Introduction
It is a universal dilemma whether human beings are shaped by conditions they have to adapt to or whether our biological makeup defines our general outcomes. Although both perspectives play a role in development and growth, there is a debate on which nature and nurture play a dominant role in shaping our personalities, behavior, relationships, and self-perception. Nature references the influence of genetic makeup on an individual’s outcome, while nurture represents the impact of the environment on development (Morgan & Rose, 2018). The research (Wood & Coan, 2023) research on the necessity of an integrated genetic, social, developmental, and personality psychology proposes the need to revise the beliefs and theories proposing and opposing the roles of nature and nurture in development. Based on the research (Wood & Coan, 2023), the extent of impact for either nature or nurture can only be based on evidence rather than assumptions.
Based on personal experience, I subscribe to the thought that nurture plays a more significant role in development than nature. The impact of environmental factors on personal development and behavior exemplifies the significance of nurture over nature. This argumentative synthesis seeks to prove the dominance of nurture, which is a significant impact of environmental factors over nature, from personal experience and research findings that assess both sides of the debate. The next section of the paper will cover my personal view based on personal experience and life outcomes that have influenced my support for nurture over nature. The following two sections of this argumentative synthesis will analyze research to assess the information supporting and opposing my viewpoint. The last section will compare and contrast both perspectives from the research and evidence available to offer a substantial and unbiased proposal to subscribe to the thought that nurture dominates nature.
Keywords:
Nature: Genetic makeup influences an individual’s outcome, including traits, behaviour, and personality.
Nurture: The impact of environmental factors on development, which entails upbringing, experiences, and surroundings.
Dominance: The extent to which nature or nurture has a more significant influence or control over human development and behavior.
Environmental Factors: Conditions in an individual’s surroundings that shape their development and life outcomes.
Behavioral Outcomes: The actions, reactions, and responses of individuals influenced by genetic makeup and environmental influences.
Genetic Makeup: The specific set of genes inherited from biological parents, contributing to an individual’s physical and psychological traits.
My Point of View
My viewpoint is best expressed by the movie Maleficent, which is more than a kids’ fairytale, for it shows that our parents and genetics do not define us completely. Before understanding the fairytale, Maleficent is portrayed as a vengeful fairy seeking revenge for the betrayal of a close friend she loved and trusted. However, in the movie, Maleficent evolves to rediscover herself as the environment and people around her change. True love in this movie creates a better environment for Maleficent, which impacts her self-awareness and, hence, her behavior. The movie shows the impact of true love from the people around us in shaping us as individuals. In a different environment and with different people around her, Maleficent would have turned out very differently or continued to be defined by her vengeance intentions.
My school of thought is supported by my experience after witnessing the change in the state of my relationships and self-perception after I significantly changed my environment. I grew up in a very challenging environment, which put me in a very dark place at a young age. Although I did not realize it until I was older, when my environment changed, I found a new perspective and life viewpoint that drove my behavior and personality. At a young age, my drive and perspective were based on a hostile environment that did not appreciate the value of morality or life improvement. I adapted to the norms and values of the environment due to the lack of a better perspective. Once I changed my environment, I had the drive to work hard and improve for a better life outcome. Without a change in the people, norms, and values around me, I would still disregard the impact of hard work and the advantages of a better outcome in later life. I believe that human beings are creatures of habit rather than creatures of nature in that we adapt to the conditions we are dealt with. Despite the role played by genetics in our physiology and psychology, the factors and conditions we exist in define how we react, behave, adapt, and live. A change in the environment brought about new ideas and perceptions that resulted in new behaviours, personalities, and life outcomes.
The debate of nature versus nature does not only review behavior outcomes but also questions how much of a person’s traits are influenced by nature or nurture. Nature plays a huge role in a person’s development, especially in the very early stages of growth, as they learn to perceive and react to factors of the environment. At this stage, human beings are more defined by genetic makeup since most characteristics are derived from an undeveloped personality. As human beings grow, they start to perceive the environment and react to it by subscribing to the values and norms of that environment. However, the opposing viewpoint submits that how we react to that environment is defined by our genes. The best way to understand the dominance of nurture over nature is to view the environment as more than just the essential factors around us since it is every aspect of life outside our bodies. The dominance of nurture over nature supports the idea that, after birth, the new environment starts to nurture different eventualities, with changes in environments introducing changes in outcomes.
