Nurture Plus Nature Essay, Research Paper
Nurture Plus Nature
Raegan Robb
Psych101
Dec.9th 1996
The classic debated topic of nurture versus nature has been, and always
will be an argumentative subject in the scientific world. Some psychologists and
scientists share the view that our behavioral aspects originate only from the
environmental factors of our upbringing. While other opposing specialists argue
the outlook in science that agrees with the naturalist idea. This concept of
naturalistic ideas supports the hereditary genetic framework, inherited from our
parents, is the sole determining factor in our behavioral characteristics. These
two opposing viewpoints have produced a multitude of ideas, theories, and
arguments in the history of psychology.
John Broadus Watson, the father of American behaviorism, greatly
reinforced the source of nurture by studying learned and adaptive behavior
patterns in our environmental surroundings (Rathus p.13). During this same time
of revolutionary ideas in psychology, American psychologist, Arnold Gesell
supported the opposite views of Watson. Gesell theorized that “physical and
motor growth and development is monitored and regulated by an automatic natural
process”(Rathus p.13). Each of these ideas has persisted strongly in the world
of psychology from the nineteenth century on into the twentieth, but now a new
and united psychology world acknowledges both theories equally. It is imagined,
today, that the explanation of our behavioral characteristics originates from
both our heredity, and the environment in which we were raised.
This report supports the theory that both aspects of nurture, with the
addition of nature are involved in and explain our complete behaviors. Many
studies and experiments have been conducted in recent years of psychology to
give this combined idea its appealing thesis. A great deal of research and
experimentation has been conducted in order to solve the puzzling results that
derive from situational differences in being raised. The different causes and
effects of various situations, focus on the actual importance, and necessity of
proper nurturing in childhood development (Turecki). Studies on the early
developing years in children show how effects of various environmental
situations can cause mixed attitudes, personalities, beliefs, sexual preference,
and other behavioral patterns in children (Turecki & Adams).
For example, studies have been conducted on whether children that have
been raised by single parents are going to develop differently than if both
natural parenting members were present through a child’s infancy and adolescents.
There are also cases being studied about step parenting, or entirely different
parenting with the process of adoption. With a shocking change of one or both
parents in any stage of life, attitudes, and reactions are apt to become altered
with a new lifestyle. Also with step or adopted parents, entirely different
siblings could possibly become added to the family structure, altering the
environments of all affected children. Psychologists have found that, although
various situational differences can be traumatic in a child’s life, the
influence of the upbringing environment doesn’t overshadow the hereditary
source of behavior (Rathus p.112).
Extreme concern has also risen about the effects of such traumatic
childhood events and genetical characteristics on sexual orientation. The
subject of gay or lesbian parenting is also a major concern not only in
psychology, but for many people around the world. Psychologists wonder if the
affects of this erratic situational difference will result in a inner-conflict
between a child’s hereditary instincts and environmental behavior. Although the
factors of genetics may have a small deciding component to sexual orientation,
psychologist John Money, concluded that “sexual orientation is not under the
direct governance of chromosomes and genes” (Rathus p.367-368). Children from
these conditions have usually been found to acquire a more admissible attitude
towards homosexuals through this altered environmental upbringing. However,
children raised in these same conditions may, or may not display homosexual
tendencies determined by both genetic factors and environmental experiences.
In other exceptions, children often develop problems even though their
environment seems to be entirely common. Psychologists have come to question
the quality of the relationship between parent and sibling, and also the raising
and discipline methods. Take the example of a naughty or extremely hyperactive
young boy raising hell, and throwing tantrums out in public. When we witness
children in this category, we often automatically think, “Why doesn’t his mother
control him?” We assume that the cause of his behavior problems can be found in
his environment, possibly poor parenting techniques. This false assumption,
however, may be an unfair judgment upon actual quality parenting. Recent
researchers have shown that children may be born with a variety of personality
characteristics which can lead to behavioral problems, and are not related to
poor parenting techniques (Turecki).
Psychologist and twin researcher David Rowe stated that “Parents should
be blamed less for kids who have problems and take less credit for kids who turn
out well” (Turecki). In the circumstance of rowdy children, psychologists often
question both sides of genetic and environmental factoring. Are mischievous
children born that way, or raised that way? The answer may be both. With
pioneering studies on temperamental children, Stella Chess, M.D., and Alexander
Thomas, M.D., concluded that children were initially born a certain way, and
then because of the way they interacted with their environment, they continued
to grow this way. Chess and Alexander also concluded through their “difficult
child” research in the late 1950’s, that ten percent of normal children were
difficult children from birth (Tuecki). Expanding on the research of Chess and
Alexander, Stanley Turecki, M.D., reestimated that twenty percent of normal
children were temperamentally difficult from the time of birth. Turecki, a
confused parent himself, recommended that “parents of difficult children make an
important distinction between willful misbehavior which is under the control of
the child, and expressions of innate temperament, which are really beyond a
child’s control” (Turecki). Thus it is crucial for parents to recognize which
misbehaviors are related to genetic aspects and which are associated with
behavioral decisions when discipline is necessary.
