The nature vs. nurture debate concerns the extent to which genetic inheritance and environmental factors influence human development. Regarding nature proponents, genetic factors mainly determine human behavior and development. Regarding nurture supporters, human development is primarily shaped by the environment. One of the key issues with the nature vs. nurture debate is that it presents a false dichotomy. Genetics and the environment interact in complex ways to shape human development (Tistarelli et al., 2020, page 63). For example, genetic factors can influence how individuals respond to environmental stimuli, while environmental factors can modify gene expression.
Moreover, the nature vs. nurture debate often focuses on individual traits or behaviors while ignoring broader social and cultural factors. For instance, social inequalities and structural barriers can significantly impact the opportunities and experiences available to individuals. These factors can affect individuals’ development and exacerbate or mitigate genetic predispositions.
Another limitation of the nature vs. nurture debate is that it prioritizes genetic or environmental explanations depending on the trait or behavior. For instance, part of genetic determinism proponents holds that genetic factors are the key determinants of intelligence. In contrast, the other part holds that intelligence is mainly determined by environmental factors such as social and economic status and education. However, according to Tistarelli et al. (2020, page 64), intelligence is majorly influenced by a multifaceted relationship between genetic and environmental factors, including early childhood experiences, prenatal conditions, and cultural background. Similarly, while genetics may influence predispositions to specific mental health conditions, such as depression or anxiety, environmental factors, such as stress, trauma, and social sustenance, can, in one way or another other, trigger the onset and severity of these conditions.
Two examples supporting genetics playing a more significant role in human development are found in the (Kail & Cavanaugh, 2018, page 23). First, studies of twins have shown that identical twins reared apart have many similarities in personality, intelligence, and attitudes, suggesting that genetic factors are important. Second, research on ADHD indicates that genetic factors may be the primary cause of the disorder, as it tends to run in families. On the other hand, two examples supporting the environment playing a larger role in human development are found in the (Kail & Cavanaugh, 2018, page 23). First, research on the effects of poverty on child development suggests that children from impoverished environments may experience adverse outcomes in areas such as cognitive development, academic achievement and social behavior. Second, studies of children who were adopted at an early age have shown that their developmental outcomes are more similar to those of their adoptive families than their biological families, suggesting that the environment plays a significant role.
Theories of Human Development
According to Sanghvi (2020, page 94), Piaget’s theory of cognitive development pays attention to nature, as it emphasizes the importance of biological maturation and the innate tendency of children to construct knowledge. Piaget believed that children progress through a series of cognitive development stages. Notably, these stages are driven more by biological factors than environmental factors. By contrast, Bandura’s social learning theory focuses more on nurture, emphasizing the importance of environmental factors, mainly observational learning and reinforcement, in shaping behavior (Deming & Johnson, 2019, page 5). According to Bandura, individuals learn from other people’s mistakes and the respective consequences of their actions; thus, behavior is influenced by the rewards and punishments resulting from the consequences.
On the other hand, Jean Piaget’s theory of cognitive development is through children’s experiences and interactions with their environment that, they actively construct their understanding of the world. In this regard, he suggests that development occurs via four stages, each with dissimilar cognitive features. Notably, these stages include; sensorimotor, preoperational, concrete operational, and formal operational.
In the sensorimotor stage, which begins at birth to around two years of age, children use senses and motor actions to learn about their world. They develop object permanence, the understanding that objects exist even when out of sight. Notably, in this stage, they begin to form mental depictions of their experiences. The preoperational stage, which begins from 2 to 7 years of age, is characterized by the emergence of symbolic thought, language, and egocentrism. Children in this stage do not easily take other person’s viewpoints and often engage in magical thinking (Deming & Johnson, 2019, page 5). The concrete operational stage occurs from 7 to 12 years of age when children develop logical thinking and the ability to perform mental actions. In this stage, children get to understand conservation, the concept that the quantity of a substance remains unchanged despite changes in appearance.
Finally, the formal operational stage, which begins around age 12, is characterized by the development of abstract thinking and hypothetical reasoning capabilities. Albert Bandura’s social learning theory emphasizes the importance of environmental factors in shaping behavior. According to Bandura, individuals learn by observing what others do and what results from their actions (Deming & Johnson, 2019, page 5). Notably, this process is known as observational learning or modeling. Behavior is also influenced by reinforcement, which can be positive or negative. Bandura suggests that individuals can learn by noting what others are doing, including those within the vicinity of their social networks and the effects of their actions. He proposed that people are more likely to imitate behavior that is rewarded or reinforced and less likely to imitate behavior that is punished. Bandura’s theory also emphasizes the role of self-efficacy or an individual’s belief in their performance abilities. He suggested that self-efficacy can be influenced by numerous factors such as social persuasion, past experiences, physiological and emotional states, and vicarious experiences (observing others).
In summary, the nature vs. nurture debate remains controversial in human development, with proponents arguing for the relative importance of genetic and environmental factors. Piaget’s cognitive development theory emphasizes the role of nature, while Bandura’s social learning theory emphasizes the role of nurture.
References
Deming, P., & Johnson, L. L. (2019). An application of Bandura’s social learning theory: A new approach to deafblind support groups. JADARA, 42(4), 5.
Kail, R. V., & Cavanaugh, J. C. (2018). Human development: A life-span view. Cengage Learning.
Sanghvi, P. (2020). Piaget’s theory of cognitive development: a review. Indian Journal of Mental Health, 7(2), 90-96.
Tistarelli, N., Fagnani, C., Troianiello, M., Stazi, M. A., & Adriani, W. (2020). The nature and nurture of ADHD and its comorbidities: A narrative review on twin studies. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 109, 63-77.
write