Nature vs Nurture

1600s

1600s

With ideologies that are still relevant today, John Locke was one of the most influential theorizers in the 1600s. His views helped shape the nature vs nurture debate, in which Locke believed behaviours are defined solely by personal experiences, stating that our minds are ‘tabula rasa’. ‘Tabula rasa’ is a theory that states we are born with no cognizance, which many classical empiricists (like John Locke) support. John Locke was a clear supporter of the ‘nurture’ side of the debate, due to his beliefs that knowledge and inclinations are learned, not intrinsic. Furthermore, he thought that experiences during the childhood years were the most vital in personal development.

On the other end of the spectrum, the French philosopher Rene Descartes believed that we possess certain ideas that are inborn, which influence the way we see the world. Similar to Greek philosopher Plato, Descartes has the view that environmental influences are not necessary in defining attributes. He is a clear supporter of the ‘nature’ side of the debate. While each psychologist has very different views, both were very influential in the 1600s and have ideas that are still talked about/implemented in modern psychology.

1800s

1800s

The 1800s brought along the official beginning of the nature vs nurture debate, produced by the English polymath: Francis Golton who, along with Ivan Pavlov, highly influenced psychology in this century. Each psychologist had quite a different view of the debate, with Francis Golton undoubtedly supporting the ‘nature’ side. His view was that intellect was mostly inherited, as research from Goltons novel Natural Inheritance shows, he believed that the hereditary of a child was ¼ from each parent and 1/16 from each grandparent. In Francis Golton’s twin study (1875) he was able to examine the varying effects of nature vs nurture on people who share attributes, allowing him to look at how experiences affect the development of a person. Golton had an understanding that both aspects of the debate are important for development, a view that is more modern, while still favouring the nature side.

Ivan Pavlov's view was that nurture was the most predominant influence, in which he believed learning takes place due to association. Through his 1897 study of dogs, Pavlov found that he could connect an unconditioned stimulus (food) with a conditioned stimulus (a bell ringing), in order to produce a conditioned response. Pavlov started ringing a bell each time he fed the dogs, causing their natural response to food, drooling, to occur at the sound of a bell as well. This backed his idea that behaviours, in both animals and humans, are created by two stimuli linking together and consequently create a new learned response in the individual. This idea is purely environmental, which shows how Ivan Pavlov would be an advocate for the nurture side of the debate. His work surrounding classical conditioning has helped form the psychological approach behaviourism, which focuses on the view that behaviours are learnt purely through environmental interactions.

1900s

1900s

Psychology began to flourish in the second half of the 20th century, bringing on a broader understanding of many intellectual and social issues, as well as a wider discussion surrounding the nature vs nurture debate. Thanks to a diverse supply of information drawn from theorists of the past, psychologists like Sigmund Freud were able to bring new ideas to the debate. Recognized as the most influential psychologist of the 1900s, Freud considered personality to be a contingent relationship of nature and nurture. His view is that the human condition is a conflict between our morals/ concept of reality and our animalistic desires, as seen in his psychoanalytic theory of the Id, the Ego and the Superego. While some of Freud's ideas were somewhat controversial, he had many important ideas, including his understanding that environment and genetics work together in creating composite human behaviours. Likewise, the Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget believed that human development requires both nurture and nature. His view was that a child develops due to interaction with their surrounding environment, of which they use information learned from experiences to create segments/ schemas in the mind that affects the child's perception of the world.

Unlike Freud and Piaget, many theorists of this time still had clear support over one side of the debate. For instance, the Canadian psychologist Albert Bandura believed observation/ modelling are the key part of learning, as seen in his social learning theory. He talks about how behaviours can be learnt indirectly as a result of your surroundings, as seen in this quote by Bandura: “It requires conducive social conditions, rather than monstrous people, to produce heinous deeds”. This quote describes how we aren’t born a certain way, but that environment defines us, making Bandura a definite supporter of the nurture side. His 1961 Bobo doll experiment backed his views, as it demonstrated how children are able to learn social behaviours (e.g. aggression) through observing another person's behaviour.

2000s

2000s

The 2000s brought on a better understanding of how both factors of the nature vs nurture debate play a part. Modern studies have proven this, including Epigenetics, a recent area of research that shows how an individuals environment/personal experiences can actually influence their gene expression. Epigenetic changes are unable to permanently change our DNA sequence, and instead change how our body interprets a DNA sequence. Epigenetics continually changes as we grow, helping determine what role a cell will have, for instance whether the cell will become a skin cell, heart cell or a nerve cell. While Epigenetics explains the nurture side of the debate, the Human Genome Study explains the nature side. Completed in 2003, this modern study strived to outline the human genome all the way down to the nucleotide level, in order to identify the existing genes in it. This enables psychologists to explain how genetics alter human behaviour, in regard to genomic analysis.

Two psychologists of the 2000s followed the historic trend of studying twins: Nancy Segal and Robert Plomin. American psychologist, Nancy Segal, told ABC news: “A strict dichotomy between genes and environment is no longer relevant; they work in concert”, showing how she shares the modern belief that both nature and nurture work together. In comparison, Robert Plomin believes that personality is not defined by how we were raised, but instead is on account of the genes we inherit from our parents.

Nativists

Nativists

Nativism is a significant approach in understanding human behaviours, focusing around the view that the brain has intrinsic structures that influence a person's general knowledge, implying that past experiences/ trauma have little effect on a person's cognizance. ‘Nativist’ is simply a term for those who support this view. In the same way we begin to walk and birds start flying, Nativism believes language is innate and therefore is a primarily unconscious instinct. Most Nativists identify that environmental factors are connected, with minimum exposure to language needed in order to reinforce the intrinsic structures of the mind, which allows children to speak. While there has been some speculation around the validity of Nativist views, modern studies (e.g. the human genome project) have identified how some behaviours/ traits can be influenced by genetics by looking at the genome and brain structures.

Empiricists

Empiricits

Empiricists are those who believe that knowledge is gained from experiences, and that our observations and judgements are a key part of learning. A common belief of Empiricists is that at birth the mind is a blank slate, a ‘tabula rasa’, which denies that characteristics can be innate. Moreover, modern Empiricism strongly believes in the collection of evidence, especially when gathered from experiments. Instead of relying on intuition or presumption, they depend on testing as a key part of the science behind conducting an experiment. Empiricists also believe that childhood is the most important time for the development of behaviours/ knowledge, with culture and upbringing playing a big role.