Nature-Nurture Debate: Behavioural and Biological Approaches

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Paradigm
Biological Psychology: Nature
Behavioural Psychology: Nurture
New Perspectives on the Nature-nurture Debate
Conclusion
References

Paradigm

Ever since Francis Galton coined the name for the two central concepts influencing human psychology in 1874, the nature-nurture debate has infiltrated all the various schools and approaches of psychology, forcing scholars to choose the most important factor (Spahn, 2010, p. 1-2). For instance, the biological approach clearly stands on the side of nature, believing that the innate qualities developed by humans through the historical process of adaptationism and contained in humans’ genetic sequence have the most significant influence on our behaviour (Spahn, 2010, p.2). Behavioural psychology, on the other hand, stresses the importance of environment and interaction with the outside world in the formation of self, almost entirely disregarding the influence of nature, except for acknowledging the innate ability to learn: “According to this perspective, explanations of behavior rely only on observable phenomena; in the most radical version of this position, no inferences regarding internal, unobservable events are made” (Gerber & Wankoff, 2010, p. 68). In the last decade, however, many scholars have developed a rather compromising view on the discourse, accepting the importance of the influence of both factors on human psychology and behaviour (Gleitman, Gross, and Reisberg, 2011, p. 17), as well as introducing new concepts and thoughts on the subject of influence.

Biological Psychology: Nature

For most biological psychologists, there is no debate: biological approach is founded on the belief that all scenarios of human behaviour are written in our DNA: “From a biological point of view also the ‘negative’ drive of ‘destruction’ must have a positive or adaptive function for the organisms and cannot be seen as an anti-biological drive of (self-)destruction” (Spahn, 2010, p. 7). In his argument for this viewpoint, Spahn (2010) explains the biological mechanism behind aggressive behaviour: “‘aggression’ is simply a necessary feature of life, not something that is externally induced by frustration or stimuli” (p. 7).

Moreover, he states that aggression in the animal kingdom generally has an active function, as it helps to preserve certain species and eliminate weaker individuals, therefore promoting natural selection. Another example of biologically determined behaviour is altruism. Spahn (2010) uses monkeys as an example of altruistic behaviour in animals, showing how “it might be good to have courageous individuals that are willing to aggressively fight against other groups (for instance in order to defend territory and resources)” (p. 9). And, whereas such behavioural pattern creates “a conflict between activities that are good for the group and those that are beneficial for the individual” (Spahn, 2010, p.8), it is considered to be more efficient in ensuring the overall survival of the group than egoistic behaviour. Both qualities, therefore, are deemed to be innate and conforming to the principles of biological psychology.

There are, however, some significant drawbacks to the biological psychologists’ view on the influence of nature. For example, as Miller (2011) states, “violent delinquents should not be held responsible, according to nature, because they are genetically programmed to act in that manner” (p. 36). Indeed, this side of the discourse provides justification for any undesirable traits, such as violent or criminal behaviour, cheating or dishonesty, and so on. Other social issues surrounding the concept of nature include the need for proper education: “If nature was the source of one’s intelligence, for example, why waste money or other resources on teaching children who were genetically inferior and thus destined for scholastic failure and social debauchery?” (Miller, 2011, p. 35). Apparently, the use of nature as the single factor defining human behaviour and personality poses a lot of limitations, which is why behaviourist approach stands on the opposite side of this debate.

Behavioural Psychology: Nurture

Behaviourism, on the contrary, advocates the side of nurture: the very basis of this approach is the stimuli-response model, where human behaviour is seen as a response to an external stimulus. Gerber & Wankoff (2010) use the process of speech learning in children as an example of a behaviourist development pattern: “the acquisition of speech and language relied heavily on the role of imitation as well as paired associations between unconditioned stimuli (e.g., food or a bottle) and unconditioned responses (e.g., physiological vocalisations) […] Language acquisition was viewed as the result of gradual or systematic reinforcement of desirable or target behaviors” (p.69).

In general, behavioural psychologists accept the value of nature as a factor influencing the person’s ability to learn (Spahn, 2010, p. 7). However, several scholars theorise how external factors can have an impact on the very structure of the human brain. For instance, Wang (2010) explains, “the brain has the potential to be molded by environmental factors (nurture), in either a beneficial, functionally positive direction, or in a deleterious, functionally negative direction” (p. 9). He uses Down syndrome as an example of beneficial influence of nurture, due to the apparent positive impact of the environment on the patients despite the unchanging natural conditions of the syndrome: “today, children with Down syndrome typically grow up with their own family, they receive extensive early intervention and special educational support, and their cognitive and functional capacities are far greater than they were a generation ago” (Wang, 2010, p. 7).