Research Supporting My View
Research on the impact of nature and nurture has continuously tried to understand the influence of either on brain development. The brain is considered a significant influence on our personality and behavior since how we think defines how we act and what perceptions we accept and develop. The research (Immordino-Yang et al., 2019) submits that social-emotional experience triggers brain development and brain network configuration. The research seeks to understand the factors affecting learning by assessing the impact of all factors, that is, nature and nurture aspects, and how they affect brain development. Without factoring biological conditions such as health conditions and special needs, the learning environment children are subjected to defines their academic outcomes (Immordino-Yang et al., 2019). Take, for example, the opposing school of thought, which submitted that intelligence was assessed on an academic scale. With these views, children from poor educational backgrounds were considered less intelligent due to lower academic results, which were influenced by their academic background. The concept supports the analogy that different environments stimulate brain development differently, which shows the impact of the environment on behavior and personality, which are determined by how we think and react to conditions.
Based on behaviorist theory, human actions are a consequence of conditioning from environmental settings, which is the stimulation of learning through punishment and reinforcement. The behaviorism theory concept supports the dominance of nurture over nature by explaining how simple and complex reflexes are shaped by environmental factors (Amin, 2022). The social learning theory parallels the behaviorism theory in support of the significant influence of environmental conditions. The theory submits that humans adapt behavior and develop personalities by observing and imitating the other human conditions in the environment (Amin, 2022). The concept submits people as an environmental factor that influences the behavioral outcome of others. The social learning and behaviourism theories evidence that human behaviour is a result of observation and imitation of environmental conditions (Gross, 2023).
The positive psychology analogy supports the significance of well-being constructs in improving optimal behavioral outcomes (Vilalta & Fondevila, 2020). Constructs in this psychology scenario are the factors that influence reactions and behavior. Based on the concept of positive psychology, human beings function at an optimal level under optimal conditions, which includes suitable environmental conditions. Suitable environmental conditions are proportional to well-being constructs, which stimulate positive psychology and hence positive behavior. Another support for nurture over nature is the routine activity theory of crime, which stipulates that crime occurs when there is a motivated offender, a suitable target, and an absence of a capable guardian (Vilalta & Fondevila, 2020). The three factors that influence the behavior of crime are environmental factors that can be shifted to influence better behavior. In an attempt to curb crime, changes have been proposed in the environment that might reduce the suitability of the target or provide a capable guardian, which reduces the probability of the crime (Vilalta & Fondevila, 2020). The concepts from psychological theories portray the undeniable influence of environmental factors in nurturing, behavior, personality, and life outcomes.
Research Opposing My View
The critic of my viewpoint, which supports nature over nurture, subscribes to the thought that genetic makeup has a stronger influence on our behavioural outcomes. Psychological and physical factors have an influence on development since they affect the propensity of human beings to specific traits, which proves the role of genetic makeup in behavioral outcomes. In support of the dominance of nature over nurture, the research (Hart et al., 2021) proposes that nurture might be nature in disguise. The difference in adaptation of different human beings to the same environment shows the role of genetic makeup in shaping perception and reaction (Hart et al., 2021). Human beings react to the environment based on their specific psychological and physiological traits. The biological traits determine the rate of perception and the impact of perception of environmental factors on human beings, which informs the difference in behavioral outcomes. Take, for example, an education environment that has numerous people subjected to very similar environmental conditions. According to the research (Hart et al., 2021), different people in a similar environment will perceive the factors in that environment and react differently based on their biological traits.
Biological determinism theory explains that human behavior and personality are solely determined by biological factors such as brain configuration and genetics (Arponen et al., 2019). The biological determinism concept submits that the difference in specific biological traits between men and women accounts for the difference in chores and tasks they are better suited to during their lifetime. The perspective takes the division of roles as a natural occurrence necessitated by biological traits (Arponen et al., 2019). The difference in behavioral outcomes between men and women in early and late development stages is evidence of the concept that our biological makeup influences behavior and personality traits.
There are specific personality traits, such as extraversion, which are mainly influenced by genetic makeup since they are derived from the level of other traits, such as openness and agreeableness (Arponen et al., 2019). These traits influence specific human beings’ perceptions and reactions to the environment (Arponen et al., 2019). For example, more open people are projected to be resilient in adapting to the environment, while less open people might struggle to adapt to changing environmental factors. Specific traits such as height and size influence people’s activities and routines, which impacts the behaviors those people adopt.