Psychologists such as Turecki, Rowe, Alexander, Chess and numerous
others have all added contributing ideas and research to the point of nature
plus nurture, but one man’s revolutionary research and ideas could not be
ignored on this subject. Thomas J. Bouchard’s famous studies
University of Minnesota allowed the comparison between exact human genetic
copies (”John Bouchard” Encarta Encyclopedia). These unique experiments modified
the scientific views of genetic similarities and the influence of environmental
surroundings. This research conducted by Bouchard and other twin researchers
also presented accurate information on the importance of heredity and
environment (Turecki). Similarities between identical and even fraternal twins
supports the superior importance of a genetical impact on behavior. In the
opposite view, however, differences intervening between behaviors of identical
or fraternal twins defends the importance of the upbringing environment (Rathus
p.112).
Research in this subject, originating from Bouchard and others, has
revealed an extensive range of similarities between identical twins raised
together and separately. It is evident that two children sharing all one hundred
percent of their genetic makeup (identical) will present several similarities,
compared to children that only share fifty percent of similar genes. The
physical appearance of identical twins will obviously be more alike in
resemblance, height, weight, and even have more closely related blood
cholesterol levels, than fraternal twins, or other siblings altogether (Rathus
p.112). By studying identical twins that had grown up separate from each other,
Bouchard was appalled by the similarities that endured just as though they had
been reared in the exact environment. Some of these strong behavioral traits
included shyness, activity levels, risk aversion, achievement, optimism,
irritability, sociability, cognitive development, physical gestures, patterns of
speech, and even similar hair-styles and brands of toothpaste (Turecki & Rathus
p.112).
Being a twin involves sharing almost everything together in life from
toys, rooms, or clothing to appearance and psychological characteristics.
Unfortunately, sharing psychological characteristics through hereditary can
possibly lead to sharing psychological disorders as well. It is clear that the
closer the genetic similarities are between twins (identical or fraternal),
family members, or perhaps distant cousins, the more likely similar disorders
are receptive to people in the same gene pool. Studies have proven that
identical twins have a higher fate, than fraternal twins, to share psychological
disorders such as autism, anxiety, substance abuse, and schizophrenia (Rathus
p.112). Hypoglycemia, diabetes, alcoholism, lactose intolerance, and other
biological disorders in the metabolism can also become mutual problems between
identical twins, and also, with a less chance, in fraternal twins as well
(Masters). Determining from the evidence presented by research and studies on
twins, it may appear that the genetic heredity of nature has a prevailing edge
over the environmental factors of behavior. Following his extensive research on
twins, Thomas Bouchard concluded that 1) “Genetic factors exert a pronounced and
pervasive influence on behavioral variability, and 2) the effect of being reared
in the same home is negligible for many psychological traits”(Turecki).
Following his various research on twins it is indisputable that Bouchard heavily
supported the genetical factors involved in behavioral characteristics.
Although Bouchard presented quality evidence behind his statements
supporting the general roles in behavior, the various effects of extreme
environmental situations was overlooked in his findings. This contradicting
evidence later resurfaced through research by Adler, Plomin, Rende, and others
(Rathus p.345). Bouchard also expressed his optimism in genetics, stating that
seventy percent of the variations for intelligence quotient (IQ) is linked to
heredity (Turecki). The topic over the influence of genetics on intelligence has
also become a common disputed topic. These new experts have balanced the
importance of heredity plus environment on intelligence despite Bouchard’s
original speculations through his related studies. Similar twin studies,
identical to Bouchard’s, have resulted in concluding that closely related
kindred do, infact, share similar IQs than compared to distant family members or
non-related people. These studies also revealed supporting evidence that the
influences of environmental factors can equally contribute to IQ. scores as well.
Identical twins, fraternal twins, siblings, and cousins raised in diverse
situations from one another, resulted in dissimilar intelligence levels( Rathus
p.344-345).
Dr. William Greeno, a neuroscientist at the University of Illinois, has
experimented with situational differences and the effects on intelligence.
Greeno exposed laboratory rodents to several types of laboratory environments
ranging from ordinary and plain mesh cages to complex and stimulating
surroundings. The results that Dr. Greeno found, were that rodents placed in
excelling and stimulating circumstances appear to be smarter than normal
laboratory rats having more connections per nerve cell in different brain
regions (Adams). Psychologist Craig Ramey created applicable research
comparable to William Greeno’s with the placement of disadvantaged children into
enriched environment. With his early intervention in a child’s life, Ramey’s
idea was to “cultivate their soil, so that an enriched environment would act
like a fertilizer to the developing brains of these children” (Adams). With
alike results to William Greeno’s lab rats, Craig Ramey also concluded that
factors such as socioeconomic status, educational and cognitive resources, and
resource environments, can have major effects on the outcome of intelligence.
This application of importance between circumstantial raising
environments and the origin of intelligence directs to the necessity of nurture
as well as nature in the formation of behavioral characteristics. Therefore,
Thomas Bouchard’s one-sided views on hereditary importance, can be countered
with supporting evidence of environmental importance as well. It remains clear
by the excessive amounts of research and examinations on how this engaging
argument could provoke many disputes in the scientific world. Thomas Bouchard’s
research heavily favored the effects of heredity on behavior. While Craig Ramey
and Dr. William Greeno presented opposing evidence for the importance of
environmental influences. Other theories were presented by Stella Chess,
Alexander Thomas, Stanley Turecki, and others supporting that children born
difficult can be changed with corrective parenting. Yet David Rowe’s research
related the opposite view that children were affected slightly by their raising
environment. Today with the excess of research and theories supporting each view
equally, perhaps Arnold Gesell and John B. Watson would agree that a combination
of nurture plus nature is the origin of our behavioral characteristics.