Despite the obvious differences in approach, limitations of the behaviourists’ stand on the nature-nurture debate are the same as in the case with biological psychology: “it remains true that ‘shifting the power away from genes’ to a somewhat more autonomous understanding of ‘cultural evolution’ is not in itself a claim for any autonomy of human behaviour” (Spahn, 2010, p. 16). In support of this claim, Miller (2011) argues that, if a serial rapist was raised in a violent and sexualized environment, from a nurturist’s point of view he is not responsible for his actions (p. 37). Instead, the blame is on his family and society, even though it is unclear as to who should bear the punishment for the crime. Both approaches, therefore, shift the responsibility for the person’s actions to external factors, and this might have significant repercussions for the society.

New Perspectives on the Nature-nurture Debate

Recent work on the nature-nurture debate has signified a new stage of thought development on the subject: “it is further likely to assume, that ‘human nature’ has in part been shaped by ‘human culture’ and that a causal interdependence or co-evolution was in fact crucial in the evolution of mankind” (Spahn, 2010, p.15). Indeed, the merging of the two opposing opinions seems to be a prevailing tendency in modern research. Moore (2011) agrees, “genetic and non-genetic factors really do interact to produce all of our traits, whether they are biological traits like eye color and brain structure or psychological traits like schizophrenia, shyness, or alcoholism” (p. 2).

Miller (2011), however, is sceptical about the merging of the two approaches: “neither of these arguments gives an individual control over one’s course of action and behaviour” (p. 34), and offers an entirely new concept to be added to the equation: the noetic. He explains that the noetic would balance the limitations of the nature and nurture viewpoints by stressing moral responsibility of an individual over his own actions, as well as the right to choose independently of external factors: “psychologists need to recognize the possibility that the noetic perspective, or the ‘soul’, may be the factor that accounts for personal differences and discrepancies not explained by nature and nurture, such as differences in dispositions and spirituality” (Miller, 2011, p. 36). Spahn (2010) also addresses the need for “a theory that incorporates the peculiar ability of man to follow and question reasons, to live out and to distance himself from his own drives, preferences, prejudices, influences and pre-determinations” (p. 16) to provide a more in-depth evaluation of human motivations and behaviour. The noetic approach stresses the value of free will in the decisions of an individual; however, certain aspects of it still depend on the concepts of nature and nurture. For example, the goals that people set for themselves in noetic are considered to be examples of free will, but Miller (2011) acknowledges that nature and nurture may at times act as limiting factors: “goals can be influenced socially and/ or genetically, but there must remain the capacity of the individual to choose to ignore such influences if desired and choose other goals” (p. 37). Thus, it is difficult to evaluate this new approach to the nature-nurture debate until more distinctive research has been done.

Conclusion

Clearly, both nature and nurture have a significant influence on the person’s behaviour, and there is no definite answer to the debate. Some believe that the discourse itself is “misleading” (Gleitman et al., 2011, p. 587), whereas others, on the contrary, claim that the solution to the dispute lies in seeing both nature and nurture as influential factors (Wang, 2010, p. 5). Clearly, it would be impossible for all of the scholars to agree on a single approach; however, the stream of new thoughts in the nature-nurture debate signifies a potential to “grant greater and deeper comprehension into human nature” (Miller, 2011, p. 37) through further research and the development of psychology.

References

Gerber, S., & Wankoff, L. S. (2010) Historical and contemporary views of the nature–nurture debate: A continuum of perspectives for the speech-language pathologist. In N. C. Capone & B. B. Shulman (Eds.), Language development: Foundations, processes, and clinical applications (pp. 55-93). Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett LLC.

Gleitman, H., Gross, J., & Reisberg, D. (2011). Psychology (8th Ed.). New York, NY: Norton.

Miller, A. D. (2011). An overview of the nature–nurture debate and a proposed new paradigm. Intuition, 7, 34-38. Web.

Moore, D. S. (2011). Evelyn Fox Keller: The mirage of a space between nature and nurture [Review of the book The mirage of a space between nature and nurture by Keller, E. F.]. Springer Science + Business Media. Web.

Spahn, C. (2010). Sociobiology: Nature-Nurture. Web.

Wang, P. P. (2010). Nature, nurture, and their interactions in child development and behavior. In R. G. Vogit, M. M. Macias, & S. M Myers (Eds.), Developmental and behavioral pediatrics (pp. 5-21). Web.

Click Here To Order Now!