Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
short note on influence of Heredity and environment on intelligence
debate between nurture and nature
does environment effect intelligence
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The Role of Genes in the Development of Behavior The debate concerning the influence of genes on human behavior has been on-going for centuries. The nature vs. nurture (or heredity Vs. environment) debates are one of the longest running, and most controversial, both inside and outside psychology. It is concerned with some of the most fundamental questions a human being could ask, such as 'Why are we they way we are?' and 'why do we develop as we do?' Historically this debate has been fought from extreme perspectives, arguing that it is either nature (an individuals heredity genetic make up), or nurture (the environmental influences upon an individual) that determine a person's behavior. However in modern psychology is has generally been accepted that these are impossible positions to take. It is neither true to say that development is caused either by genetic factors or by environmental ones, but instead a constant interaction between the two. This topic is generally researched by examining individual's intelligence, for example, by comparing the results of tests on both monozygotic (MZ) and Dizygotic twins, brought up in shared and non-shared environments. Most researchers now agree that both heredity and environment contribute to intelligence, heredity and environment interact in various ways and that extremely poor, as well as enriched environment can interfere with the realization of a person's intelligence, regardless of his or her heredity. Although there are many problems in investigating this topic, these basic assumptions suggest that genes infact do play a very significant role in the development of behavior. The questio... ... middle of paper ... ... --------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] Source 1: Hardy, M., and Heyes, S. (1996) pg232 [2] Source 2: Dobson, C, B., Hardy, M., etc (1981) pg 217 [3] Source 3: Gross,r., McIlveen,R., Coolican, H., Clamp, A., and Russell, J., (2000) pg 640 [4] Source 2: Dobson, C., Hardy, M., etc (1981) pg 219 [5] Source 2: Dobson, C., Hardy, M., etc (1981) pg 219 [6] Source 1: Hardy, M., Heyes, S., (1996) pg 237 [7] Source 1: Hardy, M., Heyes, S., (1996) pg 237 [8] Source 2: Dobson, C, B., Hardy, M., etc (1981) pg 220 [9] Source 4: Gross, R., (2003) pgs 600 - 601 [10] Source 4: Gross, R., (2003) pg 603 [11] Source 4: Gross, R., (2003) pg 603 [12] Source 4: Gross, R., (2003) pg 603 [13] Source 4: Gross R., (2003) pg 603 [14] Source 5: Heyes, N., (2000) pg 18
“We have been very conditioned by the cultures that we come from and are usually very identified with the particular gender that we happen to be a member of.” This quote by Andrew Cohen explains partially how gender identity develops, through the conditioning of our environments. The most influential factor of gender development, however, is still a very controversial issue. An analysis of the gender identification process reveals two main arguments in what factor most greatly contributes to gender development: biology differences (nature) or the environment (nurture).
The study of psychobiology attempts to explain behaviour in terms of physiological mechanisms. Previous research shows that female and male reactions differ with regards to emotional stimuli (Campbell et al., 2002 & Orozco & Ehlers, 1998, as cited in Hall, 2004). “Sex Differences in Functional Activation Patterns Revealed by Increased Emotion Processing Demands” (Hall, Witelson, Szechtman, & Nahmias, 2004) studied the effects that different emotional stimuli have on brain activation patterns (Hall et al.). The study was divided into two experiments, both of which compared and contrasted the results between two different groups of eight women and eight men (Hall et al.). In experiment one, patients performed three tasks: facial detection, identity matching and emotion matching (Hall et al.). In experiment two, a different group of eight women and eight men performed gender matching and emotion matching, with an additional auditory stimulus (Hall et al.). The results showed that sexual dimorphism was present in the reactions between women and men (Hall et al.). This essay proposes to examine the psychobiological aspect of the studies, to identify any interesting and relevant results, and to analyze its key elements and scientific rigor. Furthermore, it will explore possible future improvements to the study, as well as highlight possible applications of the results. This essay will prove that the research paper is both relevant and interesting to psychobiology.
Nature vs. nurture has been one of the oldest and most debated topics among psychologists over the years. This concept discusses whether a child is born into this world with their developmental work cut out for them or if a child is a “blank slate” and their experiences are what shape them into who they are. Over the years and plenty of research, psychologists have all mostly come to agree that it’s a little bit of both. Children are both born with some genetic predispositions while other aspects of the child’s development are strongly influenced by their surrounding environment. This plays into the criminal justice system when discussing where criminal behavior stems from. Is a criminal’s anti-social behavior just part of their DNA or is it a result of their upbringing? The answer to this question is not definite. Looking at research a strong argument can be made that criminals developed their anti-social patterns through the atmosphere in which they were raise, not their DNA.
‘Genes’ refers to units of heredity information that consist of DNA and are located on chromosomes and can exist in alternative forms called alleles (http://biology.about.com/library/glossary/bldefgenes.htm). ‘Environment’ according to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition states: “[Environment is] The totality of circumstances surrounding an organism or group of organisms, especially: the complex of social and cultural conditions affecting the nature of an individual or community.” A child grows to possess a detailed nature which obtains that particular form due to the effects of two major contributing factors. The first influence comes from the genetic structure which he inherits from his parents and the second looms from the collective experiences he has from his daily social interaction with his surrounding environment.
