Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Behavior as a product of nature and nurture
Nature or nurture that affects behaviour more
Nature-nurture debate
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Behavior as a product of nature and nurture
*There are numerous theories explaining delinquent behavior in children. Some theories examine the role of nature, or the biological factors that influence behavior. Other theories focus on the role of nurture, which is how socialization impacts delinquency in children.* #### While both sides argue that either nature or nurture is more important in child development, the theories arguing both points offer valuable insights into how human children are impacted biologically and socially. ![blowball-384598_1280.jpg](https://steemitimages.com/DQmYarG7BFNDe6DpkyXyFKn1rcBy6X7TP5TUtdu9a1fC7E7/blowball-384598_1280.jpg) ## Theories of Nature And Nurture: ## **There are many theories that examine the importance of both nature and nurture’s impacts …show more content…
In Perry’s research he determines that the environment a child is raised in, along with genetic traits, will impact how a child develops emotionally and socially. Young children are biologically impacted by negative social experiences at higher rates because their brains have not developed fully. Positive and negative social experiences shape a child’s brain development and how it functions for the rest of the child’s life (Perry, 2002). ![alcoholic-1939418_1280.jpg](https://steemitimages.com/DQmTtyn7ZuksyZmfgbKF5L1kvj3QxVdP7DvFwrCW4vdGdTr/alcoholic-1939418_1280.jpg) McCrae, Costa & Hrebickova (2000) are also researchers supporting the importance of examining both nature and nurture in the development of traits such as personality. According to their research, a person’s life experiences impact the traits a person exhibits in their personality through the development of the brain over time. Even though they support this link between nature and nurture, they also point out that studying this link is often complex and difficult and that past research sometimes favors one point over the other (McCrae, Costa & Hrebickova, 2000). One issue in understanding the impacts of the biological and the social is that past theories sometimes support one of these factors and disregard the other. Science is not always holistic in studying things like human
...s may never agree on a conclusive degree to which both nature and nurture play roles in human development, but over the years, more improved studies have shown that both are crucial aspects. With all the knowledge we are gaining from these studies, it would be quite limiting to believe that a criminal and his actions are the sole result of heredity. Even in people who do not commit crimes, genes themselves are affected by the prenatal environment. Undoubtedly, the fetus experiences changes in environment, forcing possible changes in heredity and reactionary response. We are likely to never find the answer to how much or how little either, nature or nurture, impacts our lives, but at least we can agree that they both do, in fact, have major roles. Our development is not the culmination of heredity alone, but of a tangled web of experiences and genetics entwined.
The study of Juvenile delinquency and the theories pertaining to it are vital for several reasons. In order to more effectively engage with youths and foster positive behavior and schemas, the individuals must first be understood. The study of theory provides a means of understanding adolescents and the factors that lead to or detract from delinquent behavior. In the case of juvenile delinquent, Jordan Brown, theory helps to provide insight into why an eleven-year-old boy murdered his stepmother.
The debate of nature vs. nurture continues today in the world of psychology. The effects of an individual’s genetics and the effects of their environment on their personality and actions is an age old debate that is still inconclusive. However, it is evident that both sides of the argument carry some form of the truth. It can be contended that the major characteristics of an individual are formed by their environment, more specifically, their past experiences. An individual’s past moulds and shapes their identity, if they do not make an effort to move on from it.
Underlying the question of whether brain equals behavior is the possibility that one's personality may be understood on a neurobiological level. Personality affects how a person will behave in certain situations. Peoples' attitudes towards their environments, their dispositions, personal preferences and dislikes all help determine their everyday actions. If behavior is controlled by the nervous system, these factors which make up a person's personality must also fall under its direction. This does not refer to whether one's personality is a result of environment or genomic make-up. It has already been proposed that personality is 50%-70% hereditary and that home environment has little impact on child development (1,2). Here, nature vs. nurture is largely irrelevant; regardless of where one's personality comes from, it reflects chemical and electrical processes occurring within the nervous system.
and behavior of the child. In fact, the more we understand about development and behavior, the better. the more obvious it becomes that nature and nurture are similarly influences. rather than determinants, not only singly but also in combination. Here below, I will endeavour to expose the leading theories dealing with the question of nature.
