essay on impact of nature and nurture on child development

Bipolar Disorder
Therapy Center
When To See a Therapist
Types of Therapy
Best Online Therapy
Best Couples Therapy
Managing Stress
Sleep and Dreaming
Understanding Emotions
Self-Improvement
Healthy Relationships
Student Resources
Personality Types
Sweepstakes
Guided Meditations
Verywell Mind Insights
2024 Verywell Mind 25
Mental Health in the Classroom
Editorial Process
Meet Our Review Board
Crisis Support

The Nature vs. Nurture Debate

Genetic and Environmental Influences and How They Interact

Verywell / Joshua Seong

Definitions
Interaction
Contemporary Views

Nature refers to how genetics influence an individual's personality, whereas nurture refers to how their environment (including relationships and experiences) impacts their development. Whether nature or nurture plays a bigger role in personality and development is one of the oldest philosophical debates within the field of psychology .

Learn how each is defined, along with why the issue of nature vs. nurture continues to arise. We also share a few examples of when arguments on this topic typically occur, how the two factors interact with each other, and contemporary views that exist in the debate of nature vs. nurture as it stands today.

Nature and Nurture Defined

To better understand the nature vs. nurture argument, it helps to know what each of these terms means.

Nature refers largely to our genetics . It includes the genes we are born with and other hereditary factors that can impact how our personality is formed and influence the way that we develop from childhood through adulthood.
Nurture encompasses the environmental factors that impact who we are. This includes our early childhood experiences, the way we were raised , our social relationships, and the surrounding culture.

A few biologically determined characteristics include genetic diseases, eye color, hair color, and skin color. Other characteristics are tied to environmental influences, such as how a person behaves, which can be influenced by parenting styles and learned experiences.

For example, one child might learn through observation and reinforcement to say please and thank you. Another child might learn to behave aggressively by observing older children engage in violent behavior on the playground.

The Debate of Nature vs. Nurture

The nature vs. nurture debate centers on the contributions of genetics and environmental factors to human development. Some philosophers, such as Plato and Descartes, suggested that certain factors are inborn or occur naturally regardless of environmental influences.

Advocates of this point of view believe that all of our characteristics and behaviors are the result of evolution. They contend that genetic traits are handed down from parents to their children and influence the individual differences that make each person unique.

Other well-known thinkers, such as John Locke, believed in what is known as tabula rasa which suggests that the mind begins as a blank slate . According to this notion, everything that we are is determined by our experiences.

Behaviorism is a good example of a theory rooted in this belief as behaviorists feel that all actions and behaviors are the results of conditioning. Theorists such as John B. Watson believed that people could be trained to do and become anything, regardless of their genetic background.

People with extreme views are called nativists and empiricists. Nativists take the position that all or most behaviors and characteristics are the result of inheritance. Empiricists take the position that all or most behaviors and characteristics result from learning.

Examples of Nature vs. Nurture

One example of when the argument of nature vs. nurture arises is when a person achieves a high level of academic success . Did they do so because they are genetically predisposed to elevated levels of intelligence, or is their success a result of an enriched environment?

The argument of nature vs. nurture can also be made when it comes to why a person behaves in a certain way. If a man abuses his wife and kids, for instance, is it because he was born with violent tendencies, or is violence something he learned by observing others in his life when growing up?

Nature vs. Nurture in Psychology

Throughout the history of psychology , the debate of nature vs. nurture has continued to stir up controversy. Eugenics, for example, was a movement heavily influenced by the nativist approach.

Psychologist Francis Galton coined the terms 'nature versus nurture' and 'eugenics' and believed that intelligence resulted from genetics. Galton also felt that intelligent individuals should be encouraged to marry and have many children, while less intelligent individuals should be discouraged from reproducing.

The value placed on nature vs. nurture can even vary between the different branches of psychology , with some branches taking a more one-sided approach. In biopsychology , for example, researchers conduct studies exploring how neurotransmitters influence behavior, emphasizing the role of nature.

In social psychology , on the other hand, researchers might conduct studies looking at how external factors such as peer pressure and social media influence behaviors, stressing the importance of nurture. Behaviorism is another branch that focuses on the impact of the environment on behavior.

Nature vs. Nurture in Child Development

Some psychological theories of child development place more emphasis on nature and others focus more on nurture. An example of a nativist theory involving child development is Chomsky's concept of a language acquisition device (LAD). According to this theory, all children are born with an instinctive mental capacity that allows them to both learn and produce language.

An example of an empiricist child development theory is Albert Bandura's social learning theory . This theory says that people learn by observing the behavior of others. In his famous Bobo doll experiment , Bandura demonstrated that children could learn aggressive behaviors simply by observing another person acting aggressively.

Nature vs. Nurture in Personality Development

There is also some argument as to whether nature or nurture plays a bigger role in the development of one's personality. The answer to this question varies depending on which personality development theory you use.

According to behavioral theories, our personality is a result of the interactions we have with our environment, while biological theories suggest that personality is largely inherited. Then there are psychodynamic theories of personality that emphasize the impact of both.

Nature vs. Nurture in Mental Illness Development

One could argue that either nature or nurture contributes to mental health development. Some causes of mental illness fall on the nature side of the debate, including changes to or imbalances with chemicals in the brain. Genetics can also contribute to mental illness development, increasing one's risk of a certain disorder or disease.

Mental disorders with some type of genetic component include autism , attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), bipolar disorder , major depression , and schizophrenia .

Other explanations for mental illness are environmental. This includes being exposed to environmental toxins, such as drugs or alcohol, while still in utero. Certain life experiences can also influence mental illness development, such as witnessing a traumatic event, leading to the development of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Nature vs. Nurture in Mental Health Therapy

Different types of mental health treatment can also rely more heavily on either nature or nurture in their treatment approach. One of the goals of many types of therapy is to uncover any life experiences that may have contributed to mental illness development (nurture).

However, genetics (nature) can play a role in treatment as well. For instance, research indicates that a person's genetic makeup can impact how their body responds to antidepressants. Taking this into consideration is important for getting that person the help they need.

Interaction Between Nature and Nurture

Which is stronger: nature or nurture? Many researchers consider the interaction between heredity and environment—nature with nurture as opposed to nature versus nurture—to be the most important influencing factor of all.

For example, perfect pitch is the ability to detect the pitch of a musical tone without any reference. Researchers have found that this ability tends to run in families and might be tied to a single gene. However, they've also discovered that possessing the gene is not enough as musical training during early childhood is needed for this inherited ability to manifest itself.

Height is another example of a trait influenced by an interaction between nature and nurture. A child might inherit the genes for height. However, if they grow up in a deprived environment where proper nourishment isn't received, they might never attain the height they could have had if they'd grown up in a healthier environment.

A newer field of study that aims to learn more about the interaction between genes and environment is epigenetics . Epigenetics seeks to explain how environment can impact the way in which genes are expressed.

Some characteristics are biologically determined, such as eye color, hair color, and skin color. Other things, like life expectancy and height, have a strong biological component but are also influenced by environmental factors and lifestyle.

Contemporary Views of Nature vs. Nurture

Most experts recognize that neither nature nor nurture is stronger than the other. Instead, both factors play a critical role in who we are and who we become. Not only that but nature and nurture interact with each other in important ways all throughout our lifespan.

As a result, many in this field are interested in seeing how genes modulate environmental influences and vice versa. At the same time, this debate of nature vs. nurture still rages on in some areas, such as in the origins of homosexuality and influences on intelligence .

While a few people take the extreme nativist or radical empiricist approach, the reality is that there is not a simple way to disentangle the multitude of forces that exist in personality and human development. Instead, these influences include genetic factors, environmental factors, and how each intermingles with the other.

Schoneberger T. Three myths from the language acquisition literature . Anal Verbal Behav . 2010;26(1):107-31. doi:10.1007/bf03393086

National Institutes of Health. Common genetic factors found in 5 mental disorders .

Pain O, Hodgson K, Trubetskoy V, et al. Identifying the common genetic basis of antidepressant response . Biol Psychiatry Global Open Sci . 2022;2(2):115-126. doi:10.1016/j.bpsgos.2021.07.008

Moulton C. Perfect pitch reconsidered . Clin Med J . 2014;14(5):517-9 doi:10.7861/clinmedicine.14-5-517

Levitt M. Perceptions of nature, nurture and behaviour . Life Sci Soc Policy . 2013;9:13. doi:10.1186/2195-7819-9-13

Bandura A, Ross D, Ross, SA. Transmission of aggression through the imitation of aggressive models . J Abnorm Soc Psychol. 1961;63(3):575-582. doi:10.1037/h0045925

Chomsky N. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax .

Galton F. Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development .

Watson JB. Behaviorism .

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Infographics

Epigenetics and Child Development: How Children’s Experiences Affect Their Genes

For more information about epigenetics, please scroll down below the infographic .

New scientific research shows that environmental influences can actually affect whether and how genes are expressed. In fact, scientists have discovered that early experiences can determine how genes are turned on and off and even whether some are expressed at all. Thus, the old ideas that genes are “set in stone” or that they alone determine development have been disproven. Nature vs. Nurture is no longer a debate—it’s nearly always both!

More Information on Epigenetics Deep Dive: Gene-Environment Interaction Learn more about the physical and chemical processes that take place as part of the creation of the epigenome. Working Paper 10: Early Experiences Can Alter Gene Expression and Affect Long-Term Development This in-depth working paper explains how genes and the environment interact, and gives recommendations for ways that caregivers and policymakers can effectively respond to the science.

During development, the DNA that makes up our genes accumulates chemical marks that determine how much or little of the genes is expressed. This collection of chemical marks is known as the “ epigenome .” The different experiences children have rearrange those chemical marks. This explains why genetically identical twins can exhibit different behaviors, skills, health, and achievement.

Correcting Popular Misrepresentations of Science

Until recently, the influences of genes were thought to be set, and the effects of children’s experiences and environments on brain architecture and long-term physical and mental health outcomes remained a mystery. That lack of understanding led to several misleading conclusions about the degree to which negative and positive environmental factors and experiences can affect the developing fetus and young child. The following misconceptions are particularly important to set straight.

