressive Encounters

The best way to avoid aggressive encounters with other dogs is to avoid on or off-leash interactions with people and dogs you don't know. Even the friendliest of dogs can sometimes behave aggressively so it's not always easy to tell if an encounter will go well or not - even for dog experts.

Puppies are often bullied by older, bigger dogs, so it's best to keep puppies away from dogs that are not known to the puppy parent. It's better to socialize a puppy with other puppies around the same size (at puppy socialization class) or with friends or family members' dogs that are known to be dog-friendly.

RELATED: 25 Incredible Things You Never Knew dogs Could Do .

Common Behavioral Issues in Adopted Dogs

This is a tough question to answer because some behavioral issues result from circumstances and some are part of a dog's DNA. It's a matter of nature vs. nurture. You can't always tell how a dog may act under different circumstances until they occur. Is this question geared at how to pick a puppy or rescue dog? Or how to spot signs in other dogs to keep your dog safe at the dog park or on the go? I'm curious to learn more about what the angle is.

The main behavioral issues people face when adopting a dog are:

Aggression/Resource guarding - Threat displays, Won't let strangers in the house, Rough play with other dogs

Separation Anxiety - Won't accept being in crate or playpen, distressed anytime separation from guardian occurs

Leash Reactivity - Occurs when a dog encounters stimuli on walks that either excite or worry it

Excessive Barking - Can happen because a dog has strong guarding instincts (alarm barking) or as a result of accidental reinforcement (demand barking).

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• 30 August 2024

Researchers built an ‘AI Scientist’ — what can it do?

• Davide Castelvecchi

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Credit: Moor Studio/Getty

Could science be fully automated? A team of machine-learning researchers has now tried.

‘AI Scientist’, created by a team at Tokyo company Sakana AI and at academic labs in Canada and the United Kingdom, performs the full cycle of research from reading the existing literature on a problem and formulating hypothesis for new developments to trying out solutions and writing a paper. AI Scientist even does some of the job of peer reviewers and evaluates its own results.

AI Scientist joins a slew of efforts to create AI agents that have automated at least parts of the scientific process. “To my knowledge, no one has yet done the total scientific community, all in one system,” says AI Scientist co-creator Cong Lu, a machine-learning researcher at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada. The results 1 were posted on the arXiv preprint server this month.

“It’s impressive that they’ve done this end-to-end,” says Jevin West, a computational social scientist at the University of Washington in Seattle. “And I think we should be playing around with these ideas, because there could be potential for helping science.”

The output is not earth-shattering so far, and the system can only do research in the field of machine learning itself. In particular, AI Scientist is lacking what most scientists would consider the crucial part of doing science — the ability to do laboratory work . “There’s still a lot of work to go from AI that makes a hypothesis to implementing that in a robot scientist,” says Gerbrand Ceder, a materials scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the University of California, Berkeley. Still, Ceder adds, “If you look into the future, I have zero doubt in mind that this is where much of science will go.”

Automated experiments

AI Scientist is based on a large language model (LLM). Using a paper that describes a machine learning algorithm as template, it starts from searching the literature for similar work. The team then employed the technique called evolutionary computation, which is inspired by the mutations and natural selection of Darwinian evolution. It proceeds in steps, applying small, random changes to an algorithm and selecting the ones that provide an improvement in efficiency.

To do so, AI Scientist conducts its own ‘experiments’ by running the algorithms and measuring how they perform. At the end, it produces a paper, and evaluates it in a sort of automated peer review. After ‘augmenting the literature’ this way, the algorithm can then start the cycle again, building on its own results.

The authors admit that the papers AI Scientists produced contained only incremental developments. Some other researchers were scathing in their comments on social media. “As an editor of a journal, I would likely desk-reject them. As a reviewer, I would reject them,” said one commenter on the website Hacker News.

West also says that the authors took a reductive view of how researchers learn about the current state of their field. A lot of what they know comes from other forms of communication, such as going to conferences or chatting to colleagues at the water cooler. “Science is more than a pile of papers,” says West. “You can have a 5-minute conversation that will be better than a 5-hour study of the literature.”

