The quote from the famous psychologist John B. Watson essentially sums up behaviourism. Behaviourism refers to the school of psychology founded by Watson, established on the fact that behaviours can be measured and observed (Watson, 1993). In behaviourism, there is a strong emphasis that the acquisition of learning, or permanent change in behaviour, is by external manifestation. Thus, any individual differences in behaviours observed was more likely due to experiences, and not by the working of genes. As the quote suggest, any individuals can be potentially trained to perform any tasks through the right conditioning. There are two major types of conditioning, classical and operant conditioning (Cacioppo & Freberg, 2012). Classical conditioning refers to a type of learning in which a previously neutral stimuli took on the ability to stimulate a conditioned response in an individual (Gormezano & Moore, 1966). To prove that environment was more impactful than genetics, Watson conducted an experiment on an infant, little Albert. Initially, Albert showed little fear towards rats. When Watson repeatedly exposed Albert to the rat accompanied by a loud noise, the latter began to develop fear towards not just the rat but also other furry animals. Watson successfully showed that the acquisition of a phobia can be explained by classical conditioning (Watson & Watson, 1921). Regardless of their genes, the associations of the right stimuli can result in the development of a new behaviour in any individual. Classical conditioning emphasises the importance of learning from the environment and supports nurture over nature. However, limiting the source of learning to only environment is a reductionist explanation of behaviour. When complex behavi... ... middle of paper ... ...m, M. S., Coursey, R. D., & Murphy, D. L. (1976). The biochemical high-risk paradigm: behavioral and familial correlates of low platelet monoamine oxidase activity. Science, 194(4262), 339-341. Cacioppo, J. T., & Freberg, L. A. (2012). Discovering Psychology: The Science of the Mind: The Science of Mind. Cengage Learning. Cacioppo, J. T., Tassinary, L. G., & Berntson, G. (Eds.). (2007). Handbook of psychophysiology. Cambridge University Press. Gormezano, I., & Moore, J. W. (1966). Classical conditioning. Experimental methods and instrumentation in psychology, 385-420. Jessor, R. (1958). The problem of reductionism in psychology. Psychological Review, 65(3), 170. Watson, J. B. (1913). Psychology as the Behaviorist Views it. Psychological review, 20(2), 158. Watson, J. B., & Watson, R. R. (1921). Studies in infant psychology. Scientific Monthly, 13(6), 493-515.
On October 9, 1968, a set of twins were born, but separated at birth and ultimately, put up for adoption. The decision to separate the twins came from the adoption agency who wanted to conduct a nature versus nurture experiment; however, the experiment was conducted in secret. However, for unknown reasons, the experiment never developed to fruition. Unaware the child they adopted was a twin; both sets of parents raised a singular child. Thirty-five years later, one twin began a search for her biological mother through the adoption agency, only to find out that she was born a twin. Upon learning her identity, she reached out to her twin and they began the journey of getting to know one another by comparing characteristics that appeared similar such as temperament and mannerism. They even discovered that they both held positions as a film critic and enjoyed almost identical movies.
Have you ever wondered, or thought where you have got your personality from? The debate over nature versus nurture is whether people like identical twins, for example, are born and raised by genetics,(nature) and if they are born and raised by influences and influenced by the environment around them(nurture). The debate over nature versus nurture is very important and cannot be ignored. Identical twins are different in many ways. Studies have shown that nurture, is more dominant than nature. My personality has also changed in many ways as I have been raised. So as you can see I am on the nurture side by far.
In the well-received novel “Pudd’nhead Wilson,” Mark Twain skillfully addresses the ancient argument about the origin of one’s character and whether it’s derived from his nature or his surroundings. We can best see this battle between nature versus nurture by inspecting the plot lines that follow the characters Thomas a Becket Driscoll, Valet de Chambre, and Roxana the slave. Thomas was born into a wealthy white family while Roxy birthed Chambers into a life of slavery. It seemed as though each would have gone their separate ways into opposite walks of life, but Roxy secretly swapped the children, which destined each to their counterintuitive fates. Through their words and actions, Tom, Chambers, and Roxy have proven the idea that one’s behaviors and desires are a result of his upbringings and the environment he lives in rather than by his innate nature.
