Human behavior is a highly debated topic in the scientific community. While geneticists argue that an individual's innate qualities and genetic makeup cause individual differences in human behavior, psychologists believe that an individual's personal experiences or their environment causes those differences. This debate is known as “nature versus nurture,” and the two sides have evolved as more information has been found in genetic research. While there are still different ideas about how much effect genes and environment have on human behavior, there is a consensus that the two factors work together to influence or predict how a person is most likely to act. But these predictions are not absolute or deterministic, and the factors are not necessarily deterministic.
Humans are genetically predisposed to behave a certain way, and certain genes can “trigger” certain behaviors. Many studies have been conducted on animals, which can be considered in the debate about human behavior because animals have molecules that are also present in humans (Robinson 2004; Bettelheim 1998). For example, in one study, a gene that is responsible for preparing a mother mouse to care for her young – by triggering maternal instincts and behavior – was inactivated in pregnant mice, which resulted in three out of four pups dying from neglect. When the surviving pups were put into the care of foster mothers with the activated genes, 85% of them survived (Bettelheim 1998). This is significant because the absence of one gene affected mouse behavior in an observable way, which shows that genes affect behavior. Another study transplanted Japanese quail brain cells that control quail sounds and head movement into chicken embryos. As a result, the chickens did not...
... middle of paper ...
...cial Psychology 150.2 (2010): 160-180. Business Source Complete. Web. 24 Apr. 2014.
Manuck, S. B., & McCaffery, J. M. (2014). Gene-Environment Interaction. Annual Review Of Psychology, 65(1), 41-70. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115100
Plomin, R. (1994). Nature, nurture, and social development. Social Development, 3(1), 37-53. doi:10.1111/1467-9507.ep11631517
Plomin, R., & Crabbe, J. (2000). DNA. Psychological Bulletin, 126(6), 806.
Robinson, G. E. (2004). Beyond Nature and Nurture. Science, 304(5669), 397-399.
Sesardic, N. (1993). Heritability and causality. Philosophy Of Science, 60(3), 396.
Tarantino, N., Tully, E. C., Garcia, S. E., South, S., Iacono, W. G., & McGue, M. (2014). Genetic and Environmental Influences on Affiliation With Deviant Peers During Adolescence and Early Adulthood. Developmental Psychology, 50(3), 663-673. doi:10.1037/a0034345
The main idea behind this paper was to answer this question: "Who are you?" The article makes you think about how psychologists are able to determine whether a trait being physical or psychological is hereditary, is it taught over your upbringing by your parents, or is that just part of your own personal make up. The article states that “most humans feel that the way that they act and perceive the world is built around an environmental basis rather than being a genetic trait. ”(Are You a Natural)
Have you ever questioned someone’s behavior and wonder what makes them behave the way they do? “Lord of the Flies,” by William Golding introduces a group of boys stranded on an island with no adult supervision which means no rules or authority. The group of boys face many conflicts and complications due to the situation they are in. Their behavior is to blame due to the environment and the situation they are in, however many believe that their behavior comes from internal “genetics” not external the “environment”. A person’s behavior can be influenced by their inner self which comes from our heredity, but in most cases I believe that behavior is influenced by the situation and the environment that is faced.
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.
“The term “nature versus nurture” is used to refer to a long-running scientific debate. The source of debate is the question of which has a greater influence on development: someone's innate characteristics provided by genetics, or someone's environment. In fact, the nature versus nurture debate has been largely termed obsolete by many researchers, because both innate characteristics and environment play a huge role in development, and they often intersect”. (Smith, 2010 p. 1)
A layman would define personality as an individual’s characteristics in terms of how they think and behave. Many theorists, however, interprets personality differently resulting in various personality theories. Personality is determined by traits which are behaviours displayed by a person in most given situations. How a person reacts to common circumstances may also be used to foresee future behaviours. Traits are then categorized into types that allow easier comparisons to be made between each individual’s attributes. The focus of this paper would be on the biological aspects of personality whereby traits are thought to be inheritable through genetics and associated with the central nervous system. Behavioural genetics are research that makes use of results from studies done on family, twins and adoptions. The findings of how both genes and environment influences personality from the studies will be discussed. Some researchers found possible issues with the representativeness of such studies. The outline of Eysenck’s biological model of personality and arousal, Gray’s BAS/BIS theory and Cloninger’s biological model of personality will further explain the biological effect on personality.
For a long time, psychologists have been debating the theories of nature vs. nurture. Psychologist often discussed whether genetics or environment affects a person’s behavior. Theorists believe that not only does genetics affects a person’s behavior, but the environment also plays a role. Although many theorists believe either environment or genetics affect a mind of a serial killer, in fact, both environment and genetics affect a mind of a serial killer because genetics affect behavioral disorders while environment affects social disorders and both disorders can create violent behaviors.
Within the past decade there has been a wide range of research and evidence available based on both sides of the nature or nurture debate. Along with further research that identifies a number of determinants that have some form of influence towards criminal behavior and activity. This researc...
Studies have proven that no human being is born with knowledge or skills; however, every individual’s has a learned behavior that is either influenced or genetic inherited. Therefore, every individual born into a social and cultural environment are more likely to be effected by, family members, other social groups, religion, as well as languages. Most research psychologists study the genetic inheritance of an individual’s behavior while others focus on an individual’s development stage. However, during the process of psychological research, psychologists also focus on examining the influence that a community can have on one social behavior.
Today, a new approach to dealing with this question is emerging. This new approach finds a middle ground between nature and nurture. The conclusion that nature and nurture are complementary and work hand and hand. to shape a behavior (a purposeful and meaningful activity) is not a compromise. It is a result of a vigorous study of each of the components of the equation of heredity and environment and their affects on determining one’s development.
Moore, David Scott. The Dependent Gene: The Fallacy of Nature/nurture. New York: Times, 2002. Print.
6. Joseph, Jay. “Chapter 8: Is Crime in the Genes? A Critical Review of Twin and Adoption Studies of Criminal and Antisocial Behavior.” The Gene Illusion: Genetic Research in Psychiatry and Psychology under the Microscope, Algora Pub., 2004, pp. 278–279.
Throughout the article, Pinker emphasizes his opposition’s flaws, in order to weaken and evoke doubt into the reader. Pinker disproves that genes are dependent on the environment, because researchers have continuously made the mistake of placing more weight on the environments role. He agrees however, that genes do not have the potential to directly control certain personality actions, “Two recent studies have indentified single genes that are respectively associated with violence and depression, but have also shown that their effects are manifested only with particular histories of stressful experience”(pinker 6). This is saying that in order for a gene to be expressed, they have to be triggered by the environment. In this example, Pinker uses statistical data to reinforce the invalid argument that genes are not necessar...
Nature versus nurture is a long question of whether genetics influence environmental or environmental influences, genetics (Myers, 2014). While we are all born with 20,000 to 25,000 genes there are some that are dormant and some active; believed that environmental influences effect which stay dormant and which become active (Myers, 2014). Throughout Bandura’s experiment, we can see that while some children already seem exposed to elements to awaken the genes for anger and aggression. While others seem to repeat what they saw the adult do, but not with as much force and
Tuvblad, C., Grann, M., & Lichtenstein, P. (2006). Heritability for adolescent antisocial behaviour differs with socioeconomic status: Gene-environment interaction. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47, 734-743. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2005.01552.x
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.