Nurture Debate

For decades, psychologists have continually emphasized through several different approaches how particular aspects of human behavior are the direct result of either genetic influence, as argued by the nature perspective, or environmental influence, as argued by the nurture perspective. This theoretical conflict, known as the Nature versus Nurture debate, has become one of the most persistent and renowned discussions of modern psychology. Behavioral genetics, humanism, cognitive psychology, psychoanalysis, and biopsychology are all examples of current approaches to the debate, all of which continue to add to the complexity of both arguments by attempting to apply research in order to determine the derivation and explanation of different behaviors.
While both sides contain several factors that contribute to the variation and development of human behavior, the nurture perspective is the most supported and plausible of the two. Perhaps the strongest argument for the nurture perspective is manifested by the school of thought known as behaviorism.
Behaviorism transformed the principles of the debate by highlighting the role of nurture and the environmental influence on individual behavior. This worldview is defined by the concept of stimulus-response as expressed through classical and operant conditioning. An individual shall respond to environmental factors accordingly, and the individual begins with a clean slate, known as Tabula rasa, and behavior is sculpted through reinforcement, whether it be positive or negative (“Behaviorism”). Based on this idea of reinforcement, several phenomena of the nature perspective could be attributed to the environment. For instance, the nature-esque bond between a mother and her infant could be argued that the bond, rather than being derived from a predisposed natural occurrence, was instead developed as a result of a neutral stimulus (in this case, the mother) being paired with primary reinforcers (nurture) such as food, milk, et cetera. Several experiments have been conducted as a means of researching the environmental impact on behavior such as Albert Bandura’s Bobo doll experiment, in which Bandura observed a group of children to determine if aggression could be brought on by observation and imitation. The results showed a very high correlation of 0.89 between observing acts of aggression through the behavior of another person and imitating such actions
(Bandura 6). In addition to behaviorism, the humanistic approach provides another very strong argument for the nurture perspective.
Humanism believes in the influence of individual experiences on a person’s perception and comprehension of the world around them, and furthermore the acknowledgment of the influence of biological drives and needs. This approach suggests that one will alter their perceptions in order to conform to society and to achieve self-actualization, the realization and fulfillment of one's talents and inherent capacities. Humanism typically considers that people discern themselves on behalf of constant pressure from society, but free will is only reached after the fulfillment of basic needs. This idealism includes specific studies concerning self-actualization and the fulfillment of one’s life purpose (Sammons, “The Humanistic Approach: The Basics”). These studies include Abraham Maslow’s basis regarding the hierarchy of needs. Maslow offered the opinion that those who satisfy their particular needs become rare and remarkable individuals completely rendered through their own ideas, coincidentally shaped by
society. Cognitive psychology is an additional confirmation indicted in the nature perspective. The emphasis on scientific methods and studies is the strength of this particular approach. This section of psychology leads to the belief that “innate mental structures such as schemas, perception and memory [which are] constantly changed by the environment,” suggesting that the natural composition of the human mind is endlessly influenced by external stimuli (“The Cognitive Approach: The Basics”). Cognitive psychologists typically reference the information processing model as they commonly associate individual characteristics of the brain to that a computer. Data, or information, is allocated to the brain, next the brain manages said data, and the data is then developed into certain characteristics. The brain regulates how one’s surroundings are analyzed, but the environment itself manifests the sensory stimulus required for the brain to interpret. In the debate, cognitive psychologists take a reciprocal-influence position in theorizing the existence of the interaction between one’s behavior and environmental cues. Research conducted within this particular spectrum regarding both developmental theories of nature and nurture suggest that genes and the environment function together integratively through a complex, entwined manner (T., García Coll, Bearer, and Lerner xix); however, it is my belief that human behavioral development is essentially acquired and learned through the presence of a primary environmentally-influenced partition in the brain that actively corresponds with a secondary genetically-influenced partition in order to manufacture human perception. Several approaches and theories were initially studied in an attempt to prove one particular perspective completely wrong; nevertheless, in modern psychology it is widely accepted that both genes and environment play both independent and dependent roles in the composition of human behavior. Despite this verdict, the nature-nurture debate continues to remain one of the many continuously debated topics in developmental psychology today.