Contrary to popular belief, the genes inherited from one’s parents do not set a child’s future development in stone. Variations in DNA sequences between individuals certainly influence the way in which genes are expressed and how the proteins encoded by those genes will function. But that is only part of the story—the environment in which one develops , before and soon after birth, provides powerful experiences that chemically modify certain genes which, in turn, define how much and when they are expressed. Thus, while genetic factors exert potent influences, environmental factors have the ability to alter the genes that were inherited.
Although frequently misunderstood, adverse fetal and early childhood experiences can—and do—lead to physical and chemical changes in the brain that can last a lifetime. Injurious experiences , such as malnutrition, exposure to chemical toxins or drugs, and toxic stress before birth or in early childhood are not “forgotten,” but rather are built into the architecture of the developing brain through the epigenome. The “biological memories” associated with these epigenetic changes can affect multiple organ systems and increase the risk not only for poor physical and mental health outcomes but also for impairments in future learning capacity and behavior.
Despite some marketing claims to the contrary, the ability of so-called enrichment programs to enhance otherwise healthy brain development is not known. While parents and policymakers might hope that playing Mozart recordings to newborns will produce epigenetic changes that enhance cognitive development, there is absolutely no scientific evidence that such exposure will shape the epigenome or enhance brain function. What research has shown is that specific epigenetic modifications do occur in brain cells as cognitive skills like learning and memory develop, and that repeated activation of brain circuits dedicated to learning and memory through interaction with the environment, such as reciprocal “ serve and return ” interaction with adults, facilitates these positive epigenetic modifications. We also know that sound maternal and fetal nutrition , combined with positive social-emotional support of children through their family and community environments, will reduce the likelihood of negative epigenetic modifications that increase the risk of later physical and mental health impairments.

The epigenome can be affected by positive experiences, such as supportive relationships and opportunities for learning, or negative influences, such as environmental toxins or stressful life circumstances, which leave a unique epigenetic “signature” on the genes. These signatures can be temporary or permanent and both types affect how easily the genes are switched on or off. Recent research demonstrates that there may be ways to reverse certain negative changes and restore healthy functioning, but that takes a lot more effort, may not be successful at changing all aspects of the signatures, and is costly. Thus, the very best strategy is to support responsive relationships and reduce stress to build strong brains from the beginning, helping children grow up to be healthy, productive members of society.

For more information: Early Experiences Can Alter Gene Expression and Affect Long-Term Development: Working Paper No. 10 .

Full Text of the Graphic

“Epigenetics” is an emerging area of scientific research that shows how environmental influences—children’s experiences—actually affect the expression of their genes.

This means the old idea that genes are “set in stone” has been disproven. Nature vs. Nurture is no longer a debate. It’s nearly always both!

During development, the DNA that makes up our genes accumulates chemical marks that determine how much or little of the genes is expressed. This collection of chemical marks is known as the “epigenome.” The different experiences children have rearrange those chemical marks. This explains why genetically identical twins can exhibit different behaviors, skills, health, and achievement.

Epigenetics explains how early experiences can have lifelong impacts.

The genes children inherit from their biological parents provide information that guides their development. For example, how tall they could eventually become or the kind of temperament they could have.

When experiences during development rearrange the epigenetic marks that govern gene expression, they can change whether and how genes release the information they carry.

Thus, the epigenome can be affected by positive experiences, such as supportive relationships and opportunities for learning, or negative influences, such as environmental toxins or stressful life circumstances, which leave a unique epigenetic “signature” on the genes. These signatures can be temporary or permanent and both types affect how easily the genes are switched on or off. Recent research demonstrates that there may be ways to reverse certain negative changes and restore healthy functioning. But the very best strategy is to support responsive relationships and reduce stress to build strong brains from the beginning.

Young brains are particularly sensitive to epigenetic changes.

Experiences very early in life, when the brain is developing most rapidly, cause epigenetic adaptations that influence whether, when, and how genes release their instructions for building future capacity for health, skills, and resilience. That’s why it’s crucial to provide supportive and nurturing experiences for young children in the earliest years.

Services such as high-quality health care for all pregnant women, infants, and toddlers, as well as support for new parents and caregivers can—quite literally— affect the chemistry around children’s genes. Supportive relationships and rich learning experiences generate positive epigenetic signatures that activate genetic potential.

From Neurons to Neighborhoods: The Science of Early Childhood Development.

Hardcopy Version at National Academies Press

2 Rethinking Nature and Nurture

As developmental psychologists stand at the threshold of a new era in understanding the biological bases for human growth and continue to address fundamental questions about parenting influences, it is time for a new appreciation of the coactivity of nature and nurture in development. Beginning at the moment of conception, hereditary potential unfolds in concert with the environment. The dynamic interplay between gene action and environmental processes continues throughout life. Although their influences are so often distinguished in ancient philosophy and modern science, the inseparability of nature and nurture has profound implications for how we study and understand human development. 1 In this chapter, we trace these implications drawing first on the literature on developmental behavioral genetics, then undertaking a discussion of molecular genetics. We close with a brief discussion of brain development, foreshadowing the focused attention that is given to this topic in Chapter 8 .

Nature and nurture are partners in how developing people interact with the surrounding environment. Nature and nurture are partners also in the transactions between the gene 2 and the variety of internal environments that surround it within the body (Greenough, 1991; Greenough and Black, 1992). The environment of the cell influences which of the tens of thousands of genes are expressed to affect cell characteristics. Hormones and growth factors in the cell can turn some genes on and turn others off. These substances can arise from the nucleus of the cell, its cytoplasm, or the surrounding cells or organs. The substances that influence gene expression arise also from the functioning of other genes within the cell (so-called regulator genes) and the products of earlier protein synthesis.

It is impossible to think of gene expression apart from the multiple environments in which it occurs. It is impossible to think of the manifestation of hereditary potential independently of the hierarchy of environments that shape its appearance. It is impossible to think of an organism that interacts with the environment without considering the genotypical uniqueness of that individual. It is impossible, in short, to consider nature apart from nurture.

Why, then, are these two forces of human development so persistently differentiated in efforts to understand human development? From ancient Platonic and Confucian philosophy to the present, the dichotomy between inherited capabilities and environmental incentives and pressures has guided human self-understanding in Western and Eastern thought. All contemporary scientists acknowledge the interaction of heredity and environment (see Elman et al., 1996, for a recent and sophisticated version of the interactionist view). Yet an emphasis on whether hereditary constraints or environmental incentives are the preeminent influence in human development can still be observed not only in scholarship in psychology but also, more significantly, in public discourse concerning the importance of parenting and early education, and in policy debates about early intervention programs, family support, delinquency and criminality, and other issues of child and family policy.

It is time to reconceptualize nature and nurture in a way that emphasizes their inseparability and complementarity, not their distinctiveness: it is not nature versus nurture, it is rather nature through nurture. If gene expression is inconceivable apart from the environment, then it is useless and potentially misleading to try to finely distinguish the relative importance of nature and nurture in the course of human development. Nature is inseparable from nurture, and the two should be understood in tandem. Moreover, by contrast with a traditional view that heredity imposes limitations and environments induce change in developmental pathways, research in developmental psychobiology shows that the coactivity of nature and nurture accounts for both stability and malleability in growth. This view is, indeed, one important way of integrating the science of early childhood development, and it is also reflected in recent scientific advances in some of the research fields that are currently generating greatest interest among developmental scientists: developmental behavioral genetics, molecular genetics, and brain development.

DEVELOPMENTAL BEHAVIORAL GENETICS

In animal species, the importance of genetic influences on behavior can often be studied directly through selective breeding research. In humans, less intrusive procedures are necessary, and for the past several decades developmental behavioral genetics has provided a powerful means of understanding the strength of heritable influences on individual differences in human development, and the environmental contexts in which they are expressed (see Lemery and Goldsmith, 1999; Plomin et al., 1997a; and Rutter et al., 1999a, for overviews of this field). By taking advantage of naturally occurring variation in genotypes and environments, behavioral geneticists seek to partition behavioral variability into its genetic and environmental components and describe their interaction.

They have two primary research strategies for doing so. In adoption research, genetic contributions are estimated by comparing the characteristics of an adoptive child with those of the birth mother (to whom the child is genetically related, but they do not share an environment) and the adoptive mother (who shares the child's environment, but not genes). Sometimes biologically related and unrelated siblings are also studied. The second approach is twin research. Because identical (monozygotic) twins are genetically identical, comparing the similarity of their characteristics with those of fraternal (dyzygotic) twins, who on average share half their genes, is another way of estimating genetic contributions.

Twin and adoption research designs each have assumptions or limitations that can make the interpretation of findings difficult and sometimes controversial. In adoption research, for example, prenatal influences (e.g., teratogenic exposure) can also account for the resemblance of biological mothers to their offspring, and this can inflate estimates of genetic contributions. In addition, adoption designs assume that the selective placement by adoption agencies of children into the homes of parents who are like them (or their biological parents) does not occur. It is possible to estimate the potential biases introduced by selective placement or prenatal influences, but this is very difficult in most research designs. Twin studies also have certain assumptions: that identical twins do not share a more similar environment than do fraternal twins, and that the development of twin pairs is fairly representative of the growth of children in general. These assumptions, too, have been tested, with some researchers concluding that these assumptions are valid and others disagreeing.

Adoption and twin studies each provide means of estimating quantitatively the proportion of variance in human characteristics that is attributable to heredity and to the environment, and of examining how these influences interact in development. During the past decade, developmental behavioral genetics research has expanded considerably in sophistication and analytic methods, using variations on the basic adoption and twin research designs (sometimes combining these methods) and employing structural equations modeling and other quantitative model-fitting methods for estimating genetic and environmental contributions to behavioral variability. These efforts have yielded important new insights into the heritability of individual differences in cognitive abilities, extraversion, emotionality, self-control, and other characteristics and have shown how inherited propensities to childhood disorders like autism, schizophrenia, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and antisocial behavior need to be considered by practitioners (see reviews by Plomin et al., 1997b and Rutter et al., 1999b).

Even more important is how this research contributes to an appreciation of how nature and nurture influence development in concert. A recent study of the development of antisocial behavior in children by Ge, Conger, Cadoret, Neiderhiser, Yates, Troughton, and Stewart (1996) is exemplary. Using an adoption design, these researchers found that when biological parents had substance abuse problems or antisocial personality disorder, their adopted children were much more likely to be hostile and antisocial than were adoptees from untroubled biological parents. Children's inherited antisocial tendency may have been manifested as difficult temperaments, problems with emotional self-control, impulsivity, or other difficulties. It was not surprising, therefore, that children's antisocial tendency was also associated with greater harshness and less nurturance and involvement by their adoptive mothers and fathers. This illustrates how children's inherited characteristics can evoke complementary responses from their parents (called “gene-environment correlation”).

