Nature is the part of human behavior that is biologically determined and instinctive. This is defined by the genes and hereditary factors that represent us as humans. From our physical appearances: the color of our hair, the color of our eyes, our height, weight, life span to our hereditary factors. These factors all contribute to one’s physical appearance and one’s health when it comes to being prone to diseases. It is scientifically found that the combination of certain genes oftens reflects tendencies a person may have. For example, there are certain genes that are found that may reflect violent tendencies or intelligence, etc.
Nurture on the other hand is not predetermined, it is learnt. Nurture is defined as behavior based on the people and environment one is raised in. Nurture consists of all the experiences, people, environments, and behavior one is exposed to. It is inferred that the nurture of one deeply impacts their behavior as it is what they are exposed to and therefore is a great factor when one makes decisions. While a factor of one’s behavior depends on their environment, a common argument addresses whether one’s behavior is predetermined at birth through personality traits (nature).
Nature and Nurture go hand in hand but the effect of nurture overpowers the effects of nature. While nature and nurture both contribute to one’s identity, nurture will always overpower nurture. One may have tendencies to do certain things, but their environment growing up will always influence those tendencies and will ultimately make their decisions. The environment one grows up in is a huge factor as this can support those tendencies or it can destroy them. Nature and nurture both contribute to one’s behavior but the effect of nature is dependant on one’s nurture.
According to American sociologist George Mead, we figure out who we are through other people. In the first stage of development, we learn through imitation (Rath 2016). For example, it is very common to see a younger sibling imitate their older sibling. As kids get older, they start assuming the roles of other people. Kids will start playing games where they act as their mom, or a tv character, and will start seeing the world from their perspective. In the next stage, kids become aware of rules and norms, and begin to take on their own roles while still developing a reaction to other roles. In the following stage, kids take on multiple roles based on their situation. Kids then begin to evaluate the situation they are in and will then react in a way that suits the cultural norm and expectations of that situation.
Through Mead's’ study, it can be inferred that the people-parents, classmates, friends, and even tv characters will impact the child’s behavior. If a child is exposed to parents that say ‘thank you’ and ‘please’, it is likely he/she will adapt these phrases as well. If a child is exposed to violent parents who curse, it is likely that he will act violent and will curse as well. The actions and words the child is exposed to will then reflect in certain situations as this is how the child knows to react. These nurturing factors will then contribute to the child’s behavior as they will begin to act like the people they are exposed to.
There are different factors that affect the way one thinks. These factors include one’s socialization and gender. Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget believed there were four stages of cognitive development: The sensorimotor stage, the preoperational stage, the concrete operational stage, and the formal operational stage (Cherry 2018). The sensorimotor stage is the level of development where all one’s knowledge is based on what is around them. The preoperational stage is when language is used to ask questions. At this stage, the kid asks questions but already has a preconceived answer to them that satisfies their interests. The concrete operational stage is the ability to take in other people’s opinions and use them to rationalize. The formal operational stage is begin to use logic and go beyond what they already know.
American psychologist, Lawrence Kohlberg expanded on Piaget’s beliefs and incorporated stages of moral development . He said that kids begin to sense what is right and wrong at what is called the preconventional stage (Saul 2013). At this stage, the definition of right is what personally feels good to them. At the next stage, the conventional stage, their definition of what's right and wrong is defined by what society and the people around them tell them. After the conventional stage, children end up in the post conventional stage in which they begin to view concepts as more than right or wrong, they make decisions based on their situation.
For example, at the preconventional stage, if a kid is at a candy store and takes a chocolate bar, he/she will not see a problem with it because it is what seems right to them. At the conventional stage, they will begin to see that stealing is wrong based on what their guardian teaches them and what society in general says about stealing. At the postconventional stage, the kid will know what is right or wrong but will make his/her decision to steal based on the situation they’re in by experiencing a moral dilemma. For example, a kid may consciously choose to steal this chocolate bar because his family is financially struggling at home. The environment the kid has been exposed to reflects onto his behavior as he differentiates right from wrong and makes the decision on whether or not to steal the chocolate bar.
American psychologist, Carol Gilligan challenged Kohlberg’s studies as it only had male subjects, leading to biased findings (Paulina). She expanded the research to both males and females and saw that the boys had defined what was right and wrong based on formal rules. She found that girls focused on the moral aspect of decisions and argued that this is because of “the cultural conditioning that girls receive to fulfill ideals of femininity” (Paulina). Because girls are socialized to be more caring and empathetic, their decision making is influenced. The expectations the average girl faces starts to contribute to her behavior because she is taught to act a certain way and possess certain qualities.
A study by Sociologist Kingsley Davis shows how lack of socialization affects a child’s ability to be mentally and physically stable (Brittanica 2018). In the winter of 1938, Sociologist Kingsley Davis did a case study on a 5 year old girl named Anna. Anna was unwanted by the family she was born into and was bounced from house to house for the first six months of her life. She eventually was kept in a shed with no family and only had human interaction when receiving food. She was eventually rescued and Kingsley Davis observed her for years and wrote about the effects of her environment on her development. When she was first rescued, she did not speak or smile and was completely unresponsive to human interaction. After 3 years of education and medical attention, her eight year old self’s mental development was less than a two year old’s.
Just as one’s environment affects the way they act and think, one’s lack of environment does the same. As the story of Anna portrays, Anna was isolated for the majority of her life and her mind did not develop, leading her to not develop a personality or any acts of her own. If nature was truly representative of a person, Anna would hold the personality of her mother or father due to her genes. Because she was not exposed to any nurture, she was unable to develop any type of identity. Anna’s lack of environment led to her lack of identity because nothing influenced her behavior and she could not individually form her own personality.
“Today, the majority of experts believe that both nature and nurture influence behavior and development.” (Cherry & Gans) Different branches of psychology argue that nature plays the most important role while another branch will argue that nurture is more significant. For example, if a man abuses his family, is it because he was born with a gene that leads him to be violent or is it something he learned through his experiences growing up? If a man turns out to be a murderer, is it because he was born with sociopathic tendencies or is it because of the environment he grew up in?
When evaluating the situation in which a man abuses his family, one may argue that his violence is a product of his violent tendencies that he was born with and his environment growing up. While this may be correct, the violent tendencies he was born with are not strong enough to overpower his decision to abuse his family. One is a product of their environment. If two people are born with violent tendencies, and one of them grows up in a safe loving environment while the other grows up in an abusive harmful environment, it is reasonable to say that the one that grows up in a violent environment will become violent while the other will not be violent.
When evaluating the situation in which a man turns out to be a murderer, the same argument above may be brought up. While I am not denying the concept of violent tendencies and I acknowledge that they do in fact genetically exist, they are not prominent enough to push someone to do such a heinous act. Having violent tendencies and acting on them are two different things. It is possible that one has violent tendencies and then later on grows up in an abusive environment, pushing them to do violent acts. Having the tendency to do something and being born with that trait does not necessarily equate it reflecting onto their behavior. The environment one grows up in is a huge factor as this can support those tendencies or it can destroy them.
It is unfair to base one's actions based on their nature aspect while not acknowledging the large impact one’s environment and experiences has on them. While one may be born with certain genes that make them inclined to have certain tendencies, these genes are not representative of the person. A person’s experiences, the people and places they are surrounded with will always outweigh their genetic distribution. People are capable of making their own decisions and these decisions will always be mostly based of what they have been exposed to-not what they were born with.