West’s colleague Shahan Memon agrees — but both West and Memon praise the authors for having made their code and results fully open. This has enabled them to analyze the AI Scientist’s results. They’ve found, for example, that it has a “popularity bias” in the choice of earlier papers it lists as references, skirting towards those with high citation counts. Memon and West say they are also looking into measuring whether AI Scientist’s choices were the most relevant ones.

Repetitive tasks

AI Scientist is, of course, not the first attempt at automating at least various parts of the job of a researcher: the dream of automating scientific discovery is as old as artificial intelligence itself — dating back to the 1950s, says Tom Hope, a computer scientist at the Allen Institute for AI based in Jerusalem. Already a decade ago, for example, the Automatic Statistician 2 was able to analyse sets of data and write up its own papers. And Ceder and his colleagues have even automated some bench work: the ‘ robot chemist ’ they unveiled last year can synthesize new materials and experiment with them 3 .

Hope says that current LLMs “are not able to formulate novel and useful scientific directions beyond basic superficial combinations of buzzwords”. Still, Ceder says that even if AI won’t able to do the more creative part of the work any time soon, it could still automate a lot of the more repetitive aspects of research. “At the low level, you’re trying to analyse what something is, how something responds. That’s not the creative part of science, but it’s 90% of what we do.” Lu says he got a similar feedback from a lot of other researchers, too. “People will say, I have 100 ideas that I don’t have time for. Get the AI Scientist to do those.”

Lu says that to broaden AI Scientist’s capabilities — even to abstract fields beyond machine learning, such as pure mathematics — it might need to include other techniques beyond language models. Recent results on solving maths problems by Google Deep Mind, for example, have shown the power of combining LLMs with techniques of ‘symbolic’ AI, which build logical rules into a system rather than merely relying on it learning from statistical patterns in data. But the current iteration is but a start, he says. “We really believe this is the GPT-1 of AI science,” he says, referring to an early large language model by OpenAI in San Francisco, California.

The results feed into a debate that is at the top of many researchers’ concerns these days, says West. “All my colleagues in different sciences are trying to figure out, where does AI fit in in what we do? It does force us to think what is science in the twenty-first century — what it could be, what it is, what it is not,” he says.

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-02842-3

Lu, C., Lu, C., Lange, R. T., Foerster, J., Clune, J. & Ha, D. Preprint at arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.06292 (2024).

Ghahramani, Z. Nature 521 , 452–459 (2015).

Google Scholar  

Szymanski, N. J. et al. Nature 624 , 86–91 (2023).

Download references

Reprints and permissions

Related Articles

AI Copernicus ‘discovers’ that Earth orbits the Sun

‘Set it and forget it’: automated lab uses AI and robotics to improve proteins

• Machine learning

LLMs produce racist output when prompted in African American English

News & Views 28 AUG 24

Urgently clarify how AI can be used in medicine under new EU law

Correspondence 27 AUG 24

AI firms must play fair when they use academic data in training

Editorial 27 AUG 24

Tenure-Track/Tenured Faculty Positions

Tenure-Track/Tenured Faculty Positions in the fields of energy and resources.

Suzhou, Jiangsu, China

School of Sustainable Energy and Resources at Nanjing University

ATLAS - Joint PhD Program from BioNTech and TRON with a focus on translational medicine

5 PhD positions for ATLAS, the joint PhD Program from BioNTech and TRON with a focus on translational medicine.

Mainz, Rheinland-Pfalz (DE)

Translational Oncology (TRON) Mainz

Alzheimer's Disease (AD) Researcher/Associate Researcher

Xiaoliang Sunney XIE’s Group is recruiting researchers specializing in Alzheimer's disease (AD).

Beijing, China

Changping Laboratory

Supervisory Bioinformatics Specialist CTG Program Head

The National Library of Medicine (NLM) is a global leader in biomedical informatics and computational health data science and the world’s largest b...

Bethesda, Maryland (US)

National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information

Post Doctoral Research Scientist

Post-Doctoral Research Scientist Position in Human Transplant Immunology at the Columbia Center for Translational Immunology in New York, NY

New York City, New York (US)

Columbia Center for Translational Immunoogy

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies