in the nature vs nurture debate both sides are partially right

Nature vs. Nurture Debate In Psychology

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

The nature vs. nurture debate in psychology concerns the relative importance of an individual’s innate qualities (nature) versus personal experiences (nurture) in determining or causing individual differences in physical and behavioral traits. While early theories favored one factor over the other, contemporary views recognize a complex interplay between genes and environment in shaping behavior and development.

Key Takeaways

• Nature is what we think of as pre-wiring and is influenced by genetic inheritance and other biological factors.
• Nurture is generally taken as the influence of external factors after conception, e.g., the product of exposure, life experiences, and learning on an individual.
• Behavioral genetics has enabled psychology to quantify the relative contribution of nature and nurture concerning specific psychological traits.
• Instead of defending extreme nativist or nurturist views, most psychological researchers are now interested in investigating how nature and nurture interact in a host of qualitatively different ways.
• For example, epigenetics is an emerging area of research that shows how environmental influences affect the expression of genes.

The nature-nurture debate is concerned with the relative contribution that both influences make to human behavior, such as personality, cognitive traits, temperament and psychopathology.

Examples of Nature vs. Nurture

Nature vs. nurture in child development.

In child development, the nature vs. nurture debate is evident in the study of language acquisition . Researchers like Chomsky (1957) argue that humans are born with an innate capacity for language (nature), known as universal grammar, suggesting that genetics play a significant role in language development.

Conversely, the behaviorist perspective, exemplified by Skinner (1957), emphasizes the role of environmental reinforcement and learning (nurture) in language acquisition.

Twin studies have provided valuable insights into this debate, demonstrating that identical twins raised apart may share linguistic similarities despite different environments, suggesting a strong genetic influence (Bouchard, 1979)

However, environmental factors, such as exposure to language-rich environments, also play a crucial role in language development, highlighting the intricate interplay between nature and nurture in child development.

Nature vs. Nurture in Personality Development

The nature vs. nurture debate in personality psychology centers on the origins of personality traits. Twin studies have shown that identical twins reared apart tend to have more similar personalities than fraternal twins, indicating a genetic component to personality (Bouchard, 1994).

However, environmental factors, such as parenting styles, cultural influences, and life experiences, also shape personality.

For example, research by Caspi et al. (2003) demonstrated that a particular gene (MAOA) can interact with childhood maltreatment to increase the risk of aggressive behavior in adulthood.

This highlights that genetic predispositions and environmental factors contribute to personality development, and their interaction is complex and multifaceted.

Nature vs. Nurture in Mental Illness Development

The nature vs. nurture debate in mental health explores the etiology of depression. Genetic studies have identified specific genes associated with an increased vulnerability to depression, indicating a genetic component (Sullivan et al., 2000).

However, environmental factors, such as adverse life events and chronic stress during childhood, also play a significant role in the development of depressive disorders (Dube et al.., 2002; Keller et al., 2007)

The diathesis-stress model posits that individuals inherit a genetic predisposition (diathesis) to a disorder, which is then activated or exacerbated by environmental stressors (Monroe & Simons, 1991).

This model illustrates how nature and nurture interact to influence mental health outcomes.

Nature vs. Nurture of Intelligence

The nature vs. nurture debate in intelligence examines the relative contributions of genetic and environmental factors to cognitive abilities.

Intelligence is highly heritable, with about 50% of variance in IQ attributed to genetic factors, based on studies of twins, adoptees, and families (Plomin & Spinath, 2004).

Heritability of intelligence increases with age, from about 20% in infancy to as high as 80% in adulthood, suggesting amplifying effects of genes over time.

However, environmental influences, such as access to quality education and stimulating environments, also significantly impact intelligence.

Shared environmental influences like family background are more influential in childhood, whereas non-shared experiences are more important later in life.

Research by Flynn (1987) showed that average IQ scores have increased over generations, suggesting that environmental improvements, known as the Flynn effect , can lead to substantial gains in cognitive abilities.

Molecular genetics provides tools to identify specific genes and understand their pathways and interactions. However, progress has been slow for complex traits like intelligence. Identified genes have small effect sizes (Plomin & Spinath, 2004).

Overall, intelligence results from complex interplay between genes and environment over development. Molecular genetics offers promise to clarify these mechanisms. The nature vs nurture debate is outdated – both play key roles.

Nativism (Extreme Nature Position)

It has long been known that certain physical characteristics are biologically determined by genetic inheritance.

Color of eyes, straight or curly hair, pigmentation of the skin, and certain diseases (such as Huntingdon’s chorea) are all a function of the genes we inherit.

These facts have led many to speculate as to whether psychological characteristics such as behavioral tendencies, personality attributes, and mental abilities are also “wired in” before we are even born.

Those who adopt an extreme hereditary position are known as nativists.  Their basic assumption is that the characteristics of the human species as a whole are a product of evolution and that individual differences are due to each person’s unique genetic code.

In general, the earlier a particular ability appears, the more likely it is to be under the influence of genetic factors. Estimates of genetic influence are called heritability.

Examples of extreme nature positions in psychology include Chomsky (1965), who proposed language is gained through the use of an innate language acquisition device. Another example of nature is Freud’s theory of aggression as being an innate drive (called Thanatos).

Characteristics and differences that are not observable at birth, but which emerge later in life, are regarded as the product of maturation. That is to say, we all have an inner “biological clock” which switches on (or off) types of behavior in a pre-programmed way.

The classic example of the way this affects our physical development are the bodily changes that occur in early adolescence at puberty.

However, nativists also argue that maturation governs the emergence of attachment in infancy , language acquisition , and even cognitive development .

Empiricism (Extreme Nurture Position)

At the other end of the spectrum are the environmentalists – also known as empiricists (not to be confused with the other empirical/scientific  approach ).

Their basic assumption is that at birth, the human mind is a tabula rasa (a blank slate) and that this is gradually “filled” as a result of experience (e.g., behaviorism ).

From this point of view, psychological characteristics and behavioral differences that emerge through infancy and childhood are the results of learning.  It is how you are brought up (nurture) that governs the psychologically significant aspects of child development and the concept of maturation applies only to the biological.

For example, Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory states that aggression is learned from the environment through observation and imitation. This is seen in his famous bobo doll experiment (Bandura, 1961).

Also, Skinner (1957) believed that language is learned from other people via behavior-shaping techniques.

Evidence for Nature

• Biological Approach
• Biology of Gender
• Medical Model

Freud (1905) stated that events in our childhood have a great influence on our adult lives, shaping our personality.

He thought that parenting is of primary importance to a child’s development , and the family as the most important feature of nurture was a common theme throughout twentieth-century psychology (which was dominated by environmentalists’ theories).

Behavioral Genetics

Researchers in the field of behavioral genetics study variation in behavior as it is affected by genes, which are the units of heredity passed down from parents to offspring.

“We now know that DNA differences are the major systematic source of psychological differences between us. Environmental effects are important but what we have learned in recent years is that they are mostly random – unsystematic and unstable – which means that we cannot do much about them.” Plomin (2018, xii)

Behavioral genetics has enabled psychology to quantify the relative contribution of nature and nurture with regard to specific psychological traits. One way to do this is to study relatives who share the same genes (nature) but a different environment (nurture). Adoption acts as a natural experiment which allows researchers to do this.

Empirical studies have consistently shown that adoptive children show greater resemblance to their biological parents, rather than their adoptive, or environmental parents (Plomin & DeFries, 1983; 1985).

Another way of studying heredity is by comparing the behavior of twins, who can either be identical (sharing the same genes) or non-identical (sharing 50% of genes). Like adoption studies, twin studies support the first rule of behavior genetics; that psychological traits are extremely heritable, about 50% on average.

The Twins in Early Development Study (TEDS) revealed correlations between twins on a range of behavioral traits, such as personality (empathy and hyperactivity) and components of reading such as phonetics (Haworth, Davis, Plomin, 2013; Oliver & Plomin, 2007; Trouton, Spinath, & Plomin, 2002).

Implications

Jenson (1969) found that the average I.Q. scores of black Americans were significantly lower than whites he went on to argue that genetic factors were mainly responsible – even going so far as to suggest that intelligence is 80% inherited.

The storm of controversy that developed around Jenson’s claims was not mainly due to logical and empirical weaknesses in his argument. It was more to do with the social and political implications that are often drawn from research that claims to demonstrate natural inequalities between social groups.

For many environmentalists, there is a barely disguised right-wing agenda behind the work of the behavioral geneticists.  In their view, part of the difference in the I.Q. scores of different ethnic groups are due to inbuilt biases in the methods of testing.

More fundamentally, they believe that differences in intellectual ability are a product of social inequalities in access to material resources and opportunities.  To put it simply children brought up in the ghetto tend to score lower on tests because they are denied the same life chances as more privileged members of society.

Now we can see why the nature-nurture debate has become such a hotly contested issue.  What begins as an attempt to understand the causes of behavioral differences often develops into a politically motivated dispute about distributive justice and power in society.

What’s more, this doesn’t only apply to the debate over I.Q.  It is equally relevant to the psychology of sex and gender , where the question of how much of the (alleged) differences in male and female behavior is due to biology and how much to culture is just as controversial.

Polygenic Inheritance

Rather than the presence or absence of single genes being the determining factor that accounts for psychological traits, behavioral genetics has demonstrated that multiple genes – often thousands, collectively contribute to specific behaviors.

Thus, psychological traits follow a polygenic mode of inheritance (as opposed to being determined by a single gene). Depression is a good example of a polygenic trait, which is thought to be influenced by around 1000 genes (Plomin, 2018).

This means a person with a lower number of these genes (under 500) would have a lower risk of experiencing depression than someone with a higher number.

The Nature of Nurture

Nurture assumes that correlations between environmental factors and psychological outcomes are caused environmentally. For example, how much parents read with their children and how well children learn to read appear to be related. Other examples include environmental stress and its effect on depression.

However, behavioral genetics argues that what look like environmental effects are to a large extent really a reflection of genetic differences (Plomin & Bergeman, 1991).

People select, modify and create environments correlated with their genetic disposition. This means that what sometimes appears to be an environmental influence (nurture) is a genetic influence (nature).

So, children that are genetically predisposed to be competent readers, will be happy to listen to their parents read them stories, and be more likely to encourage this interaction.

Interaction Effects

However, in recent years there has been a growing realization that the question of “how much” behavior is due to heredity and “how much” to the environment may itself be the wrong question.

Take intelligence as an example. Like almost all types of human behavior, it is a complex, many-sided phenomenon which reveals itself (or not!) in a great variety of ways.

The “how much” question assumes that psychological traits can all be expressed numerically and that the issue can be resolved in a quantitative manner.

Heritability statistics revealed by behavioral genetic studies have been criticized as meaningless, mainly because biologists have established that genes cannot influence development independently of environmental factors; genetic and nongenetic factors always cooperate to build traits. The reality is that nature and culture interact in a host of qualitatively different ways (Gottlieb, 2007; Johnston & Edwards, 2002).

Instead of defending extreme nativist or nurturist views, most psychological researchers are now interested in investigating how nature and nurture interact.

For example, in psychopathology , this means that both a genetic predisposition and an appropriate environmental trigger are required for a mental disorder to develop. For example, epigenetics state that environmental influences affect the expression of genes.

What is Epigenetics?

Epigenetics is the term used to describe inheritance by mechanisms other than through the DNA sequence of genes. For example, features of a person’s physical and social environment can effect which genes are switched-on, or “expressed”, rather than the DNA sequence of the genes themselves.

Stressors and memories can be passed through small RNA molecules to multiple generations of offspring in ways that meaningfully affect their behavior.

One such example is what is known as the Dutch Hunger Winter, during last year of the Second World War. What they found was that children who were in the womb during the famine experienced a life-long increase in their chances of developing various health problems compared to children conceived after the famine.

Epigenetic effects can sometimes be passed from one generation to the next, although the effects only seem to last for a few generations. There is some evidence that the effects of the Dutch Hunger Winter affected grandchildren of women who were pregnant during the famine.

Therefore, it makes more sense to say that the difference between two people’s behavior is mostly due to hereditary factors or mostly due to environmental factors.

This realization is especially important given the recent advances in genetics, such as polygenic testing.  The Human Genome Project, for example, has stimulated enormous interest in tracing types of behavior to particular strands of DNA located on specific chromosomes.

If these advances are not to be abused, then there will need to be a more general understanding of the fact that biology interacts with both the cultural context and the personal choices that people make about how they want to live their lives.

There is no neat and simple way of unraveling these qualitatively different and reciprocal influences on human behavior.

Epigenetics: Licking Rat Pups

Michael Meaney and his colleagues at McGill University in Montreal, Canada conducted the landmark epigenetic study on mother rats licking and grooming their pups.

This research found that the amount of licking and grooming received by rat pups during their early life could alter their epigenetic marks and influence their stress responses in adulthood.

Pups that received high levels of maternal care (i.e., more licking and grooming) had a reduced stress response compared to those that received low levels of maternal care.

Meaney’s work with rat maternal behavior and its epigenetic effects has provided significant insights into the understanding of early-life experiences, gene expression, and adult behavior.

It underscores the importance of the early-life environment and its long-term impacts on an individual’s mental health and stress resilience.

Epigenetics: The Agouti Mouse Study

Waterland and Jirtle’s 2003 study on the Agouti mouse is another foundational work in the field of epigenetics that demonstrated how nutritional factors during early development can result in epigenetic changes that have long-lasting effects on phenotype.

In this study, they focused on a specific gene in mice called the Agouti viable yellow (A^vy) gene. Mice with this gene can express a range of coat colors, from yellow to mottled to brown.

This variation in coat color is related to the methylation status of the A^vy gene: higher methylation is associated with the brown coat, and lower methylation with the yellow coat.

Importantly, the coat color is also associated with health outcomes, with yellow mice being more prone to obesity, diabetes, and tumorigenesis compared to brown mice.

Waterland and Jirtle set out to investigate whether maternal diet, specifically supplementation with methyl donors like folic acid, choline, betaine, and vitamin B12, during pregnancy could influence the methylation status of the A^vy gene in offspring.

Key findings from the study include:

Dietary Influence : When pregnant mice were fed a diet supplemented with methyl donors, their offspring had an increased likelihood of having the brown coat color. This indicated that the supplemented diet led to an increased methylation of the A^vy gene.

Health Outcomes : Along with the coat color change, these mice also had reduced risks of obesity and other health issues associated with the yellow phenotype.

Transgenerational Effects : The study showed that nutritional interventions could have effects that extend beyond the individual, affecting the phenotype of the offspring.

The implications of this research are profound. It highlights how maternal nutrition during critical developmental periods can have lasting effects on offspring through epigenetic modifications, potentially affecting health outcomes much later in life.

The study also offers insights into how dietary and environmental factors might contribute to disease susceptibility in humans.

Bandura, A. Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1961). Transmission of aggression through the imitation of aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 63, 575-582

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bouchard, T. J. (1994). Genes, Environment, and Personality. Science, 264 (5166), 1700-1701.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment. Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Loss . New York: Basic Books.

Caspi, A., Sugden, K., Moffitt, T. E., Taylor, A., Craig, I. W., Harrington, H., … & Poulton, R. (2003). Influence of life stress on depression: moderation by a polymorphism in the 5-HTT gene.  Science ,  301 (5631), 386-389.

Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. Mouton de Gruyter.

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax . MIT Press.

Dube, S. R., Anda, R. F., Felitti, V. J., Edwards, V. J., & Croft, J. B. (2002). Adverse childhood experiences and personal alcohol abuse as an adult.  Addictive Behaviors ,  27 (5), 713-725.

Flynn, J. R. (1987). Massive IQ gains in 14 nations: What IQ tests really measure.  Psychological Bulletin ,  101 (2), 171.

Freud, S. (1905). Three essays on the theory of sexuality . Se, 7.

Galton, F. (1883). Inquiries into human faculty and its development . London: J.M. Dent & Co.

Gottlieb, G. (2007). Probabilistic epigenesis.   Developmental Science, 10 , 1–11.

Haworth, C. M., Davis, O. S., & Plomin, R. (2013). Twins Early Development Study (TEDS): a genetically sensitive investigation of cognitive and behavioral development from childhood to young adulthood . Twin Research and Human Genetics, 16(1) , 117-125.

Jensen, A. R. (1969). How much can we boost I.Q. and scholastic achievement? Harvard Educational Review, 33 , 1-123.

Johnston, T. D., & Edwards, L. (2002). Genes, interactions, and the development of behavior . Psychological Review , 109, 26–34.

Keller, M. C., Neale, M. C., & Kendler, K. S. (2007). Association of different adverse life events with distinct patterns of depressive symptoms.  American Journal of Psychiatry ,  164 (10), 1521-1529.

Monroe, S. M., & Simons, A. D. (1991). Diathesis-stress theories in the context of life stress research: implications for the depressive disorders.  Psychological Bulletin ,  110 (3), 406.

Oliver, B. R., & Plomin, R. (2007). Twins” Early Development Study (TEDS): A multivariate, longitudinal genetic investigation of language, cognition and behavior problems from childhood through adolescence . Twin Research and Human Genetics, 10(1) , 96-105.

Petrill, S. A., Plomin, R., Berg, S., Johansson, B., Pedersen, N. L., Ahern, F., & McClearn, G. E. (1998). The genetic and environmental relationship between general and specific cognitive abilities in twins age 80 and older.  Psychological Science ,  9 (3), 183-189.

Plomin, R., & Petrill, S. A. (1997). Genetics and intelligence: What’s new?.  Intelligence ,  24 (1), 53-77.

Plomin, R. (2018). Blueprint: How DNA makes us who we are . MIT Press.

Plomin, R., & Bergeman, C. S. (1991). The nature of nurture: Genetic influence on “environmental” measures. behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14(3) , 373-386.

Plomin, R., & DeFries, J. C. (1983). The Colorado adoption project. Child Development , 276-289.

Plomin, R., & DeFries, J. C. (1985). The origins of individual differences in infancy; the Colorado adoption project. Science, 230 , 1369-1371.

Plomin, R., & Spinath, F. M. (2004). Intelligence: genetics, genes, and genomics.  Journal of personality and social psychology ,  86 (1), 112.

Plomin, R., & Von Stumm, S. (2018). The new genetics of intelligence.  Nature Reviews Genetics ,  19 (3), 148-159.

Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior . Acton, MA: Copley Publishing Group.

Sullivan, P. F., Neale, M. C., & Kendler, K. S. (2000). Genetic epidemiology of major depression: review and meta-analysis.  American Journal of Psychiatry ,  157 (10), 1552-1562.

Szyf, M., Weaver, I. C., Champagne, F. A., Diorio, J., & Meaney, M. J. (2005). Maternal programming of steroid receptor expression and phenotype through DNA methylation in the rat .  Frontiers in neuroendocrinology ,  26 (3-4), 139-162.

Trouton, A., Spinath, F. M., & Plomin, R. (2002). Twins early development study (TEDS): a multivariate, longitudinal genetic investigation of language, cognition and behavior problems in childhood . Twin Research and Human Genetics, 5(5) , 444-448.

Waterland, R. A., & Jirtle, R. L. (2003). Transposable elements: targets for early nutritional effects on epigenetic gene regulation . Molecular and cellular biology, 23 (15), 5293-5300.

Further Information

• Genetic & Environmental Influences on Human Psychological Differences

Evidence for Nurture

• Classical Conditioning
• Little Albert Experiment
• Operant Conditioning
• Behaviorism
• Social Learning Theory
• Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory
• Social Roles
• Attachment Styles
• The Hidden Links Between Mental Disorders
• Visual Cliff Experiment
• Behavioral Genetics, Genetics, and Epigenetics
• Epigenetics
• Is Epigenetics Inherited?
• Physiological Psychology
• Bowlby’s Maternal Deprivation Hypothesis
• So is it nature not nurture after all?

Evidence for an Interaction

• Genes, Interactions, and the Development of Behavior
• Agouti Mouse Study
• Biological Psychology

What does nature refer to in the nature vs. nurture debate?

In the nature vs. nurture debate, “nature” refers to the influence of genetics, innate qualities, and biological factors on human development, behavior, and traits. It emphasizes the role of hereditary factors in shaping who we are.

What does nurture refer to in the nature vs. nurture debate?

In the nature vs. nurture debate, “nurture” refers to the influence of the environment, upbringing, experiences, and social factors on human development, behavior, and traits. It emphasizes the role of external factors in shaping who we are.

Why is it important to determine the contribution of heredity (nature) and environment (nurture) in human development?

Determining the contribution of heredity and environment in human development is crucial for understanding the complex interplay between genetic factors and environmental influences. It helps identify the relative significance of each factor, informing interventions, policies, and strategies to optimize human potential and address developmental challenges.

• Type 2 Diabetes
• Heart Disease
• Digestive Health
• Multiple Sclerosis
• COVID-19 Vaccines
• Occupational Therapy
• Healthy Aging
• Health Insurance
• Public Health
• Patient Rights
• Caregivers & Loved Ones
• End of Life Concerns
• Health News
• Thyroid Test Analyzer
• Doctor Discussion Guides
• Hemoglobin A1c Test Analyzer
• Lipid Test Analyzer
• Complete Blood Count (CBC) Analyzer
• What to Buy
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Medical Expert Board

What Are Nature vs. Nurture Examples?

How is nature defined, how is nurture defined, the nature vs. nurture debate, nature vs. nurture examples, what is empiricism (extreme nurture position), contemporary views of nature vs. nurture.

Nature vs. nurture is an age-old debate about whether genetics (nature) plays a bigger role in determining a person's characteristics than lived experience and environmental factors (nurture). The term "nature vs. nature" was coined by English naturalist Charles Darwin's younger half-cousin, anthropologist Francis Galton, around 1875.

In psychology, the extreme nature position (nativism) proposes that intelligence and personality traits are inherited and determined only by genetics.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, the extreme nurture position (empiricism) asserts that the mind is a blank slate at birth; external factors like education and upbringing determine who someone becomes in adulthood and how their mind works. Both of these extreme positions have shortcomings and are antiquated.

This article explores the difference between nature and nurture. It gives nature vs. nurture examples and explains why outdated views of nativism and empiricism don't jibe with contemporary views. 

Thanasis Zovoilis / Getty Images

In the context of nature vs. nurture, "nature" refers to genetics and heritable factors that are passed down to children from their biological parents.

Genes and hereditary factors determine many aspects of someone’s physical appearance and other individual characteristics, such as a genetically inherited predisposition for certain personality traits.

Scientists estimate that 20% to 60% percent of temperament is determined by genetics and that many (possibly thousands) of common gene variations combine to influence individual characteristics of temperament.

However, the impact of gene-environment (or nature-nurture) interactions on someone's traits is interwoven. Environmental factors also play a role in temperament by influencing gene activity. For example, in children raised in an adverse environment (such as child abuse or violence), genes that increase the risk of impulsive temperamental characteristics may be activated (turned on).

Trying to measure "nature vs. nurture" scientifically is challenging. It's impossible to know precisely where the influence of genes and environment begin or end.

How Are Inherited Traits Measured?

“Heritability”   describes the influence that genes have on human characteristics and traits. It's measured on a scale of 0.0 to 1.0. Very strong heritable traits like someone's eye color are ranked a 1.0.

Traits that have nothing to do with genetics, like speaking with a regional accent ranks a zero. Most human characteristics score between a 0.30 and 0.60 on the heritability scale, which reflects a blend of genetics (nature) and environmental (nurture) factors.

Thousands of years ago, ancient Greek philosophers like Plato believed that "innate knowledge" is present in our minds at birth. Every parent knows that babies are born with innate characteristics. Anecdotally, it may seem like a kid's "Big 5" personality traits (agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, neuroticism, and openness) were predetermined before birth.

What is the "Big 5" personality traits

The Big 5 personality traits is a theory that describes the five basic dimensions of personality. It was developed in 1949 by D. W. Fiske and later expanded upon by other researchers and is used as a framework to study people's behavior.

From a "nature" perspective, the fact that every child has innate traits at birth supports Plato's philosophical ideas about innatism. However, personality isn't set in stone. Environmental "nurture" factors can change someone's predominant personality traits over time. For example, exposure to the chemical lead during childhood may alter personality.

In 2014, a meta-analysis of genetic and environmental influences on personality development across the human lifespan found that people change with age. Personality traits are relatively stable during early childhood but often change dramatically during adolescence and young adulthood.

It's impossible to know exactly how much "nurture" changes personality as people get older. In 2019, a study of how stable personality traits are from age 16 to 66 found that people's Big 5 traits are both stable and malleable (able to be molded). During the 50-year span from high school to retirement, some traits like agreeableness and conscientiousness tend to increase, while others appear to be set in stone.

Nurture refers to all of the external or environmental factors that affect human development such as how someone is raised, socioeconomic status, early childhood experiences, education, and daily habits.

Although the word "nurture" may conjure up images of babies and young children being cared for by loving parents, environmental factors and life experiences have an impact on our psychological and physical well-being across the human life span. In adulthood, "nurturing" oneself by making healthy lifestyle choices can offset certain genetic predispositions.

For example, a May 2022 study found that people with a high genetic risk of developing the brain disorder Alzheimer's disease can lower their odds of developing dementia (a group of symptoms that affect memory, thinking, and social abilities enough to affect daily life) by adopting these seven healthy habits in midlife:

• Staying active
• Healthy eating
• Losing weight
• Not smoking
• Reducing blood sugar
• Controlling cholesterol
• Maintaining healthy blood pressure

The nature vs. nurture debate centers around whether individual differences in behavioral traits and personality are caused primarily by nature or nurture. Early philosophers believed the genetic traits passed from parents to their children influence individual differences and traits. Other well-known philosophers believed the mind begins as a blank slate and that everything we are is determined by our experiences.

While early theories favored one factor over the other, experts today recognize there is a complex interaction between genetics and the environment and that both nature and nurture play a critical role in shaping who we are.

Eye color and skin pigmentation are examples of "nature" because they are present at birth and determined by inherited genes. Developmental delays due to toxins (such as exposure to lead as a child or exposure to drugs in utero) are examples of "nurture" because the environment can negatively impact learning and intelligence.

In Child Development

The nature vs. nurture debate in child development is apparent when studying language development. Nature theorists believe genetics plays a significant role in language development and that children are born with an instinctive ability that allows them to both learn and produce language.

Nurture theorists would argue that language develops by listening and imitating adults and other children.

In addition, nurture theorists believe people learn by observing the behavior of others. For example, contemporary psychologist Albert Bandura's social learning theory suggests that aggression is learned through observation and imitation.

In Psychology

In psychology, the nature vs. nurture beliefs vary depending on the branch of psychology.

• Biopsychology:  Researchers analyze how the brain, neurotransmitters, and other aspects of our biology influence our behaviors, thoughts, and feelings. emphasizing the role of nature.
• Social psychology: Researchers study how external factors such as peer pressure and social media influence behaviors, emphasizing the importance of nurture.
• Behaviorism: This theory of learning is based on the idea that our actions are shaped by our interactions with our environment.

In Personality Development

Whether nature or nurture plays a bigger role in personality development depends on different personality development theories.

• Behavioral theories: Our personality is a result of the interactions we have with our environment, such as parenting styles, cultural influences, and life experiences.
• Biological theories: Personality is mostly inherited which is demonstrated by a study in the 1990s that concluded identical twins reared apart tend to have more similar personalities than fraternal twins.
• Psychodynamic theories: Personality development involves both genetic predispositions and environmental factors and their interaction is complex.

In Mental Illness

Both nature and nurture can contribute to mental illness development.

For example, at least five mental health disorders are associated with some type of genetic component ( autism ,  attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) ,  bipolar disorder , major depression, and  schizophrenia ).

Other explanations for mental illness are environmental, such as:

• Being exposed to drugs or alcohol in utero 
• Witnessing a traumatic event, leading to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)
• Adverse life events and chronic stress during childhood

In Mental Health Therapy

Mental health treatment can involve both nature and nurture. For example, a therapist may explore life experiences that may have contributed to mental illness development (nurture) as well as family history of mental illness (nature).

At the same time, research indicates that a person's genetic makeup may impact how their body responds to antidepressants. Taking this into consideration is important for finding the right treatment for each individual.

 What Is Nativism (Extreme Nature Position)?

Innatism emphasizes nature's role in shaping our minds and personality traits before birth. Nativism takes this one step further and proposes that all of people's mental and physical characteristics are inherited and predetermined at birth.

In its extreme form, concepts of nativism gave way to the early 20th century's racially-biased eugenics movement. Thankfully, "selective breeding," which is the idea that only certain people should reproduce in order to create chosen characteristics in offspring, and eugenics, arranged breeding, lost momentum during World War II. At that time, the Nazis' ethnic cleansing (killing people based on their ethnic or religious associations) atrocities were exposed.

Philosopher John Locke's tabula rasa theory from 1689 directly opposes the idea that we are born with innate knowledge. "Tabula rasa" means "blank slate" and implies that our minds do not have innate knowledge at birth.

Locke was an empiricist who believed that all the knowledge we gain in life comes from sensory experiences (using their senses to understand the world), education, and day-to-day encounters after being born.

Today, looking at nature vs. nature in black-and-white terms is considered a misguided dichotomy (two-part system). There are so many shades of gray where nature and nurture overlap. It's impossible to tease out how inherited traits and learned behaviors shape someone's unique characteristics or influence how their mind works.

The influences of nature and nurture in psychology are impossible to unravel. For example, imagine someone growing up in a household with an alcoholic parent who has frequent rage attacks. If that child goes on to develop a substance use disorder and has trouble with emotion regulation in adulthood, it's impossible to know precisely how much genetics (nature) or adverse childhood experiences (nurture) affected that individual's personality traits or issues with alcoholism.

Epigenetics Blurs the Line Between Nature and Nurture

"Epigenetics " means "on top of" genetics. It refers to external factors and experiences that turn genes "on" or "off." Epigenetic mechanisms alter DNA's physical structure in utero (in the womb) and across the human lifespan.

Epigenetics blurs the line between nature and nurture because it says that even after birth, our genetic material isn't set in stone; environmental factors can modify genes during one's lifetime. For example, cannabis exposure during critical windows of development can increase someone's risk of neuropsychiatric disease via epigenetic mechanisms.

Nature vs. nurture is a framework used to examine how genetics (nature) and environmental factors (nurture) influence human development and personality traits.

However, nature vs. nurture isn't a black-and-white issue; there are many shades of gray where the influence of nature and nurture overlap. It's impossible to disentangle how nature and nurture overlap; they are inextricably intertwined. In most cases, nature and nurture combine to make us who we are. 

Waller JC. Commentary: the birth of the twin study--a commentary on francis galton’s “the history of twins.”   International Journal of Epidemiology . 2012;41(4):913-917. doi:10.1093/ije/dys100

The New York Times. " Major Personality Study Finds That Traits Are Mostly Inherited ."

Medline Plus. Is temperament determined by genetics?

Feldman MW, Ramachandran S. Missing compared to what? Revisiting heritability, genes and culture .  Phil Trans R Soc B . 2018;373(1743):20170064. doi:10.1098/rstb.2017.0064

Winch C. Innatism, concept formation, concept mastery and formal education: innatism, concept formation and formal education .  Journal of Philosophy of Education . 2015;49(4):539-556. doi:10.1111/1467-9752.12121

Briley DA, Tucker-Drob EM. Genetic and environmental continuity in personality development: A meta-analysis .  Psychological Bulletin . 2014;140(5):1303-1331. doi:10.1037/a0037091

Damian RI, Spengler M, Sutu A, Roberts BW. Sixteen going on sixty-six: A longitudinal study of personality stability and change across 50 years .  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology . 2019;117(3):674-695. doi:10.1037/pspp0000210

Tin A, Bressler J, Simino J, et al. Genetic risk, midlife life’s simple 7, and incident dementia in the atherosclerosis risk in communities study .  Neurology . Published online May 25, 2022. doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000200520 

Levitt M. Perceptions of nature, nurture and behaviour .  Life Sci Soc Policy . 2013;9(1):13. doi:10.1186/2195-7819-9-13

Ross EJ, Graham DL, Money KM, Stanwood GD. Developmental consequences of fetal exposure to drugs: what we know and what we still must learn . Neuropsychopharmacology. 2015 Jan;40(1):61-87. doi: 10.1038/npp.2014.14

World Health Organization. Lead poisoning .

Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models .  The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1961; 63 (3), 575–582 doi:10.1037/h0045925

Krapfl JE.  Behaviorism and society .  Behav Anal.  2016;39(1):123-9. doi:10.1007/s40614-016-0063-8

Bouchard TJ Jr, Lykken DT, McGue M, Segal NL, Tellegen A. Sources of human psychological differences: the Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart . Science. 1990 Oct 12;250(4978):223-8. doi: 10.1126/science.2218526

National Institutes of Health.  Common genetic factors found in 5 mental disorders .

Franke HA. Toxic Stress: Effects, Prevention and Treatment . Children (Basel). 2014 Nov 3;1(3):390-402. doi: 10.3390/children1030390

Pain O, Hodgson K, Trubetskoy V, et al.  Identifying the common genetic basis of antidepressant response .  Biol Psychiatry Global Open Sci . 2022;2(2):115-126. doi:10.1016/j.bpsgos.2021.07.008

National Human Genome Research Institute. Eugenics and Scientific Racism .

OLL. The Works of John Locke in Nine Volumes .

Toraño EG, García MG, Fernández-Morera JL, Niño-García P, Fernández AF. The impact of external factors on the epigenome:  in utero  and over lifetime .  BioMed Research International . 2016;2016:1-17. doi:10.1155/2016/2568635

Smith A, Kaufman F, Sandy MS, Cardenas A. Cannabis exposure during critical windows of development: epigenetic and molecular pathways implicated in neuropsychiatric disease .  Curr Envir Health Rpt . 2020;7(3):325-342. doi:10.1007/s40572-020-00275-4

By Christopher Bergland Christopher Bergland is a retired ultra-endurance athlete turned medical writer and science reporter. 

Nature vs. Nurture

The nature versus nurture debate is about the relative influence of an individual's innate attributes as opposed to the experiences from the environment one is brought up in, in determining individual differences in physical and behavioral traits. The philosophy that humans acquire all or most of their behavioral traits from "nurture" is known as tabula rasa ("blank slate").

In recent years, both types of factors have come to be recognized as playing interacting roles in development. So several modern psychologists consider the question naive and representing an outdated state of knowledge . The famous psychologist, Donald Hebb, is said to have once answered a journalist's question of "Which, nature or nurture, contributes more to personality?" by asking in response, "Which contributes more to the area of a rectangle, its length or its width?"

Comparison chart

Nature vs. nurture in the iq debate.

Evidence suggests that family environmental factors may have an effect upon childhood IQ, accounting for up to a quarter of the variance. On the other hand, by late adolescence this correlation disappears, such that adoptive siblings are no more similar in IQ than strangers. Moreover, adoption studies indicate that, by adulthood, adoptive siblings are no more similar in IQ than strangers (IQ correlation near zero), while full siblings show an IQ correlation of 0.6. Twin studies reinforce this pattern: monozygotic (identical) twins raised separately are highly similar in IQ (0.86), more so than dizygotic (fraternal) twins raised together (0.6) and much more than adoptive siblings (almost 0.0). Consequently, in the context of the "nature versus nurture" debate, the "nature" component appears to be much more important than the "nurture" component in explaining IQ variance in the general adult population of the United States .

The TEDx Talk below, featuring renowned entomologist Gene Robinson , discusses how the science of genomics strongly suggests both nature and nurture actively affect genomes, thus playing important roles in development and social behavior:

Nature vs. Nurture in Personality Traits

Personality is a frequently-cited example of a heritable trait that has been studied in twins and adoptions. Identical twins reared apart are far more similar in personality than randomly selected pairs of people. Likewise, identical twins are more similar than fraternal twins. Also, biological siblings are more similar in personality than adoptive siblings. Each observation suggests that personality is heritable to a certain extent.

However, these same study designs allow for the examination of environment as well as genes. Adoption studies also directly measure the strength of shared family effects. Adopted siblings share only family environment. Unexpectedly, some adoption studies indicate that by adulthood the personalities of adopted siblings are no more similar than random pairs of strangers. This would mean that shared family effects on personality wane off by adulthood. As is the case with personality, non-shared environmental effects are often found to out-weigh shared environmental effects. That is, environmental effects that are typically thought to be life-shaping (such as family life) may have less of an impact than non-shared effects, which are harder to identify.

Moral Considerations of the Nature vs. Nurture Debate

Some observers offer the criticism that modern science tends to give too much weight to the nature side of the argument, in part because of the potential harm that has come from rationalized racism. Historically, much of this debate has had undertones of racist and eugenicist policies — the notion of race as a scientific truth has often been assumed as a prerequisite in various incarnations of the nature versus nurture debate. In the past, heredity was often used as "scientific" justification for various forms of discrimination and oppression along racial and class lines. Works published in the United States since the 1960s that argue for the primacy of "nature" over "nurture" in determining certain characteristics, such as The Bell Curve, have been greeted with considerable controversy and scorn. A recent study conducted in 2012 has come up with the verdict that racism, after all, isn't innate.

A critique of moral arguments against the nature side of the argument could be that they cross the is-ought gap. That is, they apply values to facts. However, such appliance appears to construct reality. Belief in biologically determined stereotypes and abilities has been shown to increase the kind of behavior that is associated with such stereotypes and to impair intellectual performance through, among other things, the stereotype threat phenomenon.

The implications of this are brilliantly illustrated by the implicit association tests (IATs) out of Harvard . These, along with studies of the impact of self-identification with either positive or negative stereotypes and therefore "priming" good or bad effects, show that stereotypes, regardless of their broad statistical significance, bias the judgements and behaviours of members and non-members of the stereotyped groups.

Homosexuality

Being gay is now considered a genetic phenomenon rather than being influenced by the environment. This is based on observations such as:

• About 10% of the population is gay. This number is consistent across cultures throughout the world. If culture and society — i.e., nurture — were responsible for homosexuality, the percentage of population that is gay would vary across cultures.
• Studies of identical twins have shown that if one sibling is gay, the probability that the other sibling is also gay is greater than 50%.

More recent studies have indicated that both gender and sexuality are spectrums rather than strictly binary choices.

Epigenetics

Genetics is a complex and evolving field. A relatively newer idea in genetics is the epigenome . Changes happen to DNA molecules as other chemicals attach to genes or proteins in a cell. These changes constitute the epigenome. The epigenome regulates activity of cells by "turning genes off or on", i.e., by regulating which genes are expressed. This is why even though all cells have the same DNA (or genome), some cells grow into brain cells while others turn into liver and others into skin.

Epigenetics suggests a model for how the environment (nurture) may affect an individual by regulating the genome (nature). More information about epigenetics can be found here .

Philosophical Considerations of the Nature vs. Nurture Debate

Are the traits real.

It is sometimes a question whether the "trait" being measured is even a real thing. Much energy has been devoted to calculating the heritability of intelligence (usually the I.Q., or intelligence quotient), but there is still some disagreement as to what exactly "intelligence" is.

Determinism and Free Will

If genes do contribute substantially to the development of personal characteristics such as intelligence and personality, then many wonder if this implies that genes determine who we are. Biological determinism is the thesis that genes determine who we are. Few , if any, scientists would make such a claim; however, many are accused of doing so.

Others have pointed out that the premise of the "nature versus nurture" debate seems to negate the significance of free will. More specifically, if all our traits are determined by our genes, by our environment, by chance , or by some combination of these acting together, then there seems to be little room for free will. This line of reasoning suggests that the "nature versus nurture" debate tends to exaggerate the degree to which individual human behavior can be predicted based on knowledge of genetics and the environment. Furthermore, in this line of reasoning, it should also be pointed out that biology may determine our abilities, but free will still determines what we do with our abilities.

• Wikipedia: Nature versus nurture
• Nature vs Nurture: Racism isn't Innate - National Journal
• Nature vs. Nurture: The Debate on Psychological Development - YouTube
• Epigenetics - PBS

Related Comparisons

Share this comparison via:

If you read this far, you should follow us:

"Nature vs Nurture." Diffen.com. Diffen LLC, n.d. Web. 7 Apr 2024. < >

Comments: Nature vs Nurture

Anonymous comments (5).

October 10, 2012, 8:50am Somewhere, someone has to be scratching their head and saying...what about free will? What about man's ability to reason? Nature and nurture do not complete the picture. They are influences, but we should not reduce the human mind and spirit to such base concepts. — 69.✗.✗.87

September 13, 2012, 1:25pm we were assigned to be on the "nature" side, to defend it. and the information I got from here made me "encouraged" to win on our debate, and has provided me a chance of having a high grade tomorrow. thanks.. — 109.✗.✗.162

February 28, 2013, 7:28pm nature all the way — 170.✗.✗.19

June 18, 2009, 1:54pm we were assigned to be on the "nature" side, to defend it. and the information I got from here made me "encouraged" to win on our debate, and has provided me a chance of having a high grade tomorrow. thanks.. — 124.✗.✗.255

May 9, 2014, 2:03pm Nurture an nature can change becose it is unchangeble to the personality. — 141.✗.✗.231

• Fraternal Twins vs Identical Twins
• Psychiatry vs Psychology
• Genotype vs Phenotype
• Left Brain vs Right Brain
• Behaviourism vs Constructivism
• Anthropology vs Sociology
• Ethnicity vs Race
• Allele vs Gene

Edit or create new comparisons in your area of expertise.

Stay connected

© All rights reserved.

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2023 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

The Nature vs. Nurture Debate

Genetic and Environmental Influences and How They Interact

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Verywell / Joshua Seong

• Definitions
• Interaction
• Contemporary Views

Nature refers to how genetics influence an individual's personality, whereas nurture refers to how their environment (including relationships and experiences) impacts their development. Whether nature or nurture plays a bigger role in personality and development is one of the oldest philosophical debates within the field of psychology .

Learn how each is defined, along with why the issue of nature vs. nurture continues to arise. We also share a few examples of when arguments on this topic typically occur, how the two factors interact with each other, and contemporary views that exist in the debate of nature vs. nurture as it stands today.

Nature and Nurture Defined

To better understand the nature vs. nurture argument, it helps to know what each of these terms means.

• Nature refers largely to our genetics . It includes the genes we are born with and other hereditary factors that can impact how our personality is formed and influence the way that we develop from childhood through adulthood.
• Nurture encompasses the environmental factors that impact who we are. This includes our early childhood experiences, the way we were raised , our social relationships, and the surrounding culture.

A few biologically determined characteristics include genetic diseases, eye color, hair color, and skin color. Other characteristics are tied to environmental influences, such as how a person behaves, which can be influenced by parenting styles and learned experiences.

For example, one child might learn through observation and reinforcement to say please and thank you. Another child might learn to behave aggressively by observing older children engage in violent behavior on the playground.

The Debate of Nature vs. Nurture

The nature vs. nurture debate centers on the contributions of genetics and environmental factors to human development. Some philosophers, such as Plato and Descartes, suggested that certain factors are inborn or occur naturally regardless of environmental influences.

Advocates of this point of view believe that all of our characteristics and behaviors are the result of evolution. They contend that genetic traits are handed down from parents to their children and influence the individual differences that make each person unique.

Other well-known thinkers, such as John Locke, believed in what is known as tabula rasa which suggests that the mind begins as a blank slate . According to this notion, everything that we are is determined by our experiences.

Behaviorism is a good example of a theory rooted in this belief as behaviorists feel that all actions and behaviors are the results of conditioning. Theorists such as John B. Watson believed that people could be trained to do and become anything, regardless of their genetic background.

People with extreme views are called nativists and empiricists. Nativists take the position that all or most behaviors and characteristics are the result of inheritance. Empiricists take the position that all or most behaviors and characteristics result from learning.

Examples of Nature vs. Nurture

One example of when the argument of nature vs. nurture arises is when a person achieves a high level of academic success . Did they do so because they are genetically predisposed to elevated levels of intelligence, or is their success a result of an enriched environment?

The argument of nature vs. nurture can also be made when it comes to why a person behaves in a certain way. If a man abuses his wife and kids, for instance, is it because he was born with violent tendencies, or is violence something he learned by observing others in his life when growing up?

Nature vs. Nurture in Psychology

Throughout the history of psychology , the debate of nature vs. nurture has continued to stir up controversy. Eugenics, for example, was a movement heavily influenced by the nativist approach.

Psychologist Francis Galton coined the terms 'nature versus nurture' and 'eugenics' and believed that intelligence resulted from genetics. Galton also felt that intelligent individuals should be encouraged to marry and have many children, while less intelligent individuals should be discouraged from reproducing.

The value placed on nature vs. nurture can even vary between the different branches of psychology , with some branches taking a more one-sided approach. In biopsychology , for example, researchers conduct studies exploring how neurotransmitters influence behavior, emphasizing the role of nature.

In social psychology , on the other hand, researchers might conduct studies looking at how external factors such as peer pressure and social media influence behaviors, stressing the importance of nurture. Behaviorism is another branch that focuses on the impact of the environment on behavior.

Nature vs. Nurture in Child Development

Some psychological theories of child development place more emphasis on nature and others focus more on nurture. An example of a nativist theory involving child development is Chomsky's concept of a language acquisition device (LAD). According to this theory, all children are born with an instinctive mental capacity that allows them to both learn and produce language.

An example of an empiricist child development theory is Albert Bandura's social learning theory . This theory says that people learn by observing the behavior of others. In his famous Bobo doll experiment , Bandura demonstrated that children could learn aggressive behaviors simply by observing another person acting aggressively.

Nature vs. Nurture in Personality Development

There is also some argument as to whether nature or nurture plays a bigger role in the development of one's personality. The answer to this question varies depending on which personality development theory you use.

According to behavioral theories, our personality is a result of the interactions we have with our environment, while biological theories suggest that personality is largely inherited. Then there are psychodynamic theories of personality that emphasize the impact of both.

Nature vs. Nurture in Mental Illness Development

One could argue that either nature or nurture contributes to mental health development. Some causes of mental illness fall on the nature side of the debate, including changes to or imbalances with chemicals in the brain. Genetics can also contribute to mental illness development, increasing one's risk of a certain disorder or disease.

Mental disorders with some type of genetic component include autism , attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), bipolar disorder , major depression , and schizophrenia .

Other explanations for mental illness are environmental. This includes being exposed to environmental toxins, such as drugs or alcohol, while still in utero. Certain life experiences can also influence mental illness development, such as witnessing a traumatic event, leading to the development of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Nature vs. Nurture in Mental Health Therapy

Different types of mental health treatment can also rely more heavily on either nature or nurture in their treatment approach. One of the goals of many types of therapy is to uncover any life experiences that may have contributed to mental illness development (nurture).

However, genetics (nature) can play a role in treatment as well. For instance, research indicates that a person's genetic makeup can impact how their body responds to antidepressants. Taking this into consideration is important for getting that person the help they need.

Interaction Between Nature and Nurture

Which is stronger: nature or nurture? Many researchers consider the interaction between heredity and environment—nature with nurture as opposed to nature versus nurture—to be the most important influencing factor of all.

For example, perfect pitch is the ability to detect the pitch of a musical tone without any reference. Researchers have found that this ability tends to run in families and might be tied to a single gene. However, they've also discovered that possessing the gene is not enough as musical training during early childhood is needed for this inherited ability to manifest itself.

Height is another example of a trait influenced by an interaction between nature and nurture. A child might inherit the genes for height. However, if they grow up in a deprived environment where proper nourishment isn't received, they might never attain the height they could have had if they'd grown up in a healthier environment.

A newer field of study that aims to learn more about the interaction between genes and environment is epigenetics . Epigenetics seeks to explain how environment can impact the way in which genes are expressed.

Some characteristics are biologically determined, such as eye color, hair color, and skin color. Other things, like life expectancy and height, have a strong biological component but are also influenced by environmental factors and lifestyle.

Contemporary Views of Nature vs. Nurture

Most experts recognize that neither nature nor nurture is stronger than the other. Instead, both factors play a critical role in who we are and who we become. Not only that but nature and nurture interact with each other in important ways all throughout our lifespan.

As a result, many in this field are interested in seeing how genes modulate environmental influences and vice versa. At the same time, this debate of nature vs. nurture still rages on in some areas, such as in the origins of homosexuality and influences on intelligence .

While a few people take the extreme nativist or radical empiricist approach, the reality is that there is not a simple way to disentangle the multitude of forces that exist in personality and human development. Instead, these influences include genetic factors, environmental factors, and how each intermingles with the other.

Schoneberger T. Three myths from the language acquisition literature . Anal Verbal Behav . 2010;26(1):107-31. doi:10.1007/bf03393086

National Institutes of Health. Common genetic factors found in 5 mental disorders .

Pain O, Hodgson K, Trubetskoy V, et al. Identifying the common genetic basis of antidepressant response . Biol Psychiatry Global Open Sci . 2022;2(2):115-126. doi:10.1016/j.bpsgos.2021.07.008

Moulton C. Perfect pitch reconsidered . Clin Med J . 2014;14(5):517-9 doi:10.7861/clinmedicine.14-5-517

Levitt M. Perceptions of nature, nurture and behaviour . Life Sci Soc Policy . 2013;9:13. doi:10.1186/2195-7819-9-13

Bandura A, Ross D, Ross, SA. Transmission of aggression through the imitation of aggressive models . J Abnorm Soc Psychol. 1961;63(3):575-582. doi:10.1037/h0045925

Chomsky N. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax .

Galton F. Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development .

Watson JB. Behaviorism .

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

The Nature-Nurture Debate is Over, and Both Sides Lost! Implications for Understanding Gender Differences in Religiosity *

Matt bradshaw.

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Christopher G. Ellison

University of Texas at Austin

In their article, “A Power-Control Theory of Gender and Religiosity,” Collett and Lizardo (2009) seek to address an important, and largely unanswered, question: Why do women tend to be more religious than men? Drawing on power-control theory, they attempt to test a socialization-based explanation for this phenomenon. The motivation for their study was based, in part, on the author’s desire to refute Miller and Stark’s (2002 ; Stark 2002 ) contention that biological differences between women and men—specifically concerning their propensities toward risky behavior—may offer a better explanation for the gender gap in religiosity than the dominant sociological theory: differential sex-role socialization. In fact, the authors forcefully argue that Miller and Stark made “a premature concession to biology,” and that their “emphasis on the biological basis of the higher religiosity of women is misplaced.”

In an attempt to support their argument, Collett and Lizardo show that patriarchal versus egalitarian family backgrounds and structures—as tapped by mother’s socioeconomic status (SES)—affect levels of religiosity among daughters, but not sons, and that this accounts for observed gender differences. Specifically, they find that women raised by high-SES mothers (a proxy for a household that is more egalitarian than patriarchal, and thus has lower levels of gender-role socialization) tend to be less religious than women raised by mothers with lower levels of SES (a proxy for a patriarchal family structure that is characterized by high levels of gender-role socialization). For men, levels of religiosity do not appear to be contingent upon the structure of their rearing environment, at least as tapped by mother’s (or father’s) SES. Based on these findings, the authors conclude that they have identified a socialization-based explanation that accounts for gender differences in religiosity.

The purpose of this commentary is not necessarily to refute Collett and Lizardo. Their study is a significant contribution to our understanding of a complex, ill-explained phenomenon, and it is certainly worthy of publication. Instead, this is a broad-based discussion of five issues surrounding current debates on the biological and / or environmental causes of gender differences in religiosity; these include: (1) the fallacy of nature “versus” nurture; (2) the presence (or absence) of biological influences on religious life; (3) biological influences on the predictors of religious participation; (4) issues of causality and confounding; and (5) growing interdisciplinary endorsement of models of biology-environment interplay. These issues are important not only for Collett and Lizardo, but for everyone else involved in debates in this area as well (e.g., Miller and Stark 2002 ; Miller and Hoffman 1995 ; Stark 2002 ; Sullins 2006 ). Thus, this is more of a commentary on the current state of the literature, than it is a specific critique of Collett and Lizardo’s study.

ISSUE #1: THE FALLACY OF NATURE “VERSUS” NURTURE

The problem with theories and empirical research that take a nature “versus” nurture approach is simple: they are inadequate, and possibly even incorrect, in most cases. Recent advances in the biological, psychological, and social sciences provide strong evidence for the “ubiquitous partial heritability thesis” ( Freese 2008 :S2)—the fact that virtually all measurable outcomes are the products of both biological and environmental influences, not an either-or dichotomy ( Bouchard and Loehlin 2001 ; Freese 2008 ; Guo, Roettger, and Cai 2008 ; Kendler and Baker 2007 ; Kendler and Prescott 2006 ; Shanahan and Hofer 2005 ). The truth is, all living organisms, even human beings, are the product of a “…unique interaction between the genes they carry, the temporal sequence of external environments through which they pass during life, and random events…” ( Lewontin 2000 :23). In essence, genetic or other biological influences do not specify outcomes in completely determinitive ways, and environments do not unidirectionally influence individuals. Instead, biological influences vary depending upon environmental contexts, and environments are constructed by individuals and the genes that they carry. The widespread endorsement of this reality signals the end of the so-called nature-nurture debate.

That said, not everyone agrees. Sociology’s focus on environmental influences means that it almost always endorses some form of environmental determinism. Biology, in contrast, is guilty of making erroneous arguments from both sides of the debate ( Lewontin 2000 ). More specifically, developmental models in biology focus on the set of biological mechanisms that are common to all individuals of a species. Given this search for “law-like processes” that affect everyone in similar ways, such a model is inherently a form of biological determinism. In contrast, variational models in biology, which are based on Darwinian theory, do not assume that all individuals undergo parallel development, but instead focus on the fact that there is variation among individuals, and that some variants survive and leave more offspring than others (in large part due to their fit within the environment). This scenario is, in reality, a form of environmental determinism, since environments ultimately select which individuals survive and pass on their [biology-based] characteristics to future generations.

Such models are becoming increasingly marginalized, however, and rising from the ashes of biological and environmental determinism are coming treatises on “gene-environment interplay,” “bioecological models,” “gene-environment interaction,” “biosocial influences,” and “biodemographic approaches,” among many others ( Guo, Roettger, and Cai 2008 ; Rutter, Moffit, and Caspi 2006 ; Shanahan and Hofer 2005 ). This work, which is endorsed by a rapidly growing number of scientists from diverse fields of study, suggests that human social life, including religious participation, is a biosocial phenomenon that cannot be reduced to either nature or nurture. Let us look at some of the evidence.

ISSUE #2: EVIDENCE FOR BIOLOGICAL (AND ENVIRONMENTAL) INFLUENCES ON RELIGIOUS LIFE

Although rarely mentioned by social scientists, there is a small but rapidly growing literature examining biological influences on religious life. Much of this work has been conducted within the framework of behavior genetics, which typically employs data on multiple family members with known and differing levels of genetic relatedness (i.e., monozygotic and dizygotic twins, full and half siblings, etc.) in order to estimate the heritability of religious outcomes. Findings in this area suggest that genetic factors explain 20-30 percent of the variation on the most commonly-examined aspect of religious life: organization-based religious practices such a church attendance ( Boomsma et al. 1999 ; Bradshaw and Ellison 2008 ; D’Onofrio et al. 1999 ; Kendler, Gardner, and Prescott 1997 ; Kirk et al. 1999 ). With respect to more private dimensions of religious life—e.g., personal religious devotion ( Kendler, Gardner, and Prescott 1997 ), intrinsic versus extrinsic religious orientations ( Bouchard et al. 1999 ), personal religiosity ( Winter et al. 1999 ), and subjective religiousness ( Bradshaw and Ellison 2008 ), among others— research suggests that genetic differences account for roughly a third of the variation. Research also indicates sizable genetic and environmental effects on other religious outcomes as well, including spirituality, conservative ideologies, and coping ( Bradshaw and Ellison 2008 ; D’Onofrio et al. 1999 ). These findings certainly do not preclude the importance of environmental influences, and evidence indicates that social factors also account for a considerable proportion of the variation on all of these outcomes.

In addition to behavior genetic approaches, which provide heritability estimates, a handful of molecular genetic studies (i.e., research designs that measure genetic differences at the level of DNA) have also been published. These studies, which have focused almost exclusively on a personality trait referred to as self-transcendence, suggest that measurable genetic differences in known polymorphic genes correspond to individual variation on this aspect of religious life. Specifically, different versions (alleles) of the DRD4, 5-HTTLPR, AP-2β, and 5-HT 2A genes—which are involved with the serotonin and dopamine systems—have been correlated with different levels of self-transcendence ( Comings et al. 2001 ; Ham et al. 2004 ; Nilsson et al. 2007 ).

Biological influences other than genetic differences—e.g., brain structure and function— have also been linked with religious outcomes. For example, imaging studies (e.g., MRI, PET, etc.) have shown that certain areas of the brain are “activated” during religious activities such as scripture reading ( Azari et al. 2001 ) and meditation ( Newberg, d’Aquili, and Rause 2002 ). In addition, individual differences in serotonin receptor density in the brain have been linked with spiritual experiences, at least among males ( Borg et al. 2003 ).

Of critical importance to this commentary are findings suggesting that genetic effects on religious outcomes may vary by gender. For example, one study reported a larger genetic effect on individual-level variation among women compared with men on two aspects of religious involvement: church attendance and conservative religious ideologies ( D’Onofrio et al. 1999 ). Another study of religious attendance found that proportional genetic influences were 21 percent for women and 0 percent for men, with environmental influences explaining the remaining 79 and 100 percent, respectively ( Truett et al. 1992 ). In a study of religious affiliation, a moderate genetic effect was found for females (but not males) who did not live with their twin siblings ( Eaves, Martin, and Heath 1990 ).

Overall, then, there is reason to believe that both biological and environmental influences play a role in religious life, and that both may also contribute to gender differences in religiosity. If true, this could pose profound implications for social scientific research on this topic. There are, however, other issues to consider as well. As the next section will show, biological factors also appear to influence many of the predictors of religious participation.

ISSUE #3: EVIDENCE FOR BIOLOGICAL (AND ENVIRONMENTAL) INFLUENCES ON THE PREDICTORS OF RELIGIOUS LIFE

With respect to the correlates of religious life, there are known biological differences between women and men (e.g., different chromosomes, variable levels of hormones such as testosterone and estrogen, etc.), and these have been shown to manifest themselves in many different social outcomes, including aggressiveness, dominance, nurturance, mating behavior, sociality, parent-child bonds, and risk aversion, among many others ( Lippa 2005 ; Taylor 2002 ). Importantly, hormonal differences appear to predict variation both within, and across, the sexes—i.e., they help to explain why some women are different from other women, why some men are different from other men, and why women are different from men.

Research on SES—a key “environmental” variable in Collett and Lizardo’s manuscript— suggests sizable genetic effects (possibly explaining up to half of the variation) on both educational attainment ( Heath et al. 1985 ; Tambs et al. 1989 ; Vogler and Fulker 1983 ) and monetary income ( Rowe, Vesterdal, and Rodgers 1998 ). A recent study even found significant genetic effects on both grade-point average and college aspirations among adolescents and young adults ( Nielsen 2006 ). Importantly, SES has been linked with multiple aspects of religious life, and in Collett and Lizardo’s study, mother’s SES was taken as a proxy for an environmental variable: patriarchal versus egalitarian household structures and socialization.

Research also suggests that biological factors play a role in another major predictor of religious participation: family life. For example, three different domains of parent-child relations—positivity (e.g., warmth, empathy, etc.), negativity (e.g., disputes, anger, etc.), and control (e.g., monitoring, knowledge of activities, etc.)—all appear to be influenced by both genetic and environmental factors ( Plomin et al. 1994 ). These outcomes, although not exclusively modeled by Collett and Lizardo or other researchers in this area, are potentially important given the current focus on family environments and socialization. Romantic and marital relations have also been examined, and there is evidence for significant genetic effects on this aspect of family life as well ( Jerskey et al. 2001 ; Spotts et al. 2004 ). Given that religious socialization takes place primarily in the family environment, these findings may pose profound implications for research in this area.

The explanation for gender differences in religiosity advocated by Collett and Lizardo, among others, is that being irreligious is risky (due to the possibility of eternal damnation), and that since women tend to be more risk-averse than men, this partially accounts for why they are also more religious. As Miller and Stark (2002) reported, the literature contains numerous studies reporting biological effects on risk-taking, with evidence coming from behavior genetic designs and molecular biology ( Guo, Tong, and Cai 2008 ). Research on personality, which suggests that some individuals are more risk averse / prone (i.e., impulsive, open to experience) than others, is important here as well given the strong evidence for biological influences on virtually all personality characteristics ( Bouchard and Loehlin 2001 ; Jang, Livesley, and Vernon 1996 ). Hormonal differences also appear to influence risky behavior, with testosterone being implicated in many different outcomes ( Lippa 2005 ). Importantly, research on the biological basis of risk has been published in elite sociology journals, including the American Sociological Review and the American Journal of Sociology ( Guo, Roettger, and Cai 2008 ; Guo, Tong, and Cai 2008 ).

In sum, current evidence suggests that virtually all “environmental” variables are influenced, to at least some degree, by biological factors ( Freese 2008 ; Kendler and Baker 2007 ; Plomin et al. 1994 ). This appears to be true not only for religious involvement, but also for many of the predictors of religious life as well (i.e., sex differences, SES, family background, risk aversion, etc.). This begs the question: What implications might this pose for social scientific research that is attempting to make arguments for the importance of socialization?

ISSUE #4: CAUSALITY AND CONFOUNDING IN SOCIAL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

Survey research—as exemplified by Collett and Lizardo, Miller and Stark, etc.—employs variables (to gauge theoretical constructs) that are measured without regard their underlying “causes.” To understand the causes, researchers either employ independent variables as predictors, or assume one or more specific influences (e.g., biological, environmental, etc.). Since the causes of independent variables in survey research are almost never actually empirically examined, it is routine practice in social science to assume that these variables are purely environmental in origin and nature. This is exactly what Collett and Lizardo have done.

Looking at Figure 1 , Collett and Lizardo argued that observed sex differences in levels of religiosity (Pathway A) are contingent upon the moderating effects of family-environmental influences (i.e., patriarchal versus egalitarian household structures, as gauged by mother’s SES; see Pathway B). Assuming purely environmental causes of each of the three key variables in their model, they found that gender differences in religiosity were smaller in families where the mother had high SES (i.e., egalitarian environments), and larger in ones where she had low SES (i.e., patriarchal environments). It was therefore concluded that differential sex-role socialization occurs in the latter type of household, and that this accounts for gender differences in religiosity.

Explaining sex differences in levels of religiosity via the moderating effects of family environment (Collett and Lizardo’s model).

Even though Collett and Lizardo’s interpretations are almost certainly true to at least some degree, our knowledge on this topic is still extremely limited, and their conclusions should not be taken as the final word. At the present time, it is important to ask: What potential implications do the findings reviewed above—i.e., that biological factors predict religious outcomes, sex differences, SES, family life, and risky behavior, among others—pose for their study, as well as others that use similar variables and methods? To address this question, let us look at three scenarios that are guided by Figure 2 (a graphical depiction of the literature reviewed above).

Explaining sex differences in levels of religiosity via the moderating effects of family environment, with biological (b) and environmental (e) influences specified for all variables (a biologically-informed model).

First, based on the evidence that biological factors influence levels of religiosity (shown as Pathway b1 in Figure 2 ), it would seem reasonable to include these potential confounders as control variables in empirical studies, especially ones like Collett and Lizardo’s that attempt to refute biological explanations. Unfortunately, this is easier said than done (although not necessarily impossible), and no research to date, including Collett and Lizardo’s study, has done this. Thus, it is not known what their findings would look like if such controls were included. If biological influences on religious involvement function the same for both women and men (i.e., if B1 and B2 are not correlated), they would probably not pose much of a dilemma, but if they do not, this could be problematic. This issue must be addressed before causal arguments concerning environmental influences can realistically be made.

Second, in addition to influencing levels of religiosity, biological factors also appear to differentiate women and men to at least some degree (Pathway b2 in Figure 2 ). Given this, it is important to ask two elemental questions: Are the biological factors that influence levels of religiosity the same ones that contribute to the differences between women and men (i.e., are B1 and B2 correlated)? If so, does this account for the fact that women and men display different levels of religiosity—i.e., does it explain Pathway A? Miller and Stark (2002 ; Stark 2002 ) suggested that the answer to both of these questions may be yes, and Collett and Lizardo attempted to disprove them. Unfortunately, Collett and Lizardo did not include any measures of biological influences in their model (neither did Miller and Stark for that matter), which prevents them from ruling out this alternative explanation. If there actually are biological differences between women and men that ultimately influence their levels of religiosity—e.g., predispositions toward not only risk aversion, but also emotionality, sociality, attachment relations, etc. ( Hrdy 1999 ; Taylor 2002 )—including controls for these in their model would have functioned to reduce the gender differences they observed. In this case, biological influences would take the form of confounding influences (or “Z” variables, as they commonly called in methods and statistics textbooks), and the failure to control for these effects would bias all findings. For example, assuming that risk aversion is indeed associated with higher levels of religiosity, if women actually are more biologically predisposed toward (instead of socialized into) risk aversion than men, the failure to control for this potentially confounding influence could lead to a spurious correlation between the “environmental” variable of risk aversion, and [gender differences in] religiosity. No research to date has addressed this issue, which means that biological predispositions remain a viable, and untested, explanation for gender differences in religiosity.

Third, in addition to influencing religiosity and sex differences, biological factors also appear to influence family environments (as reviewed above, and as shown as Pathway b3 in Figure 2 ). What implications might this pose for social scientific research like Collett and Lizardo’s study, which assumed that these were completely environmental in origin and nature? To begin with, even if we could somehow address the two previous issues—i.e., rule out biological influences on religiosity and sex differences as explanations for the gender gap in religiosity (something that has yet to be done)—it would still be possible for biological factors to play a role via their effects on the family environment. The literature reviewed above showed that SES, including that of mothers, is influenced to at least some degree by biological influences, and that many other aspects of family life are as well. This suggests that biological influences (particularly those of the mother) could be at least partially responsible for the fact that some households are patriarchal, while others are egalitarian. More specifically, if biological factors predispose some mothers (more than others) toward traditional family life—i.e., if some have more of a “maternal nature” or “tending instinct” than others ( Hrdy 1999 ; Taylor 2002 )— this would almost certainly lead to lower levels of educational attainment, as well as a more patriarchal family environment (note: in this case, B2 and B3 in Figure 2 would be correlated). Thus, Collett and Lizardo’s assumption that a patriarchal versus egalitarian family structure is an “environmental variable” may not be entirely correct, and this could pose profound implications for their arguments. There is, however, even more to this story. Given the connection between family life and religious participation, biological predispositions toward family life are also likely to be associated with higher levels of religious involvement. This sets up a scenario where biology influences the “religiously-relevant characteristics” of mothers (including, but not limited to, patriarchy), who subsequently: (a) create environments that satisfy these innate predispositions; and (b) pass on both their genes “and” their environments to their children (particularly their daughters). Thus, the religious socialization of daughters by patriarchal mothers, the key to understanding gender differences in religiosity according to Collett and Lizardo, is almost certainly confounded by biological influences to at least some degree. They did not take this possibility into consideration, but instead assumed that patriarchy was an entirely environmental phenomenon driven by the socioeconomic attainment, and thus gender-role ideology, of mothers.

Overall, these issues are extremely complex, and no single study can rule out all potential confounders. It would obviously be difficult for Collett and Lizardo, or anyone else for that matter, to address all of the concerns raised here. That said, scientific progress requires, at the very least, that we: (a) control for influences that we seek to refute; (b) recognize the limitations of our findings; and (c) acknowledge the true complexities of all human outcomes, including religious participation. The first two issues have already been addressed, so the remainder of this commentary deals with the last one by discussing models of biology-environment interplay.

ISSUE #5: MODELS OF BIOLOGY-ENVIRONMENT INTERPLAY

Social scientific research on gender differences in religiosity—including Collett and Lizardo’s study—represents a style of thinking indicative of the old nature-nurture debate. Even though there may be examples of outcomes that truly are the products of either biological or environmental influences, the current literature suggests that these instances are rare, at best, and the gender gap in religiosity is almost certainly not one of these. A more fruitful approach to understanding religious life, therefore, lies in models of biology-environment interplay. Based on existing research, these two influences appear to work in both correlated and interactive manners, and applying these ideas to religious outcomes will almost certainly provide greater insight than reductionist biological or sociological models. (Note: Research in this area uses the term “gene-environment interplay” instead of “biology-environment interplay,” so this terminology is employed here as well. It should be noted, however, that genetic and biological are not necessarily synonymous.)

Gene-Environment Correlation

The first and simplest way that biological and environmental factors might interconnectedly influence religious outcomes is through “gene-environment correlation,” which comes in three forms: passive, evocative, and active ( Plomin, Defries, and Loehlin 1977 ; Scarr and McCartney 1983 ). The passive variety occurs through the environments supplied to individuals by genetically-related individuals, particularly their parents, who also provide genetic dispositions related to these environments. For example, if religious involvement is at least partially heritable, religious individuals will tend to have religious parents who provide them with both gene-based predispositions toward religiosity, as well as social environments that facilitate these inherited characteristics. In this situation, the two influences—genes and social environments—naturally occur together, and disentangling the unique influences of each is quite difficult (for other examples of passive gene-environment correlation, see: Jaffee and Price 2007 ; Reiss et al. 2000 ). The main question raised by this possibility is: Do parents pass on religion to their children via genetic factors, environmental influences, or both? The answer is almost certainly both, but investigating this question could facilitate our understanding the mechanisms by which religion is transmitted from one generation to another. This may even help us to understand gender differences in religiosity, especially if women are indeed more predisposed toward religion or any of the predictors of religious life than men.

Evocative gene-environment correlation occurs through the responses evoked from others in one’s social environment that are due to the genetic makeup of the evoking individual. Empirical examples for religious phenomena are not yet available, but research on other topics may help to illustrate this scenario. For example, scholarship on corporal punishment has shown that genetic factors are at least partially responsible for antisocial behavior in children, which subsequently “evokes” a response from parents in the form of corporal punishment ( Jaffee et al. 2004 ). Similarly, research on another family outcome, marital quality, suggests that gene-based predispositions toward depression tend to “evoke” negative responses from spouses, which, in turn, has harmful consequences for marital relations ( Jaffee and Price 2007 ). Given these findings, it is easy to envision scenarios that are relevant to the study of religious life. For example, genetic predispositions toward undesirable outcomes such as psychopathology or an antisocial personality may evoke negative reactions from religious others, thereby making it difficult to participate in a religious organization. Likewise, other biologically-influenced characteristics, including extraversion, may elicit favorable responses from religious others, thus facilitating religious group formation and activities. A more concrete example might involve persons with innate musical or teaching abilities, which evoke the support of religious leaders, and therefore enhance the religious experiences of everyone involved. Countless other examples could be offered, but the important point is this: possibilities such as these can only be understood with an integrated biology-environment approach. Given that there are known gender differences in many different genetically-influenced “evocative traits” (e.g., women report more symptoms of psychopathology than men, and they also tend to be more neurotic, agreeable, extraverted, and conscientious, on average; Kendler and Prescott 2006 ; Schmitt et al. 2008 ), this could help us to understand the gender gap in religiosity.

Active gene-environment correlation functions through the purposive selection or “niche-picking” of environments by individuals based on their genetically-predisposed motivations ( Scarr and McCartney 1983 ). For example, some distressed individuals might consciously seek out religious participation or a connection with God based on an innate need for social attachment or feelings of security in a stressful world ( Hamer 2004 ; Newberg, d’Aquili, and Rause 2002 ). We know that women report higher levels of distress than men, and that biological factors influence distress, so taken together, these two pieces of the puzzle could help us to understand gender differences in religiosity. Another example might involve individuals who are biologically-predisposed toward agreeableness, which motivates them to participate in religious organizations that emphasize selflessness, altruism, and prosocial activities. We know that women tend to be more agreeable than men, so this could be extremely insightful. Further, to the extent that worldviews and exclusivist beliefs are influenced by biology, some individuals might consciously seek out conservative religions while others look toward more mainstream or liberal ones. It is important to note that active gene-environment correlation is most likely to occur when individuals have freedom of choice and environmental opportunities to express their innate needs, orientations, or inclinations. Although not the focus of this commentary, this idea corresponds nicely with the rational choice theories that are currently popular in the scientific study of religion (see Stark and Finke 2000 ). They may even enhance these models by providing the biological underpinnings of purposive action and agency.

Gene-Environment Interaction

In addition to correlated effects, there is at least one other way (two forms) in which biological and environmental factors might work together to influence religious participation: “gene-environment interaction.” Essentially, research on many different outcomes suggests: (a) that genetic factors may be either more or less pronounced depending upon environmental influences; and (b) that environmental influences may have different effects based on the genetic makeup of individuals ( Boomsma et al. 1999 ; Jaffee et al. 2005 ; Shanahan and Hofer 2005 ).

When thinking about the study of religious life, this could be an extremely important idea. For example, we know that religious socialization takes place primarily from parents to children, but it is also true that some individuals from religious households end up being religious themselves, while others do not. Why? Social science would say that these individuals experienced alternative environmental influences that ultimately led to different paths and outcomes in their religious lives. This is likely true to some extent, but it could also be the case that religious socialization in the family is contingent upon biological differences among individuals. If some individuals are indeed more biologically predisposed toward religious participation than others, socialization may accentuate these propensities, but for those who do not possess such innate inclinations, socialization may not have much an impact. This could possibly be functioning in the creation of gender differences in religiosity—i.e., socialization might have a bigger impact on the religiosity of women partially because they are more genetically-predisposed toward it than men. Biology-environment interactions could also explain religious conversions. For example, if an atheist who was raised in a non-religious family actually carries an inherited biological predisposition toward religious participation, this may be expressed when this individual encounters a triggering environmental stimulus, whereas it may remain dormant otherwise.

Essentially, then, the interaction between biology and social life suggests that the effects of one are contingent upon the other. Given the evidence for both biological and environmental influences on many different religious outcomes, it does not seem controversial to assume that these factors are interacting with each other in some way. To date, however, no studies of gene-environment interaction have been published using religious involvement as the outcome of interest. For those interested in making a substantial contribution to our understanding of religious life, this is an area of inquiry that deserves serious consideration.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

This commentary began by applauding Collett and Lizardo for their effort to provide insight into an important, and ill-understood, phenomenon: the empirical fact that women tend to be more religious than men. While not necessarily disputing their findings—but raising several issues surrounding current debates on this topic—it was then argued that the authors have not done what they set out to do: refute the biological explanation proposed by Miller and Stark (2002) . The reason: they did not measure anything biological. Not only does this prevent them from ruling out biology as an alternative explanation, it also means that their findings should be interpreted with caution due potential confounding by theoretically important biological influences.

In essence, there is mounting evidence that all aspects of human existence, including religious participation, are the products of both biological and environmental influences, particularly the interplay of these two factors ( Bradshaw and Ellison 2008 ; Freese 2008 ; Guo et al. 2008 ; Heath et al. 1985 ; Loehlin and Martin 2000 ; Plomin et al. 1994 ). If both influences really do play a role in religious life, scholars should not be arguing for, or against, one or the other, but should instead be striving to understand how they work together in correlated and interactive ways to produce religious life, including gender differences in religiosity. Thus, there is no such thing as conceding to biology (or sociology for that matter); both are important.

Contributor Information

Matt Bradshaw, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Christopher G. Ellison, University of Texas at Austin.

• Azari Nina P., Nickel Janpeter, Wunderlich Gildert, Niedeggen Michael, Hefter Harald, Tellmann Lutz, Herzog Hans, Stoerig Petra, Birnbacher Dieter, Seitz Rudiger J. Neural correlates of religious experience. European Journal of Neuroscience. 2001; 13 (8):1649–52. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boomsma DI, de Geus EJC, van Baal GCM, Koopmans JR. A religious upbringing reduces the influence of genetic factors on disinhibition: Evidence for interaction between genotype and environment on personality. Twin Research. 1999; 2 (2):115–25. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jacqueline Borg, Andree Bengt, Soderstrom Henrik, Farde Lars. The serotonin system and spiritual experiences. American Journal of Psychiatry. 2003; 160 (11):1965–69. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bouchard Thomas J., Jr., Loehlin John C. Genes, evolution, and personality. Behavior Genetics. 2001; 31 (3):243–73. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bouchard Thomas J., Jr., McGue Matt, Lykken David T., Tellegen Auke. Intrinsic and extrinsic religiousness: genetic and environmental influences and personality correlates. Twin Research. 1999; 2 (2):88–98. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bradshaw Matt, Ellison Christopher G. Do genetic factors influence religious life? Findings from a behavior genetic analysis of twin siblings. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 2008; 47 (4):529–44. [ Google Scholar ]
• Collett Jessica L., Lizardo Omar. A power-control theory of gender and religiosity. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 2009; 48 (2) xxx-xxx. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Comings David E., Gonzales Nancy, Saucier Gerard, Johnson J. Patrick, MacMurray James P. The DRD4 gene and the spiritual transcendence scale of the character temperament index. Psychiatric Genetics. 2001; 10 (4):185–89. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• D’Onofrio Brian M., Eaves Lindon J., Murrelle Lenn, Maes Hermine H., Spilka Bernard. Understanding biological and social influences on religious affiliation, attitudes and behavior: A behavior-genetic perspective. Journal of Personality. 1999; 67 (6):953–84. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eaves Lindon J., Martin Nicholas G., Heath Andrew C. Religious affiliation in twins and their parents: Testing a model of cultural inheritance. Behavior Genetics. 1990; 20 (1):1–22. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Freese Jeremy. Genetics and the social science explanation of individual differences. American Journal of Sociology. 2008; 114 (Supplement):S1–S35. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Guo Guang, Roettger Michael E., Cai Tianji. The integration of genetic propensities into social-control models of delinquency and violence among males youths. American Sociological Review. 2008; 73 (4):543–68. [ Google Scholar ]
• Guo Guang, Tong Yuying, Cai Tianji. Gene by social context interactions for number of sexual partners among white male youths: genetics-informed sociology. American Journal of Sociology. 2008; 114 (Supplement):S36–S66. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ham Byung-Joo, Kim Yong-Ho, Choi Myung-Jin, Cha Ji-Hyun, Choi Yun-Kyeung, Lee Min-Soo. Serotonergic genes and personality traits in the Korean population. Neuroscience Letters. 2004; 354 (1):2–5. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hamer Dean. The God gene: How faith is hardwired into our genes. Doubleday; New York: 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
• Heath Andrew C., Berg Kare, Eaves Lindon J., Solaas Marit H., Corey Linda A., Sundet Jon Martin, Magnus Per, Nance Walter E. Education policy and the heritability of educational attainment. Nature. 1985; 314 (6013):734–36. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hrdy Sarah Blaffer. Mother nature: A history of mothers, infants, and natural selection. Pantheon; New York: 1999. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jaffee Sara R., Caspi Avshalom, Moffitt Terrie E., Dodge Kenneth A., Rutter Michael, Taylor Alan, Tully Lucy A. Nature X nurture: Genetic vulnerabilities interact with physical maltreatment to promote conduct problems. Development and Psychopathology. 2005; 17 (1):67–84. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jaffee Sara R., Caspi Avshalom, Moffitt Terrie E., Polo-Tomas Monica, Price Thomas S., Taylor Alan. The limits of child effects: Evidence for genetically meditate child effects on corporal punishment but not on physical maltreatment. Developmental Psychology. 2004; 40 (6):1047–58. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jaffee Sara R., Price Thomas S. Gene-environment correlations: A review of the evidence and implications for prevention of mental illness. Molecular Psychiatry. 2007; 12 (5):432–42. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jang Kerry L., Livesley W. John, Vernon Philip A. Heritability of the big five personality dimensions and their facets: A twin study. Journal of Personality. 1996; 64 (3):577–91. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jerskey BA, Lyons MJ, Lynch CE, Hines DA, Ascher S, Nir T, et al. Genetic influences on marital status. Paper presented at the Tenth International Congress of Twin Studies; London, England. 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kendler Kenneth S., Baker Jessica H. Genetic influences on measures of the environment: A systematic review. Psychological Medicine. 2007; 37 :615–626. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kendler Kenneth S., Gardner Charles O., Prescott Carol A. Religion, psychopathology, and substance use and abuse: A multimeasure, genetic-epidemiologic study. American Journal of Psychiatry. 1997; 154 :322–329. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kendler Kenneth S., Prescott Carol A. Genes, environment, and psychopathology. The Guilford Press; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kendler Kenneth S., Thornton Laura M., Gilman Stephen E., Kessler Ronald C. Sexual orientation in a U.S. national sample of twin and nontwin sibling pairs. American Journal of Psychiatry. 2000; 157 :1843–1846. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kirk Katherine M., Maes Hermine H., Heath Andrew C., Martin Nicholas G., Eaves Lindon J. Frequency of church attendance in Australia and the United States: Models of family resemblance. Twin Research. 1999; 2 :99–107. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lewontin Richard. The triple helix. Harvard University Press; 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lippa Richard A. Gender, nature, and nurture. Erlbaum; 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
• Loehlin John C., Martin Nicholas G. Dimensions of psychological masculinity-femininity in adult twins from opposite-sex and same-sex pairs. Behavior Genetics. 2000; 30 :19–28. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Miller Alan S., Hoffman John P. Risk and religion: An explanation of gender differences in religiosity. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 1995; 34 :63–75. [ Google Scholar ]
• Miller Alan S., Stark Rodney. Gender and religiousness: Can socialization explanations be saved? American Journal of Sociology. 2002; 107 :1399–1423. [ Google Scholar ]
• Newberg Andrew, d’Aquili Eugene, Rause Vince. Why God won’t go away. Ballantine Books; 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nielsen Francois. Achievement and ascription in educational attainment: Genetic and environmental influences on adolescent schooling. Social Forces. 2006; 85 :193–216. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nilsson Kent W., Damberg Mattias, Ohrvik John, Leppert Jerzy, Lindstrom Leif, Anckarsater Henrik, Oreland Lars. Genes encoding for AP-2β and the serotonin transporter are associated with the personality character spiritual acceptance. Neuroscience Letters. 2007; 411 :233–237. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Plomin Robert, Defries John C., Loehlin John C. Genotype-environment interaction and correlation in the analysis of human behavior. Psychological Bulletin. 1977; 84 :309–322. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Plomin Robert, Reiss David, Hetherington E. Mavis, Howe George W. Nature and nurture: Genetic contributions to measures of the family environment. Developmental Psychology. 1994; 30 :32–43. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reiss David, Neiderhiser Jenae M., Hetherington E. Mavis, Plomin Robert. The relationship code. Harvard University Press; 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rowe David C., Vesterdal Wendy J., Rodgers Joseph L. Herrnstein’s syllogism: Genetic and shared environmental influences on IQ, education, and income. Intelligence. 1998; 26 :405–423. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rutter Michael, Moffitt Terrie E., Caspi Avshalom. Gene-environment interplay and psychopathology: Multiple varieties but real effects. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2006; 47 :226–261. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Scarr Sandra, McCartney Kathleen. How people make their own environments: A theory of genotype > environment effects. Child Development. 1983; 54 :424–435. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schmitt David P., Realo Anu, Voracek Martin, Allik Juri. Why can’t a man be more like a woman? Sex differences in big five personality traits across 55 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2008; 94 :168–182. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shanahan Michael J., Hofer Scott M. Social context in gene-environment interactions: Retrospect and prospect. Journals of Gerontology. 2005; 60B :65–76. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Spotts Erica L., Neiderhiser Jenae M., Towers Hilary, Hansson Kjell, Lichtenstein Paul, Cederblad Marianne, Pedersen Nancy L., Reiss David. Genetic and environmental influences on marital relationships. Journal of Family Psychology. 2004; 18 :107–119. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stark Rodney. Physiology and faith: Addressing the ‘universal’ gender difference in religious commitment. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 2002; 41 :495–507. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stark Rodney, Finke Roger. Acts of faith: Explaining the human side of religion. University of California Press; 2000. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sullins D. Paul. Gender and religion: Deconstructing universality, constructing complexity. American Journal of Sociology. 2006; 112 :838–880. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tambs K, Sundet JM, Magnus P, Berg K. Genetic and environmental contributions to the covariance between occupational status, educational attainment, and IQ: A study of twins. Behavior Genetics. 1989; 19 :209–222. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Taylor Shelley E. The tending instinct. Times Books; 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Truett KR, Eaves LJ, Meyer JM, Heath AC, Martin NG. Religion and education as mediators of attitudes: A multivariate analysis. Behavior Genetics. 1992; 22 :43–62. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vogler GP, Fulker DW. Familial resemblance for educational attainment. Behavior Genetics. 1983; 13 :341–354. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Winter Torsten, Kaprio Jaakko, Viken Richard J., Karvonen Sakari, Rose Richard J. Individual differences in adolescent religiosity in Finland: Familial effects are modified by sex and region of residence. Twin Research. 1999; 2 :108–114. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

4.1B: Nature vs. Nurture- A False Debate

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 7962

Is nature (an individual’s innate qualities) or nurture (personal experience) more important in determining physical and behavioral traits?

Learning Objectives

• Discuss both sides of the nature versus nurture debate, understanding the implications of each
• Nature refers to innate qualities like human nature or genetics.
• Nurture refers to care given to children by parents or, more broadly, to environmental influences such as media and marketing.
• The nature versus nurture debate raises philosophical questions about determinism and free will.
• nurture : The environmental influences that contribute to the development of an individual; see also nature.
• nature : The innate characteristics of a thing. What something will tend by its own constitution, to be or do. Distinct from what might be expected or intended.
• determinism : The doctrine that all actions are determined by the current state and immutable laws of the universe, with no possibility of choice.

The nature versus nurture debate rages over whether an individual’s innate qualities or personal experiences are more important in determining physical and behavioral traits.

In the social and political sciences, the nature versus nurture debate may be compared with the structure versus agency debate, a similar discussion over whether social structure or individual agency (choice or free will) is more important for determining individual and social outcomes.

Historically, the “nurture” in the nature versus nurture debate has referred to the care parents give to children. But today, the concept of nurture has expanded to refer to any environmental factor – which may arise from prenatal, parental, extended family, or peer experiences, or even from media, marketing, and socioeconomic status. Environmental factors could begin to influence development even before it begins: a substantial amount of individual variation might be traced back to environmental influences that affect prenatal development.

The “nature” in the nature versus nurture debate generally refers to innate qualities. In historical terms, nature might refer to human nature or the soul. In modern scientific terms, it may refer to genetic makeup and biological traits. For example, researchers have long studied twins to determine the influence of biology on personality traits. These studies have revealed that twins, raised separately, still share many common personality traits, lending credibility to the nature side of the debate. However, sample sizes are usually small, so generalization of the results must be done with caution.

The nature versus nurture debate conjures deep philosophical questions about free will and determinism. The “nature” side may be criticized for implying that we behave in ways in which we are naturally inclined, rather than in ways we choose. Similarly, the “nurture” side may be criticized for implying that we behave in ways determined by our environment, not ourselves.

Of course, sociologists point out that our environment is, at least in part, a social creation.

Nature Vs Nurture: The Sociology of Human Behaviour

Source: Pixabay

The Nature vs Nurture debate is one widely covered in the Social Sciences and Philosophy. The premise of the Nature vs Nurture debate is as to whether Nature (biology, instinct) or Nurture (socialisation, social structures etc) is the force behind behind human behaviour. Free will, or at least some freedom of action, is pre-supposed in the Criminal Justice System. Where offenders are held responsible for their actions. Otherwise sending individuals on long stretches in prison would be seen as immoral.

Sociology as a discipline tends to seem as though it subscribes to the nurture side of the Nature vs Nurture debate. With a large amount of research primarily within the realm of Society. But that doesn’t put the subject into direct opposition to Biology, with its scientific research on human anatomy (nature). The field of Sociobiology is based on the assumption that Social behaviour has resulted from evolution and attempts to explain and examine social behaviour within that contexts.

What is Human Behaviour?

Sociologists study group life and the social forces that affect human behaviour. A central goal is to gain insight into how our lives are influenced by the social relationships around us. Since all behaviour is social behaviour, Sociology is a very broad field of study. Sociology focuses on understanding the social and cultural aspects of human behaviour at the local, national, and global levels (Radford University, 2018).

Nature – Explanations of Human Behaviour

The most prominent nature explanation of human behaviour is that humans, as animals act according to their primal instincts. This view is held by many biologists and some branches of psychology e.g. evolutionary psychology. Physical evolution can be seen in fossils dating back thousands of years. We’re taller than earlier groups of sapiens who lived and other groups such as Neanderthals who we bred with on some scale. But physical evolution doesn’t necessarily mean that human behaviour is hardwired.

Neuropsychology, paleobiology, evolutionary psychology all hold that humans today are all ingrained with hunter gather mentalities. An instinct to fight furiously when threatened, for instance, and a drove to trade information and share secrets (Nicholson, 1998). Our hunter-gather mentality is also said to have some affect on why men like to see women in red lipstick (Cabka, 2005).

Hereditary illnesses, passed from a parent to a child can also change behaviour. These include; Sickle Cell Anaemia & Cystic Fibrosis. Nurture side of the Nature vs Nurture debate coming up.

Related Posts

What is Sociology?

What is Patriarchy?

Nurture – Explanations of Human Behaviour

The Nurture side of the Nature vs Nurture debate explains human behaviour by examining socialisation, environment, and relationships. Moving away from Biology and Evolution. When a girl child is born, her family will usually socialise her to be feminised. They will grow her hair, clothe her in dresses, buy dolls, all conforming their child to the feminine ideal before the child has any idea of what gender is. This is referred to as gender socialisation.

It is also valuable to examine an individuals social environment when considering their behaviour. Expressions of Nationalism may become prevalent at times of war than times of peace.

Sociologists believe social environments, interactions, and structures shape human behaviour. Family types, family structures, subcultures, media, government, wealth, and inequality all mold an individuals personality which ultimately drives their behaviour.

Why do Sociologists believe in Nurture?

Sociologists study people all over the world and are of the consensus that people tend to behave differently. They can even find difference amongst groups when they divide by class, race, ethnicity.

Evidence supporting the Nurture Debate

• The Bobo Doll experiment conducted by Albert Bandura in 1961 and 1963. Showed that when a child viewed aggressive behaviour they were more likely to express aggressive behaviour in the future. This is used as evidence of learnt behaviour and the hypodermic syringe model.
• Malcolm Gladwell found having a higher IQ is only utilised under the right conditions
• Research into child delinquency has shown some youth experiment with crime whilst others persist in crime. The social environment, their relationships and family often play a role.
• Children are often socialised to play a gender and in some cases reprimanded to stay I place e.g. ‘boys don’t cry’.
• Human’s exercise large levels of control in social settings hoping to avoid embarrassment and social ridicule. People tend not to burp, fart, or excrement around people. Whilst maintaining to breath and function.
• We imprison individuals on the basis that they have free will and can be held responsible for their crimes. Not because they’re acting on some biological impulse. Circumstances, child abuse, poverty, mental health are all taken into consideration in the court room.

What do you think? This debate could go on forever. The Sociologists say Nurture (on the whole).

By Shaneka Knight

Instagram: Shanekaakknight

Facebook: Shaneka Knight

Cabka, O. (2005). Lipstick had long evolution to become the everyday thing women use today. Pravda Report . Retrieved from http://www.pravdareport.com/health/20-10-2005/9099-lipstick-0/ [Accessed 23rd of October 2018].

Nicholson, N. (1998). How Hardwired Is Human Behaviour? Harvard Business Review, July-August 1998. [online]. Retrieved https://hbr.org/1998/07/how-hardwired-is-human-behavior [Accessed 23rd of October 2018].

Radford University. (2018). About Sociology. Retrieved from https://www.radford.edu/content/chbs/home/sociology.html [Accessed 23rd of October 2018].

Share this:

Social media in court: your tweets could be used as ...

The Internet’s Own Boy – Video

Leave a response cancel reply.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Discover more from The Sociological Mail

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Type your email…

{{#message}}{{{message}}}{{/message}}{{^message}}Your submission failed. The server responded with {{status_text}} (code {{status_code}}). Please contact the developer of this form processor to improve this message. Learn More {{/message}}

{{#message}}{{{message}}}{{/message}}{{^message}}It appears your submission was successful. Even though the server responded OK, it is possible the submission was not processed. Please contact the developer of this form processor to improve this message. Learn More {{/message}}

Submitting…

Continue reading

• Subject List
• Take a Tour
• For Authors
• Subscriber Services
• Publications
• African American Studies
• African Studies
• American Literature
• Anthropology
• Architecture Planning and Preservation
• Art History
• Atlantic History
• Biblical Studies
• British and Irish Literature
• Childhood Studies
• Chinese Studies
• Cinema and Media Studies
• Communication
• Criminology
• Environmental Science
• Evolutionary Biology
• International Law
• International Relations
• Islamic Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Latino Studies
• Linguistics
• Literary and Critical Theory
• Medieval Studies
• Military History
• Political Science
• Public Health
• Renaissance and Reformation
• Social Work
• Urban Studies
• Victorian Literature
• Browse All Subjects

How to Subscribe

• Free Trials

In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section Nature versus Nurture Debate in Psychology

Introduction, general overviews.

• Conceptual Problems
• Biological Constraints, Predispositions, and Preparedness in Learning
• Critical Periods
• Innate Knowledge
• Heritability
• Behavioral Epigenetics

Related Articles Expand or collapse the "related articles" section about

About related articles close popup.

Lorem Ipsum Sit Dolor Amet

Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Aliquam ligula odio, euismod ut aliquam et, vestibulum nec risus. Nulla viverra, arcu et iaculis consequat, justo diam ornare tellus, semper ultrices tellus nunc eu tellus.

• Developmental Psychology (Cognitive)
• Developmental Psychology (Social)
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Life-Span Development

Other Subject Areas

Forthcoming articles expand or collapse the "forthcoming articles" section.

• Data Visualization
• Remote Work
• Workforce Training Evaluation
• Find more forthcoming articles...
• Export Citations
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Nature versus Nurture Debate in Psychology by Hunter Honeycutt LAST MODIFIED: 12 January 2023 DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199828340-0305

The nature-nurture dichotomy is a long-standing and pervasive framework for thinking about the causal influences believed to be operating during individual development. In this dichotomy, nature refers to factors (e.g., genes, genetic programs, and/or biological blueprints) or forces (e.g., heredity and/or maturation) inherent to the individual that predetermine the development of form and function. Nurture generally refers to all the remaining, typically “external,” causal factors (e.g., physical and social conditions) and processes (e.g., learning and experience) that influence development. The nature versus nurture debate in psychology deals with disagreements about the extent to which the development of traits in humans and animals reflects the relative influence of nature and nurture. It is commonly stated that psychologists have moved on from asking whether traits (or variation in traits) develop from nature or nurture, to recognize instead that both nature and nurture work together or “interact” to produce outcomes, although exactly how to view the interaction is a matter of much debate. While acknowledging the interaction of nature and nurture, one’s theoretical models and research focus might emphasize the prominence of one over the other. Thus, nativists focus more on the importance of innate factors or forces operating on development, whereas empiricists focus more on experiential or environmental factors. However, not everyone finds value in thinking about development in terms of nature and nurture. By the middle of the twentieth century, some psychologists, biologists, and philosophers began to view nature-nurture as a conceptually deficient and biologically implausible dichotomy that oversimplifies the dynamics of behavior and development. Such people espouse some variant of “developmental systems theory” and seek to eliminate or otherwise fuse the nature-nurture division.

The works in this section are mostly trade books that provide general introductions to the nature-nurture debate across a variety of topical areas in psychology, all of which would be suitable for use in classes with undergraduate students at all levels. Goldhaber 2012 contrasts four popular perspectives on the nature-nurture issue and would be a good place to start for anyone unfamiliar with the nature-nurture debate in psychology. Nativist perspectives are represented by Pinker 2002 , Plomin 2018 , and Vallortigara 2021 . An empiricist-leaning position on behavior development is put forth in Schneider 2012 . Developmental systems theory is promoted in Blumberg 2005 and Moore 2002 . Two edited books are included and both are better suited for advanced undergraduate- or graduate-level students. The first edited book, Coll, et al. 2013 , focuses on the nature-nurture issue across a range of topics and perspectives in psychology. The other, Mayes and Lewis 2012 , presents empiricist (or environmentalist) perspectives on child development.

Bateson, P. 2017. Behaviour, development and evolution . Cambridge, UK: OpenBook Publishers.

DOI: 10.11647/OBP.0097

Written by a distinguished ethologist who draws extensively from his work on animal behavior, this book argues that the nature-nurture division is neither valid nor helpful in capturing the complex system of factors that influence behavioral development. Topics include imprinting and attachment, parent-offspring relations, the influence of early-life experiences on later-life outcomes, problems with genetic determinism, and the role of behavior in evolutionary change.

Blumberg, M. S. 2005. Basic instinct: The genesis of novel behavior . New York: Thunder’s Mouth Press.

Consistent with developmental systems theory, Blumberg presents an overview of the conceptual and empirical limitations of nativism in explanations of behavioral and neural development in animals and cognitive development in humans.

Coll, C. G., E. L. Bearer, and R. M. Lerner, eds. 2013. Nature-nurture: The complex interplay of genetic and environmental influences on human behavior and development . New York: Psychology Press.

The contents of this edited volume are almost entirely original works with commentary that span multiple disciplines (psychology, biology, economics, philosophy) and multiple perspectives (behavioral genetics and developmental systems theory) on the nature-nurture issue.

Goldhaber, D. 2012. The nature-nurture debates: Bridging the gap . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.

DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139022583

Goldhaber reviews four major perspectives (behavior genetics, environmentalism, evolutionary psychology, and developmental systems theory) on the nature-nurture issue. He argues we should reject reductionist views based on either genetic determinism or environmental determinism in favor of more holistic, interactionist approaches.

Mayes, L. C., and M. Lewis, eds. 2012. The Cambridge handbook of environment in human development . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.

This handbook explores a wide variety of ways in which the environment influences child development. Chapters cover conceptual frameworks and methodological issues in thinking about and studying environmental influences as well reviewing ways in which environmental contexts and systems influence specific aspects of child development.

Moore, D. S. 2002. The dependent gene: The fallacy of nature vs. nurture . New York: Henry Holt.

This book provides an introduction to the developmental systems theory take on the nature-nurture issue particularly as it relates to genetic determinism, heritability and heredity.

Pinker, S. 2002. The blank slate: The modern denial of human nature . New York: Viking.

In this best-selling book, Pinker draws on evidence from behavioral genetics, evolutionary psychology, and cognitive psychology to argue for a nativist position concerning human nature.

Plomin, R. 2018. Blueprint: How DNA makes us who we are . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Plomin reviews traditional and more modern evidence from behavioral genetics to argue that genes are the primary factor in bringing about psychological differences between people. Moreover, he argues that many “environmental” factors operating on development are themselves strongly influenced by genetic differences.

Schneider, S. M. 2012. The science of consequences: How they affect genes, change the brain, and impact our world . Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.

Schneider presents a view grounded in behavior analysis to argue for the critical role that the consequences of genetic activity, neural activity, and behavioral activity play in individual development. While emphasizing environmental (or experiential) factors influencing development, this book also highlights the systemic and interactive nature of developmental systems across multiple levels of analysis.

Vallortigara, G. 2021. Born knowing: Imprinting and the origins of knowledge . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

DOI: 10.7551/mitpress/14091.001.0001

Drawing upon research in comparative cognition and comparative neuroscience, much of it his own, Vallortigara argues that animals, including humans, enter the world with a set of unlearned, innate or instinctive behaviors and neural circuits that bias or predispose subsequent learning and development.

back to top

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content on this page. Please subscribe or login .

Oxford Bibliographies Online is available by subscription and perpetual access to institutions. For more information or to contact an Oxford Sales Representative click here .

• About Psychology »
• Meet the Editorial Board »
• Abnormal Psychology
• Academic Assessment
• Acculturation and Health
• Action Regulation Theory
• Action Research
• Addictive Behavior
• Adolescence
• Adoption, Social, Psychological, and Evolutionary Perspect...
• Advanced Theory of Mind
• Affective Forecasting
• Affirmative Action
• Ageism at Work
• Allport, Gordon
• Alzheimer’s Disease
• Ambulatory Assessment in Behavioral Science
• Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA)
• Animal Behavior
• Animal Learning
• Anxiety Disorders
• Art and Aesthetics, Psychology of
• Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, and Psychology
• Assessment and Clinical Applications of Individual Differe...
• Attachment in Social and Emotional Development across the ...
• Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in Adults
• Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in Childre...
• Attitudinal Ambivalence
• Attraction in Close Relationships
• Attribution Theory
• Authoritarian Personality
• Bayesian Statistical Methods in Psychology
• Behavior Therapy, Rational Emotive
• Behavioral Economics
• Behavioral Genetics
• Belief Perseverance
• Bereavement and Grief
• Biological Psychology
• Birth Order
• Body Image in Men and Women
• Bystander Effect
• Categorical Data Analysis in Psychology
• Childhood and Adolescence, Peer Victimization and Bullying...
• Clark, Mamie Phipps
• Clinical Neuropsychology
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Consistency Theories
• Cognitive Dissonance Theory
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Communication, Nonverbal Cues and
• Comparative Psychology
• Competence to Stand Trial: Restoration Services
• Competency to Stand Trial
• Computational Psychology
• Conflict Management in the Workplace
• Conformity, Compliance, and Obedience
• Consciousness
• Coping Processes
• Correspondence Analysis in Psychology
• Counseling Psychology
• Creativity at Work
• Critical Thinking
• Cross-Cultural Psychology
• Cultural Psychology
• Daily Life, Research Methods for Studying
• Data Science Methods for Psychology
• Data Sharing in Psychology
• Death and Dying
• Deceiving and Detecting Deceit
• Defensive Processes
• Depressive Disorders
• Development, Prenatal
• Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM...
• Discrimination
• Dissociative Disorders
• Drugs and Behavior
• Eating Disorders
• Ecological Psychology
• Educational Settings, Assessment of Thinking in
• Effect Size
• Embodiment and Embodied Cognition
• Emerging Adulthood
• Emotional Intelligence
• Empathy and Altruism
• Employee Stress and Well-Being
• Environmental Neuroscience and Environmental Psychology
• Ethics in Psychological Practice
• Event Perception
• Expansive Posture
• Experimental Existential Psychology
• Exploratory Data Analysis
• Eyewitness Testimony
• Eysenck, Hans
• Factor Analysis
• Festinger, Leon
• Five-Factor Model of Personality
• Flynn Effect, The
• Forensic Psychology
• Forgiveness
• Friendships, Children's
• Fundamental Attribution Error/Correspondence Bias
• Gambler's Fallacy
• Game Theory and Psychology
• Geropsychology, Clinical
• Global Mental Health
• Habit Formation and Behavior Change
• Health Psychology
• Health Psychology Research and Practice, Measurement in
• Heider, Fritz
• Heuristics and Biases
• History of Psychology
• Human Factors
• Humanistic Psychology
• Implicit Association Test (IAT)
• Industrial and Organizational Psychology
• Inferential Statistics in Psychology
• Insanity Defense, The
• Intelligence
• Intelligence, Crystallized and Fluid
• Intercultural Psychology
• Intergroup Conflict
• International Classification of Diseases and Related Healt...
• International Psychology
• Interviewing in Forensic Settings
• Intimate Partner Violence, Psychological Perspectives on
• Introversion–Extraversion
• Item Response Theory
• Law, Psychology and
• Lazarus, Richard
• Learned Helplessness
• Learning Theory
• Learning versus Performance
• LGBTQ+ Romantic Relationships
• Lie Detection in a Forensic Context
• Locus of Control
• Loneliness and Health
• Mathematical Psychology
• Meaning in Life
• Mechanisms and Processes of Peer Contagion
• Media Violence, Psychological Perspectives on
• Mediation Analysis
• Memories, Autobiographical
• Memories, Flashbulb
• Memories, Repressed and Recovered
• Memory, False
• Memory, Human
• Memory, Implicit versus Explicit
• Memory in Educational Settings
• Memory, Semantic
• Meta-Analysis
• Metacognition
• Metaphor, Psychological Perspectives on
• Microaggressions
• Military Psychology
• Mindfulness
• Mindfulness and Education
• Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)
• Money, Psychology of
• Moral Conviction
• Moral Development
• Moral Psychology
• Moral Reasoning
• Nature versus Nurture Debate in Psychology
• Neuroscience of Associative Learning
• Nonergodicity in Psychology and Neuroscience
• Nonparametric Statistical Analysis in Psychology
• Observational (Non-Randomized) Studies
• Obsessive-Complusive Disorder (OCD)
• Occupational Health Psychology
• Olfaction, Human
• Operant Conditioning
• Optimism and Pessimism
• Organizational Justice
• Parenting Stress
• Parenting Styles
• Parents' Beliefs about Children
• Path Models
• Peace Psychology
• Perception, Person
• Performance Appraisal
• Personality and Health
• Personality Disorders
• Personality Psychology
• Phenomenological Psychology
• Placebo Effects in Psychology
• Play Behavior
• Positive Psychological Capital (PsyCap)
• Positive Psychology
• Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)
• Prejudice and Stereotyping
• Pretrial Publicity
• Prisoner's Dilemma
• Problem Solving and Decision Making
• Procrastination
• Prosocial Behavior
• Prosocial Spending and Well-Being
• Protocol Analysis
• Psycholinguistics
• Psychological Literacy
• Psychological Perspectives on Food and Eating
• Psychology, Political
• Psychoneuroimmunology
• Psychophysics, Visual
• Psychotherapy
• Psychotic Disorders
• Publication Bias in Psychology
• Reasoning, Counterfactual
• Rehabilitation Psychology
• Relationships
• Reliability–Contemporary Psychometric Conceptions
• Religion, Psychology and
• Replication Initiatives in Psychology
• Research Methods
• Risk Taking
• Role of the Expert Witness in Forensic Psychology, The
• Sample Size Planning for Statistical Power and Accurate Es...
• Schizophrenic Disorders
• School Psychology
• School Psychology, Counseling Services in
• Self, Gender and
• Self, Psychology of the
• Self-Construal
• Self-Control
• Self-Deception
• Self-Determination Theory
• Self-Efficacy
• Self-Esteem
• Self-Monitoring
• Self-Regulation in Educational Settings
• Self-Report Tests, Measures, and Inventories in Clinical P...
• Sensation Seeking
• Sex and Gender
• Sexual Minority Parenting
• Sexual Orientation
• Signal Detection Theory and its Applications
• Simpson's Paradox in Psychology
• Single People
• Single-Case Experimental Designs
• Skinner, B.F.
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Small Groups
• Social Class and Social Status
• Social Cognition
• Social Neuroscience
• Social Support
• Social Touch and Massage Therapy Research
• Somatoform Disorders
• Spatial Attention
• Sports Psychology
• Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE): Icon and Controversy
• Stereotype Threat
• Stereotypes
• Stress and Coping, Psychology of
• Student Success in College
• Subjective Wellbeing Homeostasis
• Taste, Psychological Perspectives on
• Teaching of Psychology
• Terror Management Theory
• Testing and Assessment
• The Concept of Validity in Psychological Assessment
• The Neuroscience of Emotion Regulation
• The Reasoned Action Approach and the Theories of Reasoned ...
• The Weapon Focus Effect in Eyewitness Memory
• Theory of Mind
• Therapies, Person-Centered
• Therapy, Cognitive-Behavioral
• Thinking Skills in Educational Settings
• Time Perception
• Trait Perspective
• Trauma Psychology
• Twin Studies
• Type A Behavior Pattern (Coronary Prone Personality)
• Unconscious Processes
• Video Games and Violent Content
• Virtues and Character Strengths
• Women and Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM...
• Women, Psychology of
• Work Well-Being
• Wundt, Wilhelm
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility

Powered by:

• [66.249.64.20|195.158.225.244]
• 195.158.225.244

This page has been archived and is no longer updated

The False Dichotomy Of the Nature-Nurture Debate

Every few months, scientific press releases with headlines more eye-catching than the British tabloids claim that the nature versus nurture debate has finally been solved. Indeed, judging by those press releases, it seems that the debate is being solved again and again . . . and again. But this becomes even more ludicrous when you come to realize that the nature versus nurture debate is no debate at all.

As it turns out, most diseases or traits are each due to both genes and environment. Traynor and Singleton (2010) in their recent perspective in Neuron state that:

It has been quite convincingly argued that nearly all human diseases and physiological traits involve genetic and environmental influences to some extent.

In fact, they go on and describe nature and nurture as not being two independent components but as two intrinsically linked ones ("synergistic effect of genes and environment on a disease or trait") that make up the gene-environment interaction. The authors give some examples to showcase gene-environment interactions. And they are eye-openers.

The height of a person comes with a high heritability. If your biological parents are tall, you most likely will become tall too. However, when viewed on a population level, it has been shown that the average height of a population grows in concert with a nation's economic prosperity. It would seem that height is not exclusively genetically-determined after all but is also linked to improved nutrition.

A number of diseases such as diabetes, coronary heart diseases, and cancer have genetic and lifestyle links. A more balanced diet and regular exercising correlate with lower risks of coronary heart diseases, for instance. The discovery of tumor-inducing viruses in 1911 by Peyton Rous also show that environment can be a cause of diseases. However, those mentioned diseases all have genetic bases as well.

Perhaps most surprisingly is the notion that infectious diseases, the sine qua non of environment-based disorders, have a genetic component too. It is now understood that "infectious diseases are influenced by host-microorganism interactions, with the diversity of the immune system being rooted in genetics."

It is becoming ever more obvious that genes and environment are both involved in a disease or trait. Both nature and nurture are responsible for more or less each of your characteristics. As such, we should no longer draw a line between the two and list characteristics that are due to one and the other in two separate columns. Indeed, those two columns never existed in the first place.

However, merely saying that the debate doesn't exist and discarding it would mean missing a great opportunity to recalibrate our notion of nature and nurture. As Evelyn Fox Keller , author of the book The Mirage of a Space Between Nature and Nurture , reckons, the real issue is trying to understand what it is exactly that we can ask and can gain new knowledge about, what sorts of questions it makes sense to ask, versus which ones are in principle incoherent. 1

So, in the aftermath of this non-debate, what sorts of questions do makes sense to ask? As Lena explained in the previous post of this series, epigenetics may possibly be a focal point. While we are to some extent pre-programmed through our DNA, the different ways in which the DNA is expressed differs from person to person. And those different ways of expressing DNA is actually passed on from generation to generation. The seemingly simple question of how nature and nurture play roles in the way DNA is expressed leads to broader ones like, "What are the ranges of variation?" and "Under what circumstances can behavior or physiology be changed?" 2

The nature versus nurture debate is no debate at all, son, but then again, that doesn't mean that the non-debate is of no use either.

Image Credit: OpenEye (from Flickr )

Traynor BJ, & Singleton AB (2010). Nature versus nurture: death of a dogma, and the road ahead. Neuron, 68 (2), 196-200 PMID: 20955927

