The field of psychology has continually kept me bordering enjoyment and obsession, especially the topic of developmental psychology. One of the largest researched ideas is that of nature versus nurture; the questioning of what creates each person’s personality. Many psychologists and scientists alike have argued that the environment is what shapes humans, while many others have supported the idea that genetics has a major influence on personality. These rivaling ideals have created a wide range of research, ideas and arguments, which I am hoping will answer my question of “nurture or nature?”.
Looking first to the research of Dr. John Watson, a psychologist in the early 20th century, his “Little Albert” experiment set out to condition a set of fears in a small child, specifically a fear of furry objects. Dr. Watson’s experiment did create a conditioned response to these furry objects, creating a phobia in the child. While the experiment was one of the most controversial of Dr. Watson’s, it brought about one of the first scientific conclusions to the nature versus nurture debate. Due to the fact that Dr. Watson created a conditioned response through stimuli, he sided with nurture, stating that all behavior can be learn through experience and new behavior derives from the results of such experiences (McLeod). Dr. Watson’s experiment was one of the first introduced to myself, and created a strong foundation on the side of nurture. However, another psychologist in the early 20th century, Dr. Arnold Gesell, theorized that mental development of children followed a similar pattern of physical development, his studies led him to theorize that all persons go through a sequence of stages during mental development, creating an argument for the nature side in psychology (Loehlin).
While both of these ideas created a foundation for works to follow throughout the 20th century, many psychologists and scientists alike seem to theorize now that both genetic makeup and environmental influence have a significant impact in the development of humans. Studies at the University of Cambridge have concluded, through research on single parenting, both parents present, and step parents raising a child, that while these environmental differences play a key role in the upbringing of a child, that the genetics of a person are not eclipsed by the different situational environments of a person’s life.
While researching the side of Dr. Gesell, a particular question came to mind about a study I had heard of years prior, a nature versus nurture experiment involving twins. Using twins to possibly solve the ongoing debate of nurture versus nature seemed like the most sensible option for scientists and psychologists alike, and many studies were, in fact, done on that very situation. One experiment done by Riemann, et al. studied twins raised in the same family, twins raised in different families, adoptive families, and family studies with participants that are genetically related. While the twins raised together were similar in five-factor personality model, those raised in different families were found to be exceptionally different, supporting the ideas of Dr. Watson, in that nurture plays a bigger role in the development of personality.
While the arguments seemed to create a conclusion for myself that nurture outshone nature in relation to human development, another research study came up, one studying children with developmental or behavioral problems, with a seemingly normal environment. Dr. Saul McLeod, and many other psychologists, have speculated that these children with behavioral problems may have been raised in a completely normal household, but are born with some of these predetermined social characteristics. While children may be facing predetermined social characteristics, they face a divide between intentional misbehavior, and innate disposition (Loehlin).
While there has been a divide between those supporting nurture and those supporting nature, many psychologists are turning to a new ideology, nurture plus nature to explain areas of developmental psychology. Again, I was brought to look at the twin studies to show support to this theory, these twins sharing the exact genetic makeup, whether raised separately or together, consistently shared multiple characteristics. Studies done by Thomas J. Bouchard, professor at the University of Minnesota, brought forward evidence of twins who grew up in separate households, but developed extremely similar traits, such as physical gestures, speech patterns, and behavioral traits.