Parents and children in these adoptive families influenced each other. Children with greater hostility tended to evoke more severe disciplinary responses, but harsh discipline also tended to exacerbate children's antisocial behavior. Parents' treatment of their adoptive offspring was influenced not only by the child's demandingness, but also by influences that were found to be independent of the child's inherited characteristics, such as the quality of the parents' marital relationship (see Figure 2-1 ). Thus the development of antisocial behavior in children was influenced by heritable characteristics—which altered the childrearing climate of the home—and by family influences that arose independently of the child. Other studies offer a similar portrayal of the coactivity of nature and nurture in human development (see Cadoret et al., 1996; O'Connor et al., 1998; Pike et al., 1996; and Reiss, 1997).

Model of hereditary and environmental influences on children's antisocial behaviors. SOURCE: Adapted from Ge et al. (1996).

These studies have important practical implications. Since parenting and other environmental influences can moderate the development of inherited tendencies in children, efforts to assist parents and other caregivers to sensitively read a child's behavioral tendencies and to create a supportive context for the child are worthwhile. A good fit between environmental conditions and the child's characteristics is reflected, for example, in family routines that provide many opportunities for rambunctious play for highly active children, or in child care settings with quiet niches for shy children to take a break from intensive peer activity. Thoughtfully designed caregiving routines can incorporate helpful buffers against the development of behavior problems among children with inherited vulnerabilities by providing opportunities for choice, relational warmth, structured routine, and other assists. Interventions to assist children at risk for other psychological disorders must also be individualized and emphasize the creation of a good fit between inherited vulnerabilities and behavioral demands, especially for children at greater heritable risk for problems like antisocial behavior, depression, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

Heritability

Twin and adoption research designs each permit behavioral geneticists to calculate a heritability statistic (h 2 ), which is an estimate of the proportion of variability in individual characteristics that is due to genetic differences. A heritability of .45, for example, indicates that 45 percent of the measured variability in a particular characteristic is due to genetic differences in the sample. There are comparable statistics that estimate environmental contributions to individual characteristics. Unfortunately, the distillation of many complex findings in behavioral genetics research to a single heritability figure has led to considerable misunderstanding of its meaning, especially when heritability estimates in the range of 30 to 70 percent are derived from studies of the genetic contributions to individual differences in intelligence, personality, and psychopathology. This misunderstanding derives, in part, from the traditional tendency to seek to distinguish the effects of nature and nurture in development. Thus it is important to appreciate several principles:

Heritability estimates are proportions based on environmental as well as genetic diversity. As a proportion, heritability reflects the extent of environmental influences as well as genetic influences. On one hand, if the environment could be made the same for everyone, heritability would inevitably be large because individual differences would then be due entirely to genetic factors (Lemery and Goldsmith, 1999; Plomin et al., 1997b). On the other hand, if people are studied in environments with diverse influences on them (varying significantly in socioeconomic status, ethnicity, or culture, for example), environmental contributions are magnified and heritability is lower. In short, a heritability estimate is uninterpretable without an appreciation of the extent of the environmental variability that also influences behavior in a particular sample.
Heritability estimates are sample- and context-specific. Heritability estimates reflect the environmental diversity of the sample under study, as well as their genetic diversity. Heritability estimates tend to be higher in samples with greater variability in relevant genetic influences and, conversely, lower in samples that are genetically homogeneous. Because research samples can vary in both their environmental and genetic diversity, a heritability estimate must always be understood as pertaining to observed differences between individuals in a particular sample at a particular time in a specific environment.
Heritability estimates change with development. A characteristic that is highly heritable at one age may not be particularly heritable at another (Lemery and Goldsmith, 1999). There are many reasons for this, including the changes that occur in gene activation with human growth, changes in environmental influences with increasing age, and changes in the nature of a person's engagement with the environment over time. The heritability of variations in general cognitive ability tends to increase with age, for example, as does the heritability of certain behavioral difficulties, such as those associated with antisocial behavior (Goldsmith and Gottesman, 1996; Plomin et al., 1997b). Heritability estimates are thus not consistent over the course of development.
Perhaps most important, heritability estimates describe what is in a particular population at a particular time, rather than what could be (Plomin et al., 1997b). Changes in either genetic influences or environmental influences are likely to alter the relative impact of heredity and environment on individual characteristics. Phenylketonuria is a highly heritable genetic disorder that leads to mental retardation. But with a combination of early detection and environmental interventions, retardation can be completely prevented (Birch et al., 1992). Thus contrary to the common belief that highly heritable characteristics are impervious to environmental modification, interventions that alter the relevant environment—such as educational opportunities, therapeutic support, improved nutrition—can significantly alter the development of that characteristic.

Moreover, it is important to remember that a heritability estimate describes influences on individual differences in a characteristic. Environmental influences can have a profound effect on that characteristic, however, even when heritability is high. During the past century, for example, there have been significant increases in average height owing to improved nutrition and medical care, even though individual differences in height are strongly influenced by heredity. This is because environmental changes (such as improved diet and medical care) have markedly increased average height from one generation to the next, while individual differences in height have remained highly heritable (i.e., smaller parents still have smaller children; see Figure 2-2 ). In a similar manner, other research (see Chapter 10 ) indicates that the socioeconomic status of adoptive homes has a powerful effect in elevating the IQ scores of adopted children, even though the heritability of individual differences in IQ remain high (see Maccoby, 1999; Schiff et al., 1982).

Illustration of the effect of environmental changes on group differences and genetic influence on individual differences over time. NOTE: Each line represents a family lineage, with P representing parents, and c representing off-spring.

High heritability therefore does not mean low malleability. Environmental interventions—which can include improved education, health care, nutrition, and caregiving—can significantly improve developmental outcomes for children, even though individual differences in those outcomes may be strongly influenced by genetic processes. Heritability does not imply constraints on change. It is instead more relevant to appreciating how developmental outcomes can be changed. In particular, heritability may be relevant to considering the kinds of interventions that might be most effective in relation to the genetically based characteristics of children.

Some developmental behavioral genetics researchers are dissatisfied, however, with the heritability estimate because it provides a quantitative but frequently misunderstood index of genetic influence that distracts attention from the ways that behavioral genetics research can contribute to a better understanding of risk and protective factors in development (e.g., Rutter, 1997; Rutter et al., 1999a; Wahlsten, 1990; Wahlsten and Gottlieb, 1997). An authoritative review of this field noted (Rutter, 1997:391):

It has gradually come to be accepted that the precise quantification of heritability has little value because it provides no unambiguous implications for theory, policy, or practice. . . . There is little to be gained by merely quantifying the relative importance of the contributions of genetic and environmental influences because any estimates will be specific to the population studied and will be subject to change if environmental circumstances alter.

Shared and Nonshared Environmental Effects

Research in developmental behavioral genetics has also elucidated features of environmental influence on individual differences. In particular, researchers have helpfully distinguished between shared and nonshared environmental influences. Shared environmental influences are those that make individuals similar in their common environment. Nonshared environmental influences are those that distinguish among individuals within the same environment. Within a family, for example, shared environmental influences make siblings alike independent of their genetic similarity, while nonshared environmental influences make siblings different independent of genetic factors. For instance, parental divorce is a source of shared environmental influence if siblings within the family are affected similarly by this event (e.g., because of moving to a new neighborhood, loss of contact with one parent). Parental divorce can also be a source of nonshared environmental influence if siblings are affected differently by the same event (e.g., older and younger children may interpret their parents' divorce differently). This example illustrates how the terms “shared” and “nonshared” refer not to events or people, but to the effects they have on different children within the family.

Both shared and nonshared environmental influences can be estimated from adoption and twin research designs, although in different ways and with different assumptions. Within each design, however, shared and nonshared environmental effects are inferred from the resemblances among genetically related family members and are rarely observed directly or experimentally manipulated. This has caused some scholars to criticize how shared and nonshared environmental influences are estimated (see, e.g., Baumrind, 1993; Rutter et al., 1999a) and to caution that direct measurement is necessary before firm conclusions can be drawn about shared and nonshared influences (e.g., Plomin et al., 1997b).

Like heritability estimates, the difference between shared and nonshared environmental influences is often misunderstood. Some studies have shown, for example, that within families the most important environmental influences are nonshared, making siblings different from each other (Plomin and Daniels, 1987; Rowe, 1994). Some commentators have interpreted this to mean that conventional portrayals of parenting influences (such as the view that parents who use reasoning and gentle sanctions raise responsible children, or that parents who read frequently inspire their offspring to do so) are no longer valid because the important parental influences are those that make siblings different rather than alike in their characteristics (e.g., Rowe, 1994; Scarr, 1992; see also Harris, 1995, 1998). But parenting influences have long been understood by developmental scientists as sources of differences between siblings for many reasons (Collins et al., 2000; Maccoby, 1999). Parents develop unique and special relationships with each of their offspring, their childrearing efforts are experienced differently by siblings because of each child's distinctive characteristics (e.g., temperament, personality, gender, age), and good parents take these characteristics into account in adapting their general childrearing practices to their specific encounters with each child (Grusec and Goodnow, 1994). Indeed, even when parents use the same child-rearing practices with different children, they evoke different reactions because of each child's temperament, age, and other characteristics. These influences contribute to why, as every parent knows, siblings develop unique and distinctive characteristics, and parental practices help to account for these differences.

The distinction between shared and nonshared family influences is important to refining an understanding of how family processes affect children. Most importantly, it emphasizes that parental practices and family events are unlikely to have uniform effects on offspring because of how children experience, understand, and respond in individualized ways. But the distinction between shared and nonshared influences does not radically change current views of the importance of parental influences in the context of genetic individuality (see Box 2-1 ). Moreover, until findings about the nature of shared and nonshared family influences are based on observational and experimental studies, strong conclusions from developmental behavioral genetics research about how parents influence their children in shared or nonshared ways must remain tentative. Furthermore, current research indicates that it is extremely difficult to identify objective features of the environment that are “shared” or “nonshared” between siblings, and that shared and nonshared effects may depend, in part, on the hereditary characteristics of the child (Rutter, in press; Rutter et al., in press; Turkheimer and Waldron, 2000). This form of gene-environment interaction is discussed in the next section.

Understanding—and Misunderstanding—Parenting Influences. Most parents are concerned about doing the right things for their children. In recent years, however, they have had reason to question whether what they do really matters. In public (more...)