Comparing and contrasting all Views
While there is much debate on which has a dominant effect between nature and nurture, both points of view agree that the other plays a role in growth and development. The concept that supports the dominance of nurture approves the role of genes in early development, where the perception of the environment is undefined (Willoughby et al., 2018). On the other hand, the support for nature as the dominant effect accepts that although the genetic makeup defines personal perception and reaction to environmental conditions, differences in environmental conditions result in different behavioral outcomes (Morgan & Rose, 2018). Despite the differences in impact and influence, nature and nurture account for all human behavioral outcomes (Willoughby et al., 2018).
The nurture dominance concept depicts the role of environmental conditions in shaping individuality. According to the concept, behavioral outcomes are human reactions to environmental conditions (Willoughby et al., 2018). The role played by nurturing through environmental factors is evidenced by routine activity theory, social learning theory, and behaviorism theory, which submit that all human behavior is an outcome of their environment (Willoughby et al., 2018). Human beings might learn from the environment through observation or act according to the factors in the environment. The concepts oppose the idea of biological determinism, which submits that our behavior is genetically influenced by specific traits that determine the difference in reaction and behavior.
Conclusion
The impact of environmental factors on personal development and behavior exemplifies the significance of nurture over nature. Subscribing to the idea that genetic makeup has a more significant role in behavioral outcomes reduces the influence of free will. Although human beings adapt to the environment differently, I propose that under the right conditions, all human beings have the capabilities to produce optimal life outcomes. Free will informs that human beings have the freedom and right to make personal and unbiased life decisions based on their perceptions, beliefs, and goals. Under the support for nature in the argument, human beings deviate from creatures of free will to creatures with a defined life path based on biological traits.
Despite the role played by nature, which entails biological makeup, nurture, which is the general environment around a person, has a more significant impact on behavior and personality outcomes. Denying this viewpoint disregards the necessity of providing better conditions for all people. The everyday struggle necessitates improving life outcomes by providing better environmental factors. The support for nurture subscribes to this view since the environmental factors are improved to impact better personality and behavioral outcomes. On the other side, supporting nature submits that the improvement of conditions is unnecessary since human beings will eventually reference their genetic makeup. I recommend viewing nature as a starting point in behaviour that is moulded by nurture. Without nurturing through environmental conditions, it is impossible to realize the final behaviour and personality outcomes.
References
Amin, Muh. S. (2022). Organizational Commitment, Competence on Job Satisfaction and Lecturer Performance: Social Learning Theory Approach. Golden Ratio of Human Resource Management, 2(1), 40–56. https://doi.org/10.52970/grhrm.v2i1.156
Arponen, V. P. J., Dörfler, W., Feeser, I., Grimm, S., Groß, D., Hinz, M., Knitter, D., Müller-Scheeßel, N., Ott, K., & Ribeiro, A. (2019). Environmental determinism and archaeology. Understanding and evaluating determinism in research design. Archaeological Dialogues, 26(01), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1380203819000059
Gross, R. (2023). Themes, Issues and Debates in Psychology. In Google Books. Taylor & Francis. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=6fy8EAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA1980&dq=nurture+psychology+debate&ots=LQUnfOhc-L&sig=XPO0lLLMRNNHYqc5xJFfVF24YD4
Hart, S. A., Little, C., & van Bergen, E. (2021). Nurture might be nature: cautionary tales and proposed solutions. Npj Science of Learning, 6(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-020-00079-z
Immordino-Yang, M. H., Darling-Hammond, L., & Krone, C. R. (2019). Nurturing Nature: How Brain Development Is Inherently Social and Emotional, and What This Means for Education. Educational Psychologist, 54(3), 185–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2019.1633924
Morgan, I. G., & Rose, K. A. (2018). Myopia: is the nature‐nurture debate finally over? Clinical and Experimental Optometry, 102(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/cxo.12845
Vilalta, C., & Fondevila, G. (2020). Testing Routine Activity theory in Mexico. The British Journal of Criminology, 61(3). https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azaa089
Willoughby, E. A., Love, A. C., McGue, M., Iacono, W. G., Quigley, J., & Lee, J. J. (2018). Free Will, Determinism, and Intuitive Judgments About the Heritability of Behavior. Behavior Genetics, 49(2), 136–153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10519-018-9931-1
Wood, A., & Coan, J. A. (2023). Beyond Nature Versus Nurture: the Emergence of Emotion. Affective Science, 4(3), 443–452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42761-023-00212-2
write