Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Nature vs Nurture
Transcript of Nature vs Nurture
Learning / Development
Perception of the influence of Nature and Nurture on a child's development is dependent on which they believe has more influence. In relation to Nature, it's responsible for the growth of a child until development into an adult and their genetic makeup. Many theorists believe that the genetic coating of a child does have an impact in the positive and negative traits of an individual. However some theorists hypothesise that Nurture can be used to better positive or diminish negative traits about oneself through modelling and perception of whats around them. That a child's personality and behavioural habits are shaped by our environment.
Nature vs Nurture is the debate in psychology that looks at the extent to which particular aspects of behaviour are inherited genetically or aquired through experience
Nature is what we inherit genetically from our parents that influence who we are therefore the term "Mother" nature. (Involves physical appearence and in some opinions our some of our personality traits.)
Nurture is the result of environmental influences, both physical and social in our world.
This includes the use of conditioning in order to induce a new behaviour to a child, or alter an unlikely behaviour being shown by the child
Physical characteristics are biologically determined by genetics in relation to Nature
John Locke was born on
August 29, 1632, in Wrington
, in Somerset. He was a well
known philosopher in his time.
Following his studies it's easy
to see that he believed that
Nurture was more evident in a child's development. According to his theory, he believed that everything that we are and our cognitive ability is determined by our experience - where we grow up, culture that a child grows up in, the religion they practise and the social groups they become involved with.
Identical twins Jim Jewis and Jim Springer, reared apart from a month old. In 1979 when they were united at 40 years old they came to realise that they both had a tendency to bite their nails, drove the same type of care, suffered severe headaches and even vacationed in Florida at the same beach.
Case Study 1#
At the university of Minnesota led by
, a group of researchers launched a longitudinal study in 1979 that lasted over 20 years. Over those 20 years, Bouchard and his colleagues studied about 137 pairs of twins - (81 pairs were identical, 56 were fraternal).
The Jim twins were the most famous of the twins studied because of the amount of common factors found between the two even though their were raised apart from each other.
Biologically determined characteristics
- A persons eye colour (Blue, Green, Brown, Hazel)
- Their hair colour and type (straight, wavy, blonde, brown)
- Skin Colour (Black or White)
- Ethnic Background (African American, Asian, European)
- Suspetability to certain diseases and conditions
- Their height and weight
Thomas J. Bouchard, Jr. born October 3rd, 1937, is a professor of psychology and director of the Minnesota Center for Twin and Adoption Research. Bouchard is greatly known for his extensivly thorough longitudinal studies involving both identical and fraternal twins. His perspective was from the data he gathered in these studies was that there was a strong influence genetically on most medical and psychological traits.
IQ - Intelligence
born December 4, 1925 is a psychologist who for almost 6 decades made valuable contributions to many fields of psychology for example Social Cognitive Theory and Personality Psychology. But his best known as the pironeer of the Social Learning Theory. Social learning theory is how people learn through observing others. Shown through Bandura's most well known experiment -
"The Bobo Doll Expeiment (1961).
Where group of pre-schoolers were subjected to aggessive acts both physically and verbally designed to see if they would
the aggression that the adult had to the bobo doll
When it comes to a persons level of intelligence, a great deal feel that it hasn't really got anything to do with their environment or economic status. From the knowledge of Charles Murray it can be put down to their difference genetics between cultures (nature). But this has been contradicted in the past, some people believe that some are given more chances and better opportunities in life. Which parallels with the adopted children studied as they were adopted into emotionally and financially stable families which aided them to develop into better functioning people When had a look into children of adoptive families, 72% of adopted children had a intelligence level that corresponded more so with their adoptive than their biological parents.
From the evidence presented by all theorist's a clear picture of Nature and Nurture is put out and the significance of the both of them in a child's development both mental and physical is stated. Nature focuses on the of which Nature plays in a young child's development genetically where as Nurture looks at how the child's been raised and what he/she had been subjected to. Psychologist's like Thomas Bouchard looks into what we inherit from our parents and what role that plays on our development. Even to the extent that we are who we are no matter where we grow up or who our parents end up to be (biological or adopted). What Bouchard states is logical, genetics are how were formed and our behaviour and personality can result from that. John Locke and Albert Bandura (Nurture) look at it from another standpoint. Perhaps even more logical that our genetics are what enable us to think, feel and act but our environment determines how that happens (whether your moody, happy, cheerful or compassionate). Factors such a genetics, environment, culture, whether it play's a role in a child's personality and behaviour isn't apparent yet due to the fact that all these theoies are just that, theories. Not one theorist has been able to get definite answers to back up their theories so any assumption of the reason behind peoples personality; intelligence and their mannerisms are all based on peoples opinion's.
From the information presented about Nature vs Nurture it's easy to see that development is more than genetics or where and how we're brought up.... it's both. Locke, Bandura, Bouchard, they're all right. Genetics, place, time, environment, it all play's a part in how a child grows up. They all affect the other in a way that determines the outcome of the child in all aspects of development differentially. But ultimately it's an opinion, not only mine but the theorist's that are so famous in their relevant and respected fields here. There's not evidence to validate Nature or Nurture entirely over the other, at least not yet anyway. But the information that that theorists here give us allows us to make the best decisions for ourselves.