Like the focus on the heritability estimate, a strong emphasis on the relative influence of shared and nonshared family influences risks missing the important conclusion of developmental behavioral genetics research: specifically, that the action is in the interaction between heredity and environment. The manner in which the family environment accommodates to and modifies a child's heritable characteristics shapes the development of those characteristics in a family environment that is also evolving over time.

MOLECULAR GENETICS

Developmental behavioral genetics examines nature and nurture indirectly through the behavioral characteristics of genetically related and unrelated individuals. But it would be far more informative if researchers could identify specific, individual genes associated with distinctive human characteristics, examining their behavioral consequences in concert with particular environmental influences. That goal is slowly being realized because of advances in molecular genetics, a relatively new science that is based on significant technological advances in mapping the human genome and conceptual advances in studying the connections between genes and behavior.

Molecular genetics begins with the scientifically complex task of identifying DNA markers for specific genes and connecting genes and behavior through relative linkage studies and association strategies (for overviews of these procedures, consult Plomin et al., 1997a; Plomin and Rutter, 1998; Rutter et al., 1999a). There have been significant advances in molecular genetics during the past decade owing to advances in mapping the human genome and the development of less intrusive and expensive technologies for extracting and genotyping DNA from human biological samples. There is every reason for confidence that further advances in genetic mapping and in linkage and association studies will soon provide a strong foundation for the integration of molecular genetics into the behavioral research of psychologists.

For developmental psychologists of the future, therefore, molecular genetics offers the remarkable possibility of identifying the genetic markers associated with specific behavioral propensities in children and examining the manifestations of these propensities in relation to environmental factors, developmental changes, and the influence of other genes. Molecular genetics will also enable researchers to develop more powerful analytic methods and theoretical models for understanding the influence of heredity on behavioral development. Perhaps most important, molecular genetics will help developmental psychopathologists understand the genetic bases for childhood disorders, which will include a better appreciation of the continuities between typical variability in personality functioning and atypical deviation, improved detection of continuities in psychopathological risk across developmental transitions, and the potential of reconceptualizing clinical syndromes according to their genetic bases (Plomin and Rutter, 1998). There have already been promising discoveries, such as advances toward the identification of a susceptibility gene for autism and autistic-like characteristics, and research findings suggesting inherited propensities to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder through genes regulating neurotransmitter receptors (Rutter et al., 1999b). Furthermore, impending discoveries from molecular genetics studies will provide added evidence that: (a) hereditary influences are polygenic and multifactorial, involving the impact of multiple genes coacting with environmental influences to increase the likelihood of certain behavioral propensities; (b) genetic bases for developmental disorders reflect, in most cases, extreme variations on a continuum that includes normal variants of the same characteristics; and (c) genetic effects on behavior are probabilistic (rather than predetermined) because they increase the likelihood that certain characteristics will occur, but do not directly cause them (Plomin and Rutter, 1998).

Consistent with the more complex portrayal of nature and nurture emerging from molecular genetics is a new appreciation of the importance of gene-environment interaction. Gene-environment interaction indicates that genetic susceptibility may increase an individual's sensitivity to specific environmental influences. Such an interaction is especially important in understanding hereditary vulnerability to environmental stresses that might lead to psychopathology. Gene-environment interaction is demonstrated when researchers find, for example, that there is small to moderate risk for antisocial behavior in individuals who have either a genetic susceptibility for this disorder or grow up in a stressful environment, but for individuals with both genetic and environmental risk for antisocial behavior, the probability of pathology is sharply higher (Cadoret et al., 1995a, 1995b, 1996; Rutter et al., 1999b).

Comparative studies with animals can specify these gene-environment interactions more precisely. In one investigation, for example, rhesus monkeys with a specific genetic vulnerability affecting neuroendocrine functioning who grew up under adverse (peer-rearing) conditions consumed more alcohol in experimental conditions (Campbell et al., 1986a) than did monkeys without this vulnerability. However, monkeys raised under advantageous (mother-reared) conditions with the same genetic vulnerability consumed less alcohol than those without it, suggesting that a genetic risk factor under adversity was a protective factor in advantaged conditions. Other forms of gene-environment interaction were apparent with respect to dominance-related assertive behavior in this sample, showing that positive early rearing significantly buffered the detrimental social impact of specific genetic vulnerability in young rhesus monkeys (Bennett et al., 1998; Suomi, 2000). These studies underscore how significantly developmental outcomes depend on the interaction of heredity and environment, rather than the direct effects of either. They also indicate how the behavioral effects of genetic vulnerability can be altered in the context of positive or negative early rearing.

As this research shows, the identification of gene-environment interaction is important not only to understanding developmental psychopathology but also to its prevention, since it indicates how individuals with a genetic propensity to the development of a disorder may be buffered from its emergence if their environments are made more protective. A child with an inherited vulnerability to antisocial personality is much less likely to develop this disorder in supportive, nonstressful family, school, and community environments.

Typical research designs in developmental behavioral genetics lack power to detect these interactions and, in fact, they are often not measured at all (Lemery and Goldsmith, 1999), but molecular genetics research has the potential for identifying gene-environment interactions, as the susceptibility genes to personality characteristics become identified. Behavioral studies suggest the existence of many such gene-environment interactions, such as the heightened responsiveness of temperamentally fearful, inhibited young children to maternal discipline efforts (Kochanska, 1993, 1995, 1997), the stronger impact of mother-infant synchrony on the growth of self-control of temperamentally difficult children (Feldman et al., 1999), and other illustrations of what Belsky (1997) describes as children's differential susceptibility to rearing influences. As the field of molecular genetics matures, in other words, it will become possible to understand how the hereditary characteristics of children influence their responsiveness to parental incentives, their susceptibility to environmental stresses and demands, and their vulnerability (in concert with environmental risk) to psychopathology.

Psychology is thus at the dawn of a new era. Not only will molecular genetics enable scientists in the near future to better understand how the interaction of multiple genes influences behavioral characteristics, but it will also illuminate how gene action can augment vulnerability or resistance to environmental demands. This view of the multifactorial origins of behavior, reflected especially in gene-environment interaction, is another reflection of the essential integration of nature and nurture in behavioral development.

BRAIN DEVELOPMENT

Brain development also reflects the coaction of nature and nurture. The traditional view of early brain development describes a process under tight genetic control, and to a great extent this portrayal is true. Important regulatory genes, such as the “homeobox” genes discovered in the fruit fly, control the timing of the expression of other genes and can direct the development of an entire segment of the insect's anatomy, such as an eye or a limb. Comparable genes have been shown to exist in mammals, including humans, which play similarly significant developmental roles. There is no question that there are genetically driven developmental processes that guide the basic organization of the body and the brain, and these processes influence the growth of single cells and entire systems.

But as the opening paragraphs of this chapter illustrate, gene expression always occurs within the context of the intracellular and extracellular environments within the body, and in the context of experience in the outside environment. These multilevel environmental influences are necessary to coordinate the complex behavioral and developmental processes that are influenced by heredity, as well as to provide catalysts to gene expression that enable behavior to become fine-tuned to the external settings in which the organism lives. When songbirds first hear their species' song, or when patterned light first hits the retina of the human eye, these experiences provoke a cascade of gene expression that commits neural development to certain growth patterns rather than others. This is because the genetically guided processes of neural development are designed to capture experience and to incorporate the effects of experience into the developing architecture of the nervous system. This is especially true of human brain development.

The purpose of a brain is to store, use, and create information. The amount, complexity, and contingency of the information required for humans is far greater than that of the fruit fly, and this is one reason why the strong regulatory influence of homeobox genes in the fruit fly provides a poor model for human brain development. A limited amount of information is required to enable a fruit fly to function successfully for a short life span, and much of the necessary information can be encoded genetically. By contrast, humans acquire information primarily from experience, including their systems for thinking, feeling, and communicating. Most of human knowledge cannot be anticipated in a species-typical genome (e.g., variations in culture, language, and technology), and thus brain development depends on genetically based avenues for incorporating experience into the developing brain. This developmental integration of nature and nurture enables humans to grow and adapt as a species in a manner unequalled by any other (fruit flies don't have books, movies, radio, or television from which to learn, and the only webs available to them are dangerous ones), permitting unparalleled flexibility in behavior and development. The incorporation of experience into the genetically driven plan for human brain development helps to account for many of the unique qualities of the species.

Developmental neurobiologists have begun to understand how experience becomes integrated into the developing architecture of the human brain (see Chapter 8 for further details). First, developmental processes of brain growth are based on the expectation that certain experiences will occur that will organize and structure essential behavioral systems. These developmental processes have been called “experience-expectant” because normal brain growth expects and relies on these forms of environmental exposure (Greenough and Black, 1992). Not surprisingly, the experiences that are incorporated into normative brain development are ubiquitous in early life: exposure to patterned light and auditory stimulation are two of the best studied, and there are likely to be others (such as acquiring physical coordination in gravity). Deprivation of these essential forms of environmental exposure can cause life-long detriments in behavioral functioning.

Second, throughout life, new experiences also help to trigger new brain growth and refine existing brain structures. This is, in fact, how learning, memories, and knowledge are acquired and retained throughout the life course. These developmental processes are called “experience-dependent” because they rely not on species-typical environmental exposures but instead on the idiosyncratic and sometimes unique life experiences that contribute to individual differences in brain growth (Greenough and Black, 1992). For example, there is evidence that brain functioning is changed in subtle ways if a person is a stringed instrument musician, which can alter neural areas governing the finger movements of each hand (Elbert et al., 1995). Experience-dependent brain development is thus a source of the human brain's special adaptability and lifelong plasticity (Nelson, 1999). Each person has a unique history of experience-dependent influences on brain growth.

Brain development therefore depends on an intimate integration of nature and nurture throughout the life course. Indeed, processes of brain development that were traditionally regarded as genetically hard-wired (such as visual capability) have now been discovered to depend on an exquisitely coordinated dance between experiential catalysts and the hereditary design for brain growth. Both nature and nurture are essential to the development of a brain of uniquely human capacities and potential. These developmental processes are discussed in further detail in Chapter 8 .

The integration of nature and nurture, revealed in the findings of behavioral genetics, molecular genetics, and brain development research, should significantly influence how human development is understood. Contrary to the traditional view that heredity imposes constraints and environments induce change in developmental pathways, research in developmental psychobiology shows that nature and nurture are each sources of stability and malleability in human growth. More importantly, their coaction provides the impetus for development, whether it is viewed from the perspective of “experience-expectant” brain growth or the interplay between of genes and environments. The developmental action is in the interaction of nature and nurture.

Although work in developmental psychobiology has contributed most significantly to a revised view of hereditary influences, it also causes us to regard the environment in a different way. Most importantly, we now appreciate that how children respond to environmental incentives is based, in part, on hereditary predispositions (gene-environment interaction), that the social environment adapts itself to a child's inherited characteristics (O'Connor et al., 1998), and that one of the most important ways of understanding environmental influences is how children are individually affected (the nonshared environment). Environmental influences are not just externally “out there”: a child's responses to the family, the neighborhood, and the culture hinge significantly on genetically based ways of feeling, interpreting, and responding to environmental events. For parents and practitioners, this underscores the importance of taking into account each child's individuality to create conditions of care that accord with the child's inherited attributes and which, for some children, provide buffers to modify the expression of heritable vulnerabilities. Indeed, the importance of the goodness of fit between the environment and heritable characteristics also shows why human relationships are so profoundly important in early development, since human partners who know a child well are the environmental influences that can most easily accommodate helpfully to a child's individuality.

The inextricable transaction between biology and experience also contributes to a better understanding of developmental disorders and the effects of early intervention. Hereditary vulnerabilities establish probabilistic, not deterministic, developmental pathways that evolve in concert with the experiential stressors, or buffers, in the family, the neighborhood, and the school. That is why early experiences of abuse, neglect, poverty, and family violence are of such concern. They are likely to enlist the genetic vulnerabilities of some children into a downward spiral of progressive dysfunction. By contrast, when children grow up in more supportive contexts, the hereditary vulnerabilities that some children experience may never be manifested in problematic behavior. Understanding the coaction of nature and nurture thus contributes to early prevention.

Early intervention, especially when it is well tailored to a child's individual characteristics, can be helpful in shifting the odds toward more optimal pathways of later growth, but because the nature-nurture interaction is dynamic over time, there are no guarantees. Each new developmental stage provokes new forms of gene-environment transactions that may alter, or maintain, previous pathways. This means that giving young children a good early start increases but does not guarantee later success, and that children who begin life at a disadvantage are not doomed to enduring difficulty. The interaction of nature and nurture underscores the importance of creating current conditions of care that respect inherited characteristics, recognizing that nature-nurture is a source of continuing potential change across the life course.

Finally, research in developmental psychobiology emphasizes the continuity that exists between typical and atypical variability in human characteristics. One of the important emerging insights of molecular genetics is that many psychological difficulties arise not from single-gene mutations, but instead from extreme variations on a biological continuum that includes normal variants of the same characteristics. There is, in other words, a very broad range of individual differences in which the boundaries between the normative and the atypical are matters of degree rather than quality. This means that, in studying the growth of typical children, researchers gain insight into the developmental dynamics of atypicality and that, conversely, efforts to understand the challenges of children with developmental disorders yield insights into normative growth.

These conclusions are consistent with the broader themes of this report and of the findings of research on early childhood development. Taken together, they indicate that despite a long historical tradition of dissociating the effects of nature and nurture on human character and development, their influences are, in the end, indissociable.

Although this chapter focuses primarily on genetic influences that contribute to individual differences among children, it is essential to remember that genetic influences also account for the characteristics that humans share as a species, such as upright walking and language. Indeed, the inseparability of nature and nurture is also reflected in the fact that both nature and nurture are required for children to acquire these and other attributes that all humans share.

Within the nucleus of every cell are chromosomes containing genes, which are segments of DNA. Genes direct the synthesis of proteins that are incorporated into the structure of the cell, regulate its biochemistry, and guide other genetic activity. Genes ultimately affect physical and behavioral characteristics through these influences on the cells within every living being. Although each cell contains genes that are identical to the genes of every other cell, not all genes function in the same way, and this accounts for why cells function differently from one another. Some genes act continuously, for example, while other genes in the same cells turn on temporarily, and others are never expressed. As one colorful description notes, if each gene is represented as a light bulb that is either activated or not, we would see a distinct twinkling of lights within each cell during its normal functioning (Leger, 1992). This is why organisms can have trillions of cells, all of which have the same DNA but many different forms and functions.

Cite this Page National Research Council (US) and Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Integrating the Science of Early Childhood Development; Shonkoff JP, Phillips DA, editors. From Neurons to Neighborhoods: The Science of Early Childhood Development. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2000. 2, Rethinking Nature and Nurture.
PDF version of this title (5.0M)

In this Page

Recent activity.

Rethinking Nature and Nurture - From Neurons to Neighborhoods Rethinking Nature and Nurture - From Neurons to Neighborhoods

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

Book your antenatal a course
Volunteer with us

How do nature and nurture affect my child’s development?

Read time 5 minutes

Are we fully responsible for our child’s personality and does what we do have much effect on it? Here Professor Angelica Ronald discusses evidence on nature versus nurture...

Blank slate or all in the genes?

In the past, children were viewed as ‘blank slates’ (Pinker, 2016) . The common view was that parents could 'mould' their child’s development through their actions. And this idea actually put a lot of pressure on parents. It suggested that any decision, whether good or bad, small or large, would shape their child.

We now know that children are not blank slates to be moulded by us. Their genetic makeup influences all aspects of their behaviour and personality (Knopik et al, 2017) . Starting from when they were first conceived, how a child develops and behaves is partly influenced by the genes they inherit.

On the other hand, genes are not completely in control of a child’s destiny – no behavioural or personality traits are 100% heritable (Polderman et al, 2015) . Genes give children a tendency towards certain ways of being, such as their sleeping behaviour or personality. But they also need an environment in which these genetic influences can play a role.

Both nature and nurture

Parenting does play an important role, just not in the way we originally believed. Nature and nurture both play a role. How we act as parents as well as our child’s genes are strongly intertwined (Duncan, 2014) .

Each child responds to parenting in different ways . We know that children bring out different responses from their caregivers, partly as a result of their genetic makeup. This is called evocative gene-environment correlation (Plomin and Bergeman, 1991) .

Children will also seek out environments that suit their genetic background. This process is known as active gene–environment correlation (Plomin and Bergeman, 1991) .

Why does it matter?

Information on how nature and nurture intertwine to influence children’s development can support families in several ways. As parents, it’s easy to take credit or to blame ourselves for every aspect of our children’s behaviour. Yet we cannot completely control a child’s development because part of it is influenced by the genes in their cells (Feero et al, 2010) . Realising this can help put our role as parents into perspective and respect our child as an individual.

The difference between siblings

Understanding the joint roles of nature and nurture also helps us to understand why siblings are sometimes very different from one another (Plomin and Daniels, 2011) . Siblings with the same mum and dad only share half of the genetic influences affecting their development. As such, siblings have a partly different genetic makeup, and this is one reason for sibling differences.

Siblings sometimes evoke different reactions from their parents. A parenting style might work for one child but not for another. Siblings might choose different environments to one another and show different tastes in toys, people, eating and napping habits, despite being raised by the same people.

Nature and nurture also help us understand why things run in families. This could be a behaviour like being very active, or a sleep pattern like needing less or more sleep than others. Research on genetic influences in infancy is still at an earlier stage than similar research on older age groups though (Papageorgiou and Ronald, 2017) .

If genes play a role, can I still help my child?

Yes, you can. Many things are partly down to our genes but this doesn't mean they can’t be supported or addressed through our environment. For example, sleep problems that persist into childhood are partly inherited (Barclay and Gregory, 2013) . Yet we know that changing something in our child’s environment, such as routine and using black-out blinds at night, can help to resolve these problems (Semple, 2008) .

It’s hard to pin down exactly how much of your child’s personality is down to nature and how much is nurture. We do know it’s a bit of both. The good news is you still play an important part in your child's development but take some pressure off yourself too. Not everything you do (or don't) will necessarily influence them or change who they are.

Professor Angelica Ronald, Ph.D., is the Director at Genes Environment Lifespan (GEL) laboratory, Centre for Brain and Cognitive Development (CBCD) at the Department of Psychological Sciences at Birkbeck, University of London.

This page was last reviewed in August 2018.

Further information

Our support line offers practical and emotional support with feeding your baby and general enquiries for parents, members and volunteers: 0300 330 0700.

You might find attending one of our NCT New Baby groups helpful as they give you the opportunity to explore different approaches to important parenting issues with a qualified group leader and other new parents in your area.

Make friends with other parents-to-be and new parents in your local area for support and friendship by seeing what NCT activities are happening nearby.

Barclay NL, Gregory AM. (2013) Quantitative genetic research on sleep: a review of normal sleep, sleep disturbances and associated emotional, behavioural, and health-related difficulties. Sleep Med Rev, 17(1):29-40. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22560641 [Accessed 31st August 2018].

Duncan L. (2014) Gene-environment interactions (GxE) in Behavioral Genetics. In: S. H. Rhee & A. Ronald (Eds.), Behavior Genetics of Psychopathology: 253-281. New York: Springer.

Feero WG, Guttmacher AE, Collins FS. (2010) Genomic medicine--an updated primer. N Engl J Med. 362(21):2001-2011. Available at: https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMra0907175 [Accessed 31st August 2018].

Knopik VS, Neiderhiser JM, DeFries JC, Plomin R. (2017) Behavioral Genetics. New York: Worth.

Papageorgiou KA, Ronald A. (2017) The Genetic Basis of Psychological Traits in Infancy: Implications for Understanding the Causes of Developmental Psychopathology. In D. M. Williams & L. C. Centifanti (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of Developmental Psychopathology (pp. 235-258). London: Wiley-Blackwell.

Pinker S. (2016) The Blank Slate. New York, NY: Viking.

Plomin R, Bergeman CS. (1991) The nature of nurture: Genetic influence on "environmental" measures. Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 14(3):373-427. Available at: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/article/nature-of-nurture-genetic-influence-on-environmental-measures/B84A71976517B468CC84B858063F3BF1 [Accessed 31st August 2018].

Plomin R, Daniels D. (2011) Why are children in the same family so different from one another? Int J Epidemiol. 40(3):563-582. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3147063/ [Accessed 31st August 2018].

Polderman TJ, Benyamin B, de Leeuw CA, Sullivan PF, van Bochoven A, Visscher PM, Posthuma D. (2015) Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies. Nat Genet. 47(7):702-709. Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/ng.3285 [Accessed 31st August 2018].

Semple A. (2008) What influences baby-sleeping behaviour at night? Available at: https://www.nct.org.uk/sites/default/files/related_documents/Research%2… [Accessed 31st August 2018

Information you can trust from NCT

When it comes to content, our aim is simple: every parent should have access to information they can trust.

All of our articles have been thoroughly researched and are based on the latest evidence from reputable and robust sources. We create our articles with NCT antenatal teachers, postnatal leaders and breastfeeding counsellors, as well as academics and representatives from relevant organisations and charities.

Read more about our editorial review process .

Courses & workshops

In-person NCT New Baby course

NCT Introducing Solid Foods workshop

Baby & Child First Aid

/ ✓ % width

Posts:

Impact of nature and nurture on child development

Briabbott - / 1 Nov 29, 2014 #2 This paper is well developed and it is obvious that you have taken your time looking up information for the specific topic. The main idea of the paper is obvious that you are stated that nurture has a deeper impact on children that nature does. You make your opinion in this paper clear make sure you correct the changes in POV tat occur a few times throughout the paper. The paper flows well together as it goes from source to source and you can tell it has been thought out.

lesliepalik - / 1 Nov 29, 2014 #3 This is a very intriguing paper. A few areas of weakness are that your point of view changes here and there. also, A few errors occur in word usage, so basically it's minor errors that can be easily corrected. Also don't use contractions for college English papers! Overall this paper is well developed and the main purpose is evident and clear. Well done!

/ /

essay on impact of nature and nurture on child development

Nature vs. Nurture in Child Development: Examining the Roles of Genetics and Environment

April 24, 2023

Nature vs. Nurture in Children Development

When it comes to child development, there has long been a debate about whether nature or nurture plays a more significant role. Nature refers to the genetic and biological factors that contribute to a child’s development, while nurture refers to the environmental factors that shape a child’s experiences and behaviors.

Nature vs. nurture shapes child development. Genetics (nature) influences traits like eye color and personality. Environment (nurture) impacts behavior, cognitive growth, and parenting styles . Both factors interact intricately to define a child’s journey.

Child development is influenced by an interplay of genetics, environment, biology, and social interactions. These factors influence cognitive, emotional, and physical growth. Understanding this interplay helps parents support their child’s overall development effectively.

This article will explore more about the nature vs. nurture debate in child development and delve deeper into the role each factor plays.

The Nature vs. Nurture Debate

The nature vs. nurture debate has been a topic of discussion for decades, and while both factors play a role in child development, experts have long debated which one has a more significant impact. Some argue that nature plays a more critical role because genes determine physical traits, personality, and intelligence. Others argue that nurture plays a more significant role because the environment in which a child grows up can influence their behavior and personality.

Epigenetics: Bridging Nature and Nurture

What is epigenetics.

Epigenetics is like nature and nurture shaking hands. It’s about how our environment talks to our genes. Even if two people have the same genes, like identical twins, epigenetics can make them different in small ways.

Why Does It Matter?

Think of our genes as a book. Epigenetics doesn’t rewrite the book; it just adds notes in the margins. These notes come from our experiences, like diet or stress. So, while we can’t change our genes, our surroundings can influence how they work.

The Takeaway for Parents

Vertical Banner for Rise to shine Cultivate a brighter future because brilliance shouldn't wait. ad banner rise to shine

Parents, here’s the good news: you have some influence. A loving, positive environment can help guide how your child’s genes express themselves.

It’s not just about the genes they inherit but also about how their life shapes them.

a beautiful boy smiling with his father, nurture vs nature

The Role of Nature in Child Development

Research has shown that genetics play a significant role in intelligence, with studies finding that intelligence is 50-80% heritable.

(Plomin R, DeFries JC, Knopik VS, Neiderhiser, 2016)

While nurture plays an important role in shaping a child’s development, nature also has a significant impact. Genes play a role in determining a child’s physical characteristics, such as eye color, height, and bone structure. They also influence a child’s personality traits, such as introversion or extroversion, and can affect their cognitive development.

Additionally, some genetic disorders can impact a child’s development, such as Down syndrome or autism spectrum disorder.

The Role of Nurture in Child Development

Nurture also plays an essential role in shaping a child’s development. The environment in which a child grows up can influence their behavior, personality, and cognitive development. For example, studies have shown that children who grow up in poverty are more likely to experience developmental delays and have lower cognitive abilities than children who grow up in more affluent environments.

Parenting styles also play a significant role in shaping a child’s development. Authoritarian parenting, for example, has been linked to lower self-esteem and a higher likelihood of behavioral problems. In contrast, authoritative parenting has been linked to better academic achievement and higher self-esteem.

Nature vs. Nurture in Early Childhood Behavior

Aspect	Description	Examples
	Traits and behaviors primarily determined by genes.	- Babies' sleeping patterns are mostly genetic. - 60% of a baby's temperament is genetic. - Preferences for certain foods. - Activity level (active or sedentary).
	Traits and behaviors influenced by experiences and environment.	- Sunlight exposure can improve poor sleep patterns. - Bedtime routines can induce better sleep. - Swaddling, rocking, and swaying can soothe a crying baby.

Reference: Maryville University

Siblings and Twins: A Quick Dive into Nature vs. Nurture

Why are siblings so different.

Have you ever wondered why your kids, raised in the same home, can be so different? Let’s dive into the world of siblings and twins to understand this better.

Nature: It’s in the Genes!

Just like how every child has a unique fingerprint, they also have unique genes.
Even siblings only share about 50% of their genes.
This means each child can inherit different traits from mom and dad.
Think of genes like a recipe. Even with the same ingredients (genes from parents), you can end up with different dishes!

Nurture: The Role of Environment

Every child, even twins, has their own experiences.
A first-born might have had more one-on-one time, while a younger sibling might learn from watching older ones.
These experiences shape their personalities and behaviors.

Twins: A Special Case

Identical twins come from the same egg and share almost 100% of their genes.
Yet, they can still have differences in personality, likes, and dislikes.
This shows that environment (nurture) plays a big role, even when nature (genes) is almost the same.

Twin Study Illuminates Nature vs. Nurture

A recent twin study by UNSW and Neuroscience Research Australia (NeuRA) delves into the intricate interplay between genetics and environment in brain function. Using functional MRI scans, researchers examined 270 twins to determine how emotion and cognition are influenced by genetic and environmental factors.

The study found that some brain processes are partly genetic, while others are solely environmental. Intriguingly, shared genetic factors influenced the brain’s processing of both fear and happiness, as well as attention sustainability, offering insights into personalized mental health interventions.

Medicalxpress

Insights into Brain Function from Twin Research

The study highlights the importance of twin studies in understanding the nature vs. nurture debate. Identical and non-identical twins were recruited to analyze the genetic and environmental contributions to brain activity during emotional and cognitive tasks.

Findings revealed that certain brain networks are influenced by genetics, while others are shaped by environmental factors. This research paves the way for personalized interventions to enhance mental wellbeing by targeting specific brain functions influenced by life experiences and genetic predispositions.

The Interaction Between Nature and Nurture

While nature and nurture are often pitted against each other, they interact in complex ways to shape a child’s development. Genes can influence how a child responds to their environment, and the environment can affect how genes are expressed.

For example, research has shown that the quality of the caregiving a child receives can impact how certain genes are expressed. Children who receive high-quality caregiving, such as responsive and nurturing parenting, are more likely to have better cognitive and socio-emotional outcomes than children who receive low-quality caregiving.

The Role of Nature and Nurture in Child Growth

Aspect	Nature (Genetics)	Nurture (Environment)
	Brain's basic structure at birth.	Early experiences shape neural connections.
	Genetic predispositions.	Quality of care and stimulation affects brain growth.
	Inborn ability to learn languages.	Exposure to multiple languages can enhance bilingualism.
	Genetic temperament (e.g., easy-going).	Caregiver's responsiveness shapes emotional security.
	Inherited mood tendencies.	Positive/negative experiences influence emotional well-being.
	Natural sensory sensitivities.	Exposure to varied sensory experiences enhances learning.
	Genetic height and build.	Nutrition, physical activity, and healthcare influence physical development.
	Genetic vulnerabilities (e.g., ADHD, ASD).	Environmental factors like stress, lack of care, or trauma can impact development.
	Inborn social tendencies.	Interactions with caregivers and peers shape social skills.

The Role of Interventions

When it comes to nurturing your child’s development, interventions can play a crucial role. Firstly, being aware of any genetic predispositions your child might have is beneficial, as it helps understand their natural tendencies better. Secondly, taking advantage of programs and guidance available, such as early childhood education, can be an excellent support for parents. These resources are designed to assist you in fostering the best possible environment for your child’s optimal development, complementing their natural traits and helping them flourish.

“Nature sets the stage; nurture writes the script.”

-World Humanitarian Movement – WOHM

Nature vs. Nurture in Child Development Examples with Infographics

Understanding the intricate balance between nature and nurture is crucial for fostering holistic child development. Genetics provide the foundation, shaping physical traits and personality tendencies, while the environment and family dynamics mold behavior, values, and cognitive growth.

The following infographic highlights key aspects of how both nature and nurture influence a child’s development.

What is The Impact of Nature and Nurture on Child Development

The interaction between nature and nurture, the impact of these two respective aspects on child development, goes really deep into the core of genetic and environmental influences. Nature affects physical traits , intelligence , personality , and susceptibility to certain conditions and diseases , which help provide a ground for development. Nurture includes parenting styles and early experiences that shape behavior , personality , cognitive growth , and emotional well-being .

Therefore, epigenetics reveals how, in potential, environmental factors may shape gene expression in a dynamic interplay between nature and nurture. Research on siblings and twins shows that it is still under the power of individual experiences to lead to unique developmental outcomes. Hence, nature and nurture would be interdependent, with genetics setting the blueprint and the environment determining the developmental journey.

In conclusion, the nature vs. nurture debate in child development is complex, with both factors playing a significant role in shaping a child’s development. While genetics play a role in determining physical traits and personality, the environment in which a child grows up can influence their behavior, personality, and cognitive development. Understanding the interaction between nature and nurture is essential to promoting healthy child development.

FAQ: Nature Vs. Nurture

1. how do nature and nurture affect learning.

Nature, which refers to genetic factors, provides the inborn ability for children to learn languages and has natural sensory sensitivities. Nurture, on the other hand, emphasizes the importance of environmental factors. For instance, exposure to multiple languages can enhance bilingualism , and varied sensory experiences can boost sensory learning.

2. How does nature shape cognitive growth?

Nature plays a pivotal role in cognitive growth. For example, the brain’s basic structure is determined at birth, and there are genetic predispositions that influence cognitive development. Research has also shown that intelligence is 50-80% heritable.