How does one person develop into the human that he or she is? Do his or her characteristics depend on the qualities he or she was born with? Or does his or her upbringing mold them into the person he or she becomes? The debate between nature and nurture is one that can be difficult to conclude and thus has been argued for centuries. Sheri S. Tepper explores this issue in her acclaimed novel The Gate to Women’s Country. The narrator of the work, Stavia, lives in a woman-dominated, post-apocalyptic country, where the women’s goal is to breed out the violent and murderous qualities that men are believed to possess. These women have an preconceived ideal people who are “CAPABLE of violence and ruthlessness, but very much in control of their tempers
When it comes to the debate of Nature vs. Nurture I consider myself to be the middle man. I feel that our behavior, physical development and our identity is not only the result of our genealogical makeup but our interactions, and decisions that we encounter on a daily basis as well as our family structure. First I would like to give a brief summary of the two topics.
For this first analytical essay, I have decided to have a go at analyzing the Nature Vs. Nurture using my own viewpoint as a sibling. No doubt this is a topic that has been debated to mental death already, but I think it is something I will benefit from thinking about. Also, at the end of my main topic, I will quickly address a topic brushed on in the book.
The Battle of Nature vs. Nurture In Nancy Kress' "In Memoriam", the philosophical issue of identity becomes apparent. As a son pleads to his mother to take part in a medical procedure, which wipes your mind clear of memories, the question of "what makes me'me'?" arises. Set in the future, the mother is faced with a decision: whether or not she wants to die as a result of having too many memories, or as a result of having none at all. The son, Aaron, takes quite a different approach however as he feels that it is not a question of death, rather a question of life.
... are determined by the stimuli in the environment we are in. Behaviourists believe that all behaviour is learned and in turn can be unlearned by pinpointing the stimulus which is provoking the behaviour and changing the individuals learned response towards it.
Undoubtedly, humans are unique and intricate creatures and their development is a complex process. It is this process that leads people to question, is a child’s development influenced by genetics or their environment? This long debate has been at the forefront of psychology for countless decades now and is better known as “Nature versus Nurture”. The continuous controversy over whether or not children develop their psychological attributes based on genetics (nature) or the way in which they have been raised (nurture) has occupied the minds of psychologists for years. Through thorough reading of experiments, studies, and discussions however, it is easy to be convinced that nurture does play a far more important in the development of a human than nature.
Ivan Pavlov developed a theory called classical conditioning which proposes that learning process occurs through associations between an environmental stimulus and a naturally occurring stimulus. Classical conditioning involves placing a neutral signal before a naturally occurring reflex like associating the food with the bell in Pavlov experiment. In classical conditioning, behavior is learnt by association where a stimulus that was originally neutral can become a trigger for substance use or cravings due to repeated associations between those stimuli and substance use (Pavlov, 1927).
Behaviourism is where a person learns through responding to stimuli so as to optimise their own situation. This means that humans have a need to learn so by adapting to a changing environment around to be able to survive. For instance a learner who has some sensory impairment will adapt their own learning styles to accommodate for this barrier by adapting method and using experience they are able to achieve the same learning outcomes as other learners.
I. Introduction of classical conditioning Classical conditioning also called as Pavlovian conditioning or respondent conditioning. It is a kind of learning a new behavior through association that when a conditioned stimulus (CS) is paired with an unconditioned stimulus (US) and evokes a conditioned response (CR). It also is a learning process that occurs through associations between an environmental stimulus and a naturally occurring stimulus (Cherry, 2014). Classical conditioning has much strength such as can help to explain all aspects of human behavior and many of advertisers will use classical conditioning to advertise their produces, however it also have some weaknesses such as all classical conditioning responses must involve a reflex and classical conditioning is a completely physical process, learning is not important as reflected in scenario. This paper will talk about the strengths and the weaknesses of classical conditioning theory followed by a brief description of the scenario and the strengths and weaknesses of applying classical conditioning on it.
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.
Learning is defined as a “process of change that occurs as a result of an individual’s experience” (Mazure, 2006). Researchers assume that the process of learning follows certain general principles, which were developed, into the general process learning theories. These include operant conditioning and classical conditioning which has been put forward by leading psychologists like Pavlov, B.F.Skinner and Thorndike. However, in learning, operant and classical conditoning are opposed by biological constraints that state that there are limitations to the theories. Some of these biological constraints on learning will be discussed below.
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.