Noted psychologist Jerome Kagan once said "Genes and family may determine the foundation of the house, but time and place determine its form" (Moore 165). The debate on nature versus nurture has been a mystery for years, constantly begging the question of whether human behavior, ideas, and feelings are innate or learned over time. Nature, or genetic influences, are formed before birth and finely-tuned through early experiences. Genes are viewed as long and complicated chains that are present throughout life and develop over time. Nature supporters believe that genes form a child's conscience and determine one's approach to life, contrasting with nature is the idea that children are born “blank slates,” only to be formed by experience, or nurture. Nurture is constituted of the influence of millions of complex environmental factors that form a child's character. Advocators of nature do not believe that character is predetermined by genes, but formed over time. Although often separated, nature and nurture work together in human development. The human conscience is neither innate from birth or entirely shaped through experience, instead, genetics and environmental influences combine to form human behaviorism, character, and personality traits that constantly change and develop throughout life.
Many psychologists have argued over what influences shape a person, whether they are biological or environmental. Comparing these to my own thoughts and personal experiences, I was able to come to conclusions about development. I believe that nurture is much more influential on a child’s development than nature is.
Criminological theorists and researchers in the United States have gained much more attention and interest of the study in Childhood delinquency in the recent years. It does not only concern the theorist and criminologist but also the members of the public as cases involving children whom committed violent crime has gradually increased. (Snyder 2001) provided statistics of juvenile offender aged 7-12 years old appearing in front of a juvenile court has gradually increased over the past decade. Burke et al. (2005) argued that ‘child delinquents’ offenders that are younger than 13 years of age have faced greater risks of becoming criminal offenders in their later adulthood.
The nature versus nurture debate is an old issue within the field of psychology. “The nature-nurture issue is a perennial one that has resurfaced in current psychiatry as a series of debates on the role that genes (DNA) and environments play in the etiology and pathophysiology of mental disorders” (Schaffner) The debate is essentially about what is inherited (nature) and what is experienced by environmental factors (nurture) and how they affect human development. Naturally, the nature versus nurture debate relates to many controversies such as intelligence, gender identities, violent behaviors, and sexual orientation. There are countless studies on whether intelligence is an inherited trait or if it is influenced by environmental factors.
In 1874, Francis Galton said, “Nature is all that a man brings with him into the world; nurture is every influence that affects him after his birth”. The human body contains millions upon millions of cells and each of these cells contains hereditary information and DNA. However, there is no proof that the information carried in these genes predetermines the way in which we behave. I believe it is our life experiences and what we see and are told that shape the way in which we behave. Therefore, it appears to me that nurturing plays a far more governing and dominant role in a human being’s development rather than nature.
...theories of nature and nurture as a precursor of personality may enable an individual to obtain a clear perspective of its evolution. However, in the study of personality, it is very important to understand the different theoretical approaches within its realm. It is important for the same reason that not one person is the same and neither are personalities; and for the very same reason why personality theorist’ differ when describing the concept and nature of humanity.
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.
There are three classes (trauma theories, life course theories, and selection theories) in which help explain the relationship between families and delinquency. Many seem to believe that juvenile delinquency is a reflection of a weak family structure. In todays society many minors that are committing crimes come from broken families/households. By saying that I would consider broken households to include single parent homes, minors being raised by other family members or even minors having to find survival means for themselves. The blame cannot always be placed on the juvenile’s family but the family structure is a large contributor to one’s behavior.
The Biological approach to personality places emphasis on the genetic influences related to the development of an individual’s personality. Some may believe that children and their parents can have very similar personalities, for example a young boy having his father’s anger (Stelmack, 1990). Though this approach has often been questioned by psychologists, it is not disregarded all together. Some believe that genetics do have a role in an individual’s personality development; however environments, as well as personal experiences all work in forming personality.
...play a role in the creation of a juvenile delinquent. One side is not complete without the other; both social and individual elements take part in the forming of delinquents. Every juvenile delinquent has a unique circumstance with its own mitigating factors. There is no theory that will cover the full array of why the children commit crimes, although the use of several theories may make it clearer.