3. Which has a greater impact, Nature or Nurture?

Both nature and nurture have significant impacts on child development. While genetics determine physical traits and aspects of personality, the environment in which a child grows can influence their behavior, personality, and cognitive development.

4. Can nurture overcome nature?

While nurture can significantly influence a child’s development, it cannot entirely override genetic factors. However, a positive environment can guide how a child’s genes express themselves.

5. Can I support my child despite genetics?

Absolutely. Parents have a considerable influence on their child’s development. A loving, positive environment can help guide how your child’s genes express themselves. Being aware of any genetic predispositions and taking advantage of available resources can assist parents in fostering the best environment for their child’s growth.

6. Is personality nature or nurture?

Personality is influenced by both nature and nurture. Genes play a role in determining personality traits, such as introversion or extroversion. However, the environment, including parenting styles and experiences, can also shape personality.

7. Is autism genetic or environmental?

Autism has genetic roots, but the environment can also influence its manifestation. While genetics can predispose someone to autism, environmental factors can either amplify or mitigate its effects.

8. What are the similarities between nature and nurture?

Nature and nurture are not mutually exclusive; they interact in complex ways to shape a child’s development. For instance, genes can influence how a child responds to their environment, and vice versa. Epigenetics is a prime example of this interaction, where the environment communicates with our genes, influencing how they work without changing the genetic code itself.

9. What is the most crucial aspect of nurture?

The most crucial aspect of nurture in shaping a child’s development is the parenting styles that parents adopt, coupled with the quality of early childhood education they receive.

10. Is Down syndrome a result of nature or nurture?

Down syndrome is primarily a result of nature. It arises from a genetic anomaly with an extra chromosome 21. While nurture (environmental) factors might influence the health and development of someone with Down syndrome, the condition is rooted in genetics.

Plomin R, DeFries JC, Knopik VS, Neiderhiser JM. Top 10 Replicated Findings From Behavioral Genetics.
Extension University of Missouri, Nature, Nurture and Early Brain Development
NeuRa – Markers of mental wellbeing and resilience

Nefise: Clinical Psychologist & Content Creator

Nefise is a rewarded content creator and honored master degree clinical psychologist, specializing in CBT and EMDR therapy. She is renowned for her work with children affected by natural disasters and autism.

Comment (1)

Urmi Makwana

Very detailed and very informative thread. Explained with great clarity. Appreciated with great insight.

Nature And Nurture Influence On Child Development Essay

Nature and Nurture Influences on Child Development Karla White ECE 205: Introduction to Child Development Instructor: Alesia Lane October 2, 2017 Nature and Nurture Influences on Child Development Describe the relationship between nature versus nurture. The nature vs. nature debate is the scientific, cultural, and philosophical debate about whether human culture, behavior, and personality are caused primarily by nature or nurture. Nature is often defined in this debate as genetic or hormone-based behaviors. Our genes determine the different traits that we have, such as eye color, hair, ear size, height and other traits. While nurture is most commonly defined as environment and experiences that we have. Although, nature and nurture plays a big role in child development, nurture seems to be a little bit more of an influence on child development than nature. I believe that children learn by experiences that they have. On one side (nature) of this debate; it says that intrinsic influence such as genetics plays a major …show more content…

Use at least two scholarly articles as well as the textbook to support your position. There are facts to prove that both nature and nurture take a huge role in how children develop and why they become what they are as adults. Based on the research it is known that there is no clear answer as to what is more influential than the other when it comes to nature versus nurture. This topic is still in debate due to the fact that there are so many supporting details to prove that both play a huge role in a child’s life. REFERENCES: : Nature versus nurture debate. By: García, Justin D., PhD, Salem Press Encyclopedia, January, 2017. Retrieved from: https://content.ashford.edu/ Groark, C., McCarthy, S. & Kirk, A. (2014). Early child development: From theory to practice [Electronic version]. Retrieved from:

The 57 Bus Quotes

Nature: A predetermined trait. Nurture: A learned trait. How do these terms affect a person's life? This is a heavily debated topic when referring to an environment, one such environment is Oakland.

Response To Hi Sandrea

References Levine, L.E., & Munsch, J. (2010). Child Development:

Truman Capote Nature Vs Nurture

Nature vs. nurture is complex theory and has been analyzed through the ages and both play critical roles in determining who and what people become as they

Nature Vs. Nurture Argument, Questions And Answers

The nature versus nurture argument has been around for many years. The nature argument, basically states that nature is the determining factor of development and that an individual 's genes

Level 2 Health And Social Care Level 3 Unit 2 P1

Nature versus Nurture is an age old debate in Psychology. Nature vs Nurture relates to an individuals behaviour and characteristics and whether they are inherited through their DNA and genes, which can be seen as an innate approach to the debate. This is because innatism believes that the mind is born with all knowledge. Nurture states our behaviour and characteristics are learned through our environment and experiences, This therefore can be seen as empiricist approach as empiricism states that we are born a blank slate and everything we know is learned through our senses. Reproductive behaviour looks at how patterns are established and formed to continue the survival of humanity.

The Influence Of Nature Vs. Nurture In Frankenstein

Nature is the predetermined traits that people are born with, while nurture is the influence that affects people after they’re born. The debate surrounding Nature V. Nurture is how much of a person’s traits is predetermined and how much is influenced by the environment. Mary Shelley's believes in nurture more than nature. Victor Frankenstein has certain traits that he’s born with. Frankenstein is born into a prestigious, wealthy family.

Nature Vs. Nurture In Serial Killers

Nature refers to the things and characters that are inherited such as hair color, some diseases and eye color among others (Berry-Dee & Morris, 2008). On the other hand, nurture refers to all the environmental influences that come after

The Views Of Sigmund Freud's Nature-Nurture

Nature is when it is genetic and biological influences, Nurture is when it is social, economic and environmental influences. Underneath are five different opinions from 5 different people on the nature nurture debate and which side they agree with. Both theories have a point. I say this because some people are born to be the way they are but at the same time this could be changed by many aspects of a person’s life.

Nature And Nurture: Physical And Motor Development

Thus when we talk of development we need to understand the patterns of biological, cognitive and socioemotional changes that a child goes through from birth to lifespan which is why it is important to introduce a child to age appropriate education else a child may not be able to pick up for eg if we introduce a child to writing at an early age he may not be able to do so as he is still developing his fine motor skills. When we talk of biological development it’s the changes in physical growth of the child and is genetically inherited and will also include the brain and motor skill, cognitive will emphasise the child’s ability to think, language development and problem solving skills and the socioemotional development will look at the child’s relationship with other people and changes in ones emotions and personality. There are various stages of development like infancy from birth to about 24 months where the child is completely dependent on the adult where many activities like language development, sensory and motor coordination , social interaction and

Persuasive Essay On Nature Vs Nurture

Do you ever wonder how you act the way you do? Nature vs. nurture is a discussion about whether genetics or parenting have a bigger impact on your personality. Both nature and nurture are important in how you act. Identical twins have many differences. There are many ways nurture can affect a kid 's personality.

Child Development Theories Essay

The various development theories could greatly help us in guiding and caring for children. As every child is unique and does have different experiences, there is no single theory that can effectively explain

Nature Vs Nurture Theory

The nature vs. nurture debate centers on whether human behaviour and personality are inherited (nature) or acquired (nurture); in other words, whether a person’s environment or a person’s genetic inheritance determines their behaviour and personality. Goldsmith and Harman (1994) adopt a neutral position, in which both nature and nurture influence people, stating that they “believe that the fundamental issue concerns the interplay between characteristics of the individual and of the relationship” (54). Goldsmith and Harman discuss temperament and attachment for infant, with temperament being linked to the nature side of the debate and attachment being linked with the nurture side; as a result, the infant’s temperament influences the attachment bond between the infant and the mother, but the attachment bond influences the temperament of the child as well. Therefore, both nature and nurture interact with each other to produce people’s behaviour (Harman et al. 54). Andersen and Berk (1998) take on the nurture perspective, while Leary (1999) claims that nature is the determining factor of a person’s personality.

Role Of Nurture In Human Development

Nurture is the Key to Human Developments Nurture is the entirety of environment influenced aspects which impact the growth and actions of an individual. Socrates believed that nurture plays a large role in the development of the individual because it can help gain self understanding, decide the way people view the world, and affect people’s nature. By learning knowledge from the world, people are able to identify themselves by understanding things like thoughts, actions, and emotions. For instance: through interactions with others, people can learn what a positive person is like. They have smiles on their faces all the time and won’t easily be affected by bad news.

Biological Cognitive Development

One of the “three most important issues” in psychological development is nature and nurture. This issue involves the extent to which development is influenced by nature and by nurture. Nature refers to biology, where as nurture refers to environmental experiences. I grew up with my dad being in the military, which meant that respect and order were a constant in our house. I attended one of

Factors Affecting Child Development

Having the right knowledge, skills and experience in understanding how children or young people develop are very important tools for early years practitioners. We must put to mind that each child born to this world is unique; they are born with different characters and their personalities and behaviours are formed and influenced by variety of factors. These factors may affect their ways of interacting to the environment and community or setting in which they live in. In my experience as a child care practitioner most of the time, adults mainly focus on the physical development of a child and so quick to base their conclusion or judgement on the physical aspect.

More about Nature And Nurture Influence On Child Development Essay

24/7 writing help on your phone

To install StudyMoose App tap and then “Add to Home Screen”

Nature and Nurture Influences on Child Development

Save to my list

Remove from my list

Develop Positive Relationships with Children, Young People and Others Involved in their Care

The nature and nurture in individual development, understand children and young person’s development.