1. Keller, E.F. " Goodbye, Nature vs Nurture. " New Scientist . September 20, 2010

2. Dizikes, P. " 3 Questions: Evelyn Fox Keller on the nature-nurture debates. " MIT News . November 30, 2010.

Email your Friend

• May 27, 2015 Fish Skin Band-Aids: a natural way to speed wou...
• March 19, 2014 Do “Smart Pills” Really Make You Sm...
• February 24, 2014 The Invasive Species Wriggling Beneath Your Feet
• December 09, 2013 Getting the Straight Dope on Weed
• October 07, 2013 The Delta Fingerprint: Anthropogenic Climate Ch...
• September 30, 2013 Keep It Simple Students: Mapping the Biological...
• September 25, 2013 Keep It Simple Students: How You Were Copied
• September 19, 2013 Keep It Simple Students: Camouflage
• September 04, 2013 Nietzsche's Butterfly: An Introduction to Chaos...
• August 23, 2013 Obituary: Kepler Spacecraft “Planet Hunte...
• July 26, 2013 The Poets of Starlight
• July 10, 2013 Socks, the Doctor and the End of the Universe
• June 18, 2013 Poo Transplants: Sniffing Out the Story
• May 23, 2013 We’re Launching Ten New Blogs and One New...
• May 16, 2013 Misophonia: Enraged by Everyday Sounds
• May 14, 2013 Male Black Widows Sniff Out Femme Fatales
• May 13, 2013 The Science of Earth and the Human Policies tha...
• May 08, 2013 Dream Catcher: The Neuroscience Behind Decoding...
• February 04, 2013 If Your Head Is In the Clouds At Least It Won't...
• October 11, 2012 The Foundation of Cosmetics
• October 05, 2012 #30DayGreen Day 19: Synthetic Meat
• September 28, 2012 #30DayGreen Day 12: Hard Times
• September 24, 2012 #30DayGreen Day 8: Green Bathroom
• September 23, 2012 #30DayGreen Day 5: Recycling Right
• September 20, 2012 #30DayGreen Day 3: Carnivores
• September 20, 2012 The Designer's Detritus: ENCODE, Junk DNA, and ...
• September 19, 2012 #30DayGreen Day 2. Talking Rubbish: The Indian ...
• September 17, 2012 30 Days of Green: Day 1
• September 10, 2012 #30DayGreen: A Scitable Recycling Challenge
• August 30, 2012 How We Represent Risk Isn't Helping Medical Scr...
• August 21, 2012 An Ecology of Houses
• August 10, 2012 Occupy ALOHA 2012: A tribute to Bob Dylan
• August 01, 2012 Once upon a time: The possible story of viruses
• July 26, 2012 Skepticism And The Second Enlightenment
• July 19, 2012 Of (misplaced) Pride and (everlasting) Prejudice
• July 13, 2012 How About That Cup Of Coffee?
• July 10, 2012 The Great “Detox” Deception
• July 08, 2012 Painless Injections
• June 29, 2012 Why walk when you can jump?
• June 21, 2012 To be or not to be good science
• June 12, 2012 Cell Phones and Health Hazards: Mythbusting in ...
• June 04, 2012 What Statistics Can Teach Us About History (and...
• June 01, 2012 I'm not a speciesist, but...
• May 07, 2012 How Whales Fly?
• April 28, 2012 A Case for Oral Contraceptives
• March 17, 2012 Managing views and expectations in science
• March 05, 2012 A Peek on “Lenses on Biology”
• February 23, 2012 The messenger goddess of exercise
• February 01, 2012 Preparing for the pandemic
• December 16, 2011 Veggie Tales and the Environment
• November 28, 2011 Do Our Brains Determine Our Facebook Friend Count?
• November 28, 2011 Flying Frogs
• November 09, 2011 A Closer Look at Quantum Levitation
• October 26, 2011 Shortcuts for supercentenarians
• October 05, 2011 Reconstructing the Mind's Eye
• October 03, 2011 Peptic Ulcers and a Nobel Prize
• September 15, 2011 Genetic Algorithms: Harnessing Natural Selection
• September 10, 2011 Spore Ballistics
• September 04, 2011 Chasing Earthquakes
• September 02, 2011 Earthquakes and Social Media
• August 23, 2011 Artificial Photosynthesis: Adapting Nature̵...
• August 21, 2011 Butterflies Prevent Forgery?
• August 09, 2011 Fluid Dynamics from Felis catus
• August 08, 2011 Keeping Cool with Biomimicry
• August 04, 2011 The Age of Mind-Controlled Computers
• August 04, 2011 In athletics, a technological arms race
• July 12, 2011 Getting in Shape to Go into Space
• July 08, 2011 Of Biomimicry and Learning From Ants
• July 07, 2011 Of Love Handles and Losing Weight
• June 27, 2011 Guest Post: Synthetic Biology Gets More Digital
• June 24, 2011 Inspirational Research Has Re-opened My Eyes
• June 17, 2011 Smelly Hangups for Mosquitoes... and Bedbugs?
• June 10, 2011 To Use or Not to Use: Cellphones and Health
• June 09, 2011 Nutrition Guidelines: From Pyramid to ‘Pi...
• June 02, 2011 Gas Hub Threatens Dinosaur Footprints
• May 26, 2011 An X-Ray of the Sky
• May 16, 2011 What Google's Chromebook Means To Education
• April 26, 2011 Richard Branson: Noble Conservationist or Meddl...
• April 21, 2011 New Particle Could Signal End of Standard Model
• April 12, 2011 Melbourne Says No to Medical Research Funding Cuts
• March 31, 2011 Some Like It Very, Very Hot
• March 29, 2011 Big Crayfish Could Be Key to Population Stability
• March 24, 2011 Left-Hand Man
• March 22, 2011 The Unchanging Face of Drug Discovery
• March 17, 2011 The Rise and Fall of Helium
• March 16, 2011 The Sound of Epigenetics
• March 15, 2011 The False Dichotomy Of the Nature-Nurture Debate
• March 10, 2011 The Tangle of the Nature-Nurture Debate
• March 08, 2011 Rave Culture: Correlation Doesn't Equal Causation
• March 03, 2011 The End of the Shuttle Era
• March 01, 2011 The Cocaine Vaccine
• February 15, 2011 Engineering Solar Bacteria
• February 10, 2011 The Importance of Translation
• February 08, 2011 Guest Post: The World Through Wired Eyes
• February 03, 2011 Earth Calling Space
• January 28, 2011 Pandas Need More Than Just Shoots and Leaves
• January 25, 2011 Blaming Ourselves
• January 20, 2011 Still Don't Drink the Water?
• January 18, 2011 The Forgotten Fathers
• January 11, 2011 Not Mentally Crazy
• January 04, 2011 Storytime
• December 28, 2010 Artificial Human Ovary
• December 21, 2010 The Debate Around IVF
• December 17, 2010 Guest Post: Engineering the Science of Today
• December 14, 2010 Such Great Heights
• December 07, 2010 Pregnant While Already Pregnant
• December 03, 2010 Barcoding Guts
• November 30, 2010 Genomic Sequencing and Information Bottleneck
• November 25, 2010 An Interview with Melinda Wenner Moyer
• November 22, 2010 Guest Post: A Year in Neuroscience
• November 18, 2010 Lessons from the Dam
• November 16, 2010 An Interview with Ferris Jabr
• November 11, 2010 The Architecture of Choice
• November 09, 2010 Guest Post: Learning from the Luminaries
• November 04, 2010 Cracking the Turing Test
• November 02, 2010 Can miRNA Cure Cocaine Addiction?
• October 28, 2010 If You're Reading This, You're Probably Weird
• October 26, 2010 Lindau Meetings: Hamilton Smith on Miniature Ro...
• October 26, 2010 Lindau Meetings: Francoise Barre-Sinoussi on th...
• October 20, 2010 World Statistics Day
• October 15, 2010 The Golgi Apparatus
• October 12, 2010 Lindau Meetings: Jack Szostak on the Origin of ...
• October 07, 2010 Mighty Mitochondria
• October 04, 2010 Lindau Meetings: Tim Hunt on Systems Biology
• October 01, 2010 A Long Wait in the Que
• September 27, 2010 My ER Play
• September 21, 2010 Cell Bio at Scitable is Coming!
• September 10, 2010 Stem Cells, Please?
• August 30, 2010 An Eye for an Eye?
• August 24, 2010 Under the Scalpel
• August 18, 2010 Color and Depression in the Eye of the Beholder
• August 10, 2010 Guest Post: If You Build It, They Will Come
• August 06, 2010 Guest Post: Assessing the Risks of Personal Gen...
• August 05, 2010 Guest Post: The Limits of Science in Medicine a...
• August 04, 2010 Guest Post: Introduction to Terry
• July 30, 2010 A Whiff of Bee Evolution
• July 27, 2010 Naturally Obsessed: The Making of a Scientist
• July 15, 2010 When We Share Ideas, We All Get More
• July 13, 2010 Bee Happy?
• July 02, 2010 Of Exams and World Cup
• June 23, 2010 Summer Science Fiction
• June 14, 2010 The Colorful Life of the Rainbow Eucalyptus
• June 07, 2010 Oil and Water
• June 04, 2010 A Science Student's Typical Day: Colombian Edition
• May 24, 2010 The Art of the Sloth
• May 21, 2010 Synthetic Life and Other News
• May 17, 2010 Guest Post: Scary Diseases Part 3
• May 07, 2010 Guest Post: Matt Schiller of the AMSJ
• April 29, 2010 Get Contaminated
• April 22, 2010 Learning without Brains?
• April 15, 2010 Goes Down the Drain
• April 08, 2010 Don't Drink The Water?
• April 06, 2010 Deciphering Water
• March 31, 2010 The Water Series
• March 29, 2010 Predicting Upsets
• March 25, 2010 Miraculous Miraculin
• March 16, 2010 3.14159 . . . Day
• March 12, 2010 Working "5 to 9"
• March 05, 2010 The Mathematics and Neurology of Wonderland
• February 26, 2010 Whitney's Favorite Links
• February 23, 2010 Khalil's Favorite Links
• February 19, 2010 Justine's Favorite Links
• February 16, 2010 Tara's Favorite Links
• February 12, 2010 Film and Flora
• February 08, 2010 Are We Friends with Them?
• February 01, 2010 Of Gorgeous Sceneries and Giant Lizards
• January 25, 2010 R2D2 Go; 3D2 Stay?
• January 20, 2010 Avatar : Power in Surrender
• January 20, 2010 Avatar in Review
• January 11, 2010 Prize Fight
• January 08, 2010 Copenhagen: Far from the End
• January 07, 2010 Getting It Write
• December 30, 2009 What Would Jesus Do?
• December 21, 2009 Finals: The Real Grinch
• December 14, 2009 Let It Snow
• December 07, 2009 The Mouse Is Mightier, or Is It?
• November 30, 2009 Chemistry Magic
• November 24, 2009 Stupak, or a Step Back?
• November 04, 2009 Creative science photography
• October 29, 2009 Pre-med Don't Ask, Dont Tell
• October 27, 2009 Memorizing techniques from around the world
• October 22, 2009 How to Make a Scitable Classroom
• October 15, 2009 An Interview with Nobel Prize Winner Dr. Carol ...
• October 14, 2009 Songs for a New Age
• October 13, 2009 An Interview with Jorge Cham
• October 06, 2009 Three's Company: A Trio of Americans Wins the N...
• September 30, 2009 Scary diseases Part 2: Fatal Familial Insomnia ...
• September 23, 2009 A New Perspective on Vision
• September 22, 2009 “I See,” Said the Color Blind Man
• August 25, 2009 A typical day of a Science Student in Malaysia
• August 20, 2009 The Write Choice
• August 19, 2009 Scary Diseases Part I: PAM
• August 18, 2009 Chasing the Red Queen in Academia
• August 11, 2009 Debunking Biofuels (or not): Part 3
• August 04, 2009 Debunking Biofuels: Part 2
• July 31, 2009 Patience with Patients
• July 29, 2009 iEureka
• July 23, 2009 Debunking Biofuels: Part I
• July 22, 2009 Brain Games: Part II
• July 15, 2009 Genetics Fail
• July 14, 2009 Undoing pollution with plants
• July 13, 2009 Sofasaurus Rex: King of the Prehistoric Jungle
• July 09, 2009 Pass me that cheeseburger -- and a shake!
• July 07, 2009 Brain Games: Part I
• July 06, 2009 The toxic underbelly of green lightbulbs
• June 29, 2009 To Drink or Not to Drink? First, Ask the Right ...
• June 26, 2009 A Squid Named Ishmael
• June 25, 2009 Nanoparticle Concerns Getting Under Your Skin?
• June 25, 2009 E pluribus unum: out of many, one
• June 11, 2009 A twisted tango: the falsification of research ...
• May 28, 2009 Of mice and men: recent developments in the fie...
• May 26, 2009 Nonprofit harnesses business strategy to cure d...
• May 26, 2009 One reason for decreased cancer incidence among...
• May 21, 2009 Sticky situation reveals part of our evolutiona...
• May 21, 2009 Fractions of a second can ruin a well-developed...
• May 18, 2009 Blood cells in the right place at the right time
• May 15, 2009 America, where the streets are paved with therm...
• May 14, 2009 We got the beat! (and so do they.)
• May 13, 2009 Milk: it does some bodies good
• May 12, 2009 When marketing campaigns direct scientific rese...
• May 08, 2009 Don’t count your chickens before they hat...
• May 06, 2009 In search of a one-track mind
• May 01, 2009 Botox for the brain
• April 28, 2009 Some flu facts in the midst of a media frenzy
• April 08, 2009 Are sharp teeth necessary to survive the rat race?
• April 07, 2009 Fighter or forager? It depends on a brain gene.
• April 06, 2009 Ants change the rules of an evolutionary arms race
• April 02, 2009 Gender ratios around the globe
• April 01, 2009 Pheromones: the key ingredient missing from on-...
• March 31, 2009 The physiology of scaling Mt. Everest
• March 30, 2009 Three's company: symbiosis, drug discovery, and...
• March 27, 2009 Attack of the supermodel tomatoes
• March 26, 2009 The genetics of achondroplasia
• March 25, 2009 X-chromosome inactivation in the calico cat
• March 24, 2009 Freedom, liberty and fraternity
• March 23, 2009 The drought faced by science education in Calif...
• March 20, 2009 Natural rainbow gene expression
• March 19, 2009 I've got the horse right here, his name is Paul...
• March 18, 2009 Taking the next step: facilitating the process ...
• March 17, 2009 The elusive gentleman scientist
• March 16, 2009 Champagne supernova: when the interests of Holl...
• March 16, 2009 Chimeras: the perfect experiment
• March 13, 2009 A really expensive Band-Aid
• March 13, 2009 Science: today's guild system

© 2014 Nature Education

• Press Room |
• Terms of Use |
• Privacy Notice |

Final dates! Join the tutor2u subject teams in London for a day of exam technique and revision at the cinema. Learn more →

Reference Library

Collections

• See what's new
• All Resources
• Student Resources
• Assessment Resources
• Teaching Resources
• CPD Courses
• Livestreams

Study notes, videos, interactive activities and more!

Psychology news, insights and enrichment

Currated collections of free resources

Browse resources by topic

• All Psychology Resources

Resource Selections

Currated lists of resources

Study Notes

Issues & Debates: Evaluating the Nature-Nurture Debate - Interactionist Approach

Last updated 22 Mar 2021

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share by Email

Recently psychologists have begun to question whether human behaviour is due to heredity factors (nature) or the environment (nurture). It is now widely accepted that heredity and the environment do not act independently and both nature and nurture are essential for almost all behaviour. Therefore, instead of defending extreme nativist or environmentalist views, most researchers are now interested in investigating the ways in which nature and nurture interact. The interactionist approach is the view that both nature and nurture work together to shape human behaviour.

The interactionist approach is best illustrated by the genetic disorder PKU (phenylketonuria) . PKU is caused by the inheritance of two recessive genes, one from each parent. People with PKU are unable to break down the amino acid phenylalanine which builds up in the blood and brain causing mental retardation. However, if the child is diagnosed early, they are placed on a low protein diet for the first 12 years, which helps to avert this potentially lifelong disorder. Therefore, the disorder PKU (nature) is not expressed, because of an altered environment (low protein diet – nurture).

In psychopathology, many psychologists argue that both a genetic predisposition and an appropriate environmental trigger are required for a psychological disorder to develop; this is set out in the diathesis-stress model . The diathesis is the biological vulnerability such as being born with a gene that predisposes you to develop a disorder. However, the disorder will only develop if there is an environmental ‘stressor’ to trigger it. Evidence to support the diathesis-stress model comes from the Finnish Adoption Study w which compared 155 adopted children whose biological mothers had schizophrenia, with a matched group of children with no family history of schizophrenia. The researchers also assessed the quality of parenting through questionnaires and interviews. They found that the group with schizophrenic mothers had a 10% rate of schizophrenia, but they also discovered that all of the reported cases of schizophrenia occurred in families rated as ‘disturbed’. When the family environment was rated as ‘healthy’, even in the high-risk sample (mother with Schizophrenia), the occurrence of schizophrenia was well below the general population rates. However, the environment was not the sole cause, as the low-risk children from ‘disturbed’ families did not develop Schizophrenia – so the environment alone was not enough to trigger the disorder. This research provides strong evidence that schizophrenia is best explained by looking at an interaction between genetic inheritance and environmental triggers, in this case, family environment.

Neural plasticity is another example of how nature and nurture interact. The brain can reorganise itself by forming new neural connections throughout life. Neuroplasticity is a term which describes the changes in the structure of the brain (nature), as a result of life experience (nurture). For example, Maguire et al. (2000) investigated the hippocampi volume of London taxi drivers’ brains. She found that this region of the brain was larger in taxi drivers in comparison to non-taxi drivers. Consequently, Maguire concluded that driving a taxi (nurture) actually had an effect on the size of the hippocampi (nature).

Nature and nurture can interact in a variety of ways, and three separate types of gene-environment interactions have been described by Plomin et al. (1977) : passive, evocative/reactive, and active.

• In passive gene-environment interaction , parents pass on genes and also provide an environment, both of which influence the child’s development. For example, highly intelligent parents are likely to pass on genes for intelligence to their children. They are also more likely to provide high levels of cognitive stimulation and a good education. These correlated genetic and environmental influences both increase the likelihood that their child will be highly intelligent.
• In evocative gene-environment interaction , heritable traits influence the reaction of others and hence the environment provided by others. For example, a shy child (partly genetically influenced) may be less fun to other children, making other children less likely to want to spend time with him or her. This environment may result in the child becoming even more socially withdrawn.
• In active gene-environment interaction , a child’s heritable traits influence his or her choice of environment. For example, an aggressive child may choose to watch violent films and engage in contact sports. This is known as ‘niche-picking’ and is one reason research has shown that the influence of genes increases as children get older.

For More Study Notes

To keep up-to-date with the tutor2u Psychology team, follow us on Twitter @tutor2uPsych , Facebook AQA / OCR / Edexcel / Student or subscribe to the Psychology Daily Digest and get new content delivered to your inbox!

• Issues & Debates
• Interactionist Approach
• Environment
• Nature-Nurture Debate

You might also like

The nature-nurture debate: issues & debates webinar video.

Topic Videos

Free Will vs. Determinism: Issues & Debates Webinar Video

Holism & reductionism: issues & debates webinar video, psychology weekly update.

8th January 2017

Idiographic & Nomothetic Approaches: Issues & Debates Webinar Video

Issues & debates: gender bias, issues & debates: evaluating gender bias, issues & debates: culture bias, our subjects.

• › Criminology
• › Economics
• › Geography
• › Health & Social Care
• › Psychology
• › Sociology
• › Teaching & learning resources
• › Student revision workshops
• › Online student courses
• › CPD for teachers
• › Livestreams
• › Teaching jobs

Boston House, 214 High Street, Boston Spa, West Yorkshire, LS23 6AD Tel: 01937 848885

• › Contact us
• › Terms of use
• › Privacy & cookies

© 2002-2024 Tutor2u Limited. Company Reg no: 04489574. VAT reg no 816865400.