For centuries psychologists have argued over which plays the larger role in child development, heredity or environment. One of the first theories was proposed in the seventeenth century by the British philosopher John Locke. Locke believed that a child was born with an empty mind, tabula rasa (meaning "blank slate") and that everything the child learns comes from experience, nothing is established beforehand. Years later, Charles Darwin brought forth his theory of evolution, which led to a return of the hereditarian viewpoint. With the twentieth century, however, came the rise of behaviorism. Behaviorists, like John B. Watson and B. F. Skinner, argued that a child can be made into any kind of person, regardless of their heredity. Today, most psychologists agree that both nature (genes) and nurture (environment) play an important role, not independently, but as they interact together (Atkinson, p. 72).
Genes Debate Genes are units of hereditary information that tell the organism to produce a particular chemical, or to display a particular characteristic, e.g. blue eyes or brown hair. In this genes debate, genes are said to not only display these physical characteristics, but also determine our social behavior (contrary from being a result of who we are from the way we are socialized). In the past, biological determinism has been used to justify racism, sexism and class inequalities. However, recent claims of biological determinism seem to be more outstanding and more scientific. The most well-known version of genetic determinism is sociobiology, advocated by E. O. Wilson.
In this essay, we have been asked to evaluate two psychological perspectives’ in relation to “typical behaviour”. The perspectives I have chosen is the behaviourist and biological approach, to be able analyse these approaches, I have decide to use the case study of the death of the two year old ‘James Bulger’ and with this, the relevant therapy’s used by each perspective.
Why are we the way we are? Is it because we want to be that way or because we were made that way? The debate regarding the nature of humans is one that will never end because there is so much support for each side. It is an issue that humans have spent generations pondering. Two of those people are Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Both have made compelling arguments regarding nature versus nurture.
Describe the process by which genes and environment operate together to influence development. Discuss the significance of these processes for our understanding of child development.
Human behavior is a loosely defined foundation for individuality, generally considered to be influenced and developed by the environment. However, recent molecular studies have exposed genetic factors that suggest a more biological origin for behavior. Gene segments in the genome of humans and other animals have been identified and associated with particular behavioral traits. Is it possible that the presence or absence of even a single gene may predispose one to alcoholism, increased irritability, or enhanced intelligence? Clearly exploration of the nature versus nurture argument with regard to genetic predisposition has social, political, and legal significance.
What makes us humans what we truly are; from our appearance to our habits; and our preferences. A list of questions that will never end. Do we born this way; nor did the environment shapes us; do we born to this world with an existing knowledge of everything is taught and learn? Those questions are one of the biggest debate in the field of developmental psychology: Nature vs, Nurture.
Have you ever wondered why you are the way you are? What makes you brave or shy? For many years, psychologists have been discussing if your genetics or your surroundings are more important to determine personalities. The debate of nature versus nurture is an enduring controversy that has survived through the ages. Many experiments, studies, and discussions have attempted in vain to determine whether biology or environment can be attributed to the way a person has developed. There are two theories about human development that explain how heredity and environment affect an individual. Some people believe that this debate is not solved by one determining force but by a combination of the two. Both heredity and environment play
Scientists and biologist have argued the Nature versus Nurture debate for decades. This debate is about the degree to which our environment and heredity, affects our behavior and developmental stages. According to this debate, nature can be described as, the behavior of a person is occurring because of their genetic makeup. Since the behavior of a person is due to their genetic makeup, then, it (nature) should also influence a person’s growth and development for the duration of their life. However, the nurture side of the debate says, the cause for an individual’s behavior is because of environmental factors. This would mean that the influence from our family (immediate and extended), friends and other individuals would mold our behavior. Ultimately, no one knows if nature or nurture affects behavior more; or if it is a combination of both nature and nurture dictating an individual’s behavior; or if neither nature nor nurture affects a person’s behavior. This paper will examine the nature versus nurture debate through the topics of violence, intelligence and economics, and sports.
Developmental Psychology is an area which studies how we as humans change over the period of our life span. The majority of the focus is broken into three categories: cognitive, physical and social change. The creation of who we are today comes down to the everlasting debate of nature versus nurture. This ongoing debate of what makes us who we are and which one is the driving force in development may be so simple that it’s complex. Rather than it being a conflict of nature “versus” nurture, it is very well possible both play an equal part in the development of us as humans. In the beginning, we start off as single cell in the form of a zygote. In that moment, where the DNA begin to form and the first seconds of life take place, the zygote is already experiencing interaction with the womb. In the process of determining why we are who are it is better to look more at the interactions of nature and nurture, analyzing how both have shaped us.
The distinction between nature versus nurture or even environment versus heredity leads to the question of: does the direct environment or the nature surrounding an adolescent directly influence acts of delinquency, later progressing further into more radical crimes such as murder or psychotic manifestation, or is it directly linked to the hereditary traits and genes passed down from that individual adolescent’s biological parents? To answer this question one must first understand the difference between nature, nurture, environment, and heredity. Nurture, broken down further into environment, is defined as various external or environmental factors one is exposed to which can be more specifically broken down into social and physical aspects. Nature, itself broken down into heredity, is defined as the genetics and the individual characteristics in one’s personality or even human nature.