Nature and Nurture Influences on Child Development. (2016, May 31). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/nature-and-nurture-influences-on-child-development-essay

"Nature and Nurture Influences on Child Development." StudyMoose , 31 May 2016, https://studymoose.com/nature-and-nurture-influences-on-child-development-essay

StudyMoose. (2016). Nature and Nurture Influences on Child Development . [Online]. Available at: https://studymoose.com/nature-and-nurture-influences-on-child-development-essay [Accessed: 21 Aug. 2024]

"Nature and Nurture Influences on Child Development." StudyMoose, May 31, 2016. Accessed August 21, 2024. https://studymoose.com/nature-and-nurture-influences-on-child-development-essay

"Nature and Nurture Influences on Child Development," StudyMoose , 31-May-2016. [Online]. Available: https://studymoose.com/nature-and-nurture-influences-on-child-development-essay. [Accessed: 21-Aug-2024]

The Nature and Nurture of Child Development Pages: 5 (1453 words)
The Interaction of Nature and Nurture in Human Development Pages: 3 (703 words)
Nature Vs Nurture And Its Impact On Socioemotional Development Pages: 6 (1755 words)
Understanding the Development of Depression: Nature vs. Nurture Pages: 3 (839 words)
Nature vs Nurture: The Psychology of Human Development Pages: 2 (591 words)
Language Development in Children: Nature vs. Nurture Pages: 2 (500 words)
Nature vs. Nurture in Leadership Development Pages: 3 (661 words)
Positive Peer Influences on Child Development Pages: 2 (447 words)
Can Nature, Nurture, and Gender Be Blamed for Romeo and Juliet's Tragic End? Pages: 11 (3216 words)
Nature Vs Nurture and Socialisation Pages: 4 (976 words)

Nature and Nurture Influences on Child Development essay

👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!

Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.

Tools and Resources
Customer Services
Affective Science
Biological Foundations of Psychology
Clinical Psychology: Disorders and Therapies
Cognitive Psychology/Neuroscience
Developmental Psychology
Educational/School Psychology
Forensic Psychology
Health Psychology
History and Systems of Psychology
Individual Differences
Methods and Approaches in Psychology
Neuropsychology
Organizational and Institutional Psychology
Personality
Psychology and Other Disciplines
Social Psychology
Sports Psychology
Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Nature and nurture as an enduring tension in the history of psychology.

Hunter Honeycutt Hunter Honeycutt Bridgewater College, Department of Psychology
https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.013.518
Published online: 30 September 2019

Nature–nurture is a dichotomous way of thinking about the origins of human (and animal) behavior and development, where “nature” refers to native, inborn, causal factors that function independently of, or prior to, the experiences (“nurture”) of the organism. In psychology during the 19th century, nature-nurture debates were voiced in the language of instinct versus learning. In the first decades of the 20th century, it was widely assumed that that humans and animals entered the world with a fixed set of inborn instincts. But in the 1920s and again in the 1950s, the validity of instinct as a scientific construct was challenged on conceptual and empirical grounds. As a result, most psychologists abandoned using the term instinct but they did not abandon the validity of distinguishing between nature versus nurture. In place of instinct, many psychologists made a semantic shift to using terms like innate knowledge, biological maturation, and/or hereditary/genetic effects on development, all of which extend well into the 21st century. Still, for some psychologists, the earlier critiques of the instinct concept remain just as relevant to these more modern usages.

The tension in nature-nurture debates is commonly eased by claiming that explanations of behavior must involve reference to both nature-based and nurture-based causes. However, for some psychologists there is a growing pressure to see the nature–nurture dichotomy as oversimplifying the development of behavior patterns. The division is seen as both arbitrary and counterproductive. Rather than treat nature and nurture as separable causal factors operating on development, they treat nature-nurture as a distinction between product (nature) versus process (nurture). Thus there has been a longstanding tension about how to define, separate, and balance the effects of nature and nurture.

nature–nurture
development
nativism–empiricism
innate–learned
behavioral genetics
epigenetics

Nature and Nurture in Development

The oldest and most persistent ways to frame explanations about the behavioral and mental development of individuals is to distinguish between two separate sources of developmental causation: (a) intrinsic, preformed, or predetermined causes (“nature”) versus (b) extrinsic, experiential, or environmental causes (“nurture”). Inputs from these two sources are thought to add their own contribution to development (see Figure 1 ).

Figure 1. The traditional view of nature and nurture as separate causes of development. In the traditional view, nature and nurture are treated as independent causal influences that combine during development to generate outcomes. Note that, during development, the effects of nature and nurture (shown in horizontal crossing lines) remain independent so that their effects on outcomes are theoretically separable.

Because some traits seem to derive more from one source than the other, much of the tension associated with the nature–nurture division deals with disagreements about how to balance the roles of nature and nurture in the development of a trait.

Evidence of Nature in Development

Evidence to support the nature–nurture division usually derives from patterns of behavior that suggest a limited role of environmental causation, thus implying some effect of nature by default. Table 1 depicts some common descriptors and conditions used to infer that some preference, knowledge, or skill is nature based.

Table 1. Common Descriptors and Associated Conditions for Inferring the Effects of Nature on Development

Descriptors	Associated Conditions
Innate or unlearned	Displayed in the absence of relevant experience
Preparedness for learning	Rapidly or easily learned
Constraints on learning	Difficult or impossible to learn
Universal	Found in all like members of a species
Imperviousness	Difficult to modify following its appearance
Maturational	Emerges in an orderly sequence or at a specific time
Hereditary	Runs in families or with degrees of kinship

It is important to reiterate that nature-based causation (e.g., genetic determination) is inferred from these observations. Such inferences can generate tension because each of the observations listed here can be explained by nurture-based (environmental) factors. Confusion can also arise when evidence of one descriptor (e.g., being hereditary) is erroneously used to justify a different usage (e.g., that the trait is unlearned).

The Origins of Nature Versus Nurture

For much of recorded history, the distinction between nature and nurture was a temporal divide between what a person is innately endowed with at birth, prior to experience (nature), and what happens thereafter (nurture). It was not until the 19th century that the temporal division was transformed into a material division of causal influences (Keller, 2010 ). New views about heredity and Darwinian evolution justified distinguishing between native traits and genetic causes from acquired traits and environmental causes. More so than before, the terms nature and nurture were often juxtaposed in an opposition famously described by Sir Francis Galton ( 1869 ) as that between “nature versus nurture.”

Galton began writing about heredity in the mid-1860s. He believed we would discover laws governing the transmission of mental as well as physical qualities. Galton’s take on mental heredity, however, was forged by his desire to improve the human race in a science he would later call “eugenics.” In the mid- 19th century , British liberals assumed humans were equivalent at birth. Their social reform efforts were geared to enhancing educational opportunities and improving living conditions. Galton, a political conservative, opposed the notion of natural equality, arguing instead that people were inherently different at birth (Cowan, 2016 ), and that these inherited mental and behavioral inequalities were transmitted through lineages like physical qualities. Because Galton opposed the widely held Lamarckian idea that the qualities acquired in one’s lifetime could modify the inherited potential of subsequent generations, he believed long-lasting improvement of the human stock would only come by controlling breeding practices.

To explain the biological mechanisms of inheritance, Galton joined a growing trend in the 1870s to understand inheritance as involving the transmission of (hypothetical) determinative, germinal substances across generations. Foreshadowing a view that would later become scientific orthodoxy, Galton believed these germinal substances to be uninfluenced by the experiences of the organism. His theory of inheritance, however, was speculative. Realizing he was not equipped to fully explicate his theory of biological inheritance, Galton abandoned this line of inquiry by the end of that decade and refocused his efforts on identifying statistical laws of heredity of individual differences (Renwick, 2011 ).

Historians generally agree that Galton was the first to treat nature (as heredity) and nurture (everything else) as separate causal forces (Keller, 2010 ), but the schism gained biological legitimacy through the work of the German cytologist Auguste Weismann in the 1880s. Whereas Galton’s theory was motivated by his political agenda, Weismann was motivated by a scientific, theoretical agenda. Namely, Weismann opposed Lamarckian inheritance and promoted a view of evolution driven almost entirely by natural selection.

Drawing upon contemporary cytological and embryological research, Weismann made the case that the determinative substances found in the germ cells of plants and animals (called the “germ-plasm”) that are transmitted across generations were physically sequestered very early in embryogenesis and remained buffered from the other cells of the body (“somato-plasm”). This so-called, Weismann’s barrier meant that alterations in the soma that develop in the lifetime of the organism through the use or disuse of body parts would not affect the germinal substances transmitted during reproduction (see Winther, 2001 , for review). On this view, Lamarckian-style inheritance of acquired characteristics was not biologically possible.

Galton and Weismann’s influence on the life sciences cannot be overstated. Their work convinced many to draw unusually sharp distinctions between the inherited (nature) and the acquired (nurture). Although their theories were met with much resistance and generated significant tension in the life sciences from cytology to psychology, their efforts helped stage a new epistemic space through which to appreciate Mendel’s soon to be rediscovered breeding studies and usher in genetics (Muller-Wille & Rheinberger, 2012 ).

Ever since, psychology has teetered between nature-biased and nurture-biased positions. With the rise of genetics, the wedge between nature–nurture was deepened in the early to mid- 20th century , creating fields of study that focused exclusively on the effects of either nature or nurture.

The “Middle Ground” Perspective on Nature–Nurture

Twenty-first-century psychology textbooks often state that the nature–nurture debates have been resolved, and the tension relaxed, because we have moved on from emphasizing nature or nurture to appreciating that development necessarily involves both nature and nurture. In this middle-ground position, one asks how nature and nurture interact. For example, how do biological (or genetic) predispositions for behaviors or innate knowledge bias early learning experiences? Or how might environmental factors influence the biologically determined (maturational) unfolding of bodily form and behaviors?

Rejection of the Nature–Nurture Divide

For some, the “middle-ground” resolution is as problematic as “either/or” views and does not resolve a deeper source of tension inherent in the dichotomy. On this view, the nature–nurture divide is neither a legitimate nor a constructive way of thinking about development. Instead, developmental analysis reveals that the terms commonly associated with nature (e.g., innate, genetic, hereditary, or instinctual) and nurture (environmental or learned) are so entwined and confounded (and often arbitrary) that their independent effects cannot be meaningfully discussed. The nature–nurture division oversimplifies developmental processes, takes too much for granted, and ultimately hinders scientific progress. Thus not only is there a lingering tension about how to balance the effects of nature and nurture in the middle-ground view, but there is also a growing tension to move beyond the dichotomous nature–nurture framework.

Nativism in Behavior: Instincts

Definitions of instinct can vary tremendously, but many contrast (a) instinct with reason (or intellect, thought, will), which is related to but separable from contrasting (b) instinct with learning (or experience or habit).

Instinct in the Age of Enlightenment

Early usages of the instinct concept, following Aristotle, treated instinct as a mental, estimative faculty ( vis aestimativa or aestimativa naturalis ) in humans and animals that allowed for the judgments of objects in the world (e.g., seeing a predator) to be deemed beneficial or harmful in a way that transcends immediate sensory experience but does not involve the use of reason (Diamond, 1971 ). In many of the early usages, the “natural instinct” of animals even included subrational forms of learning.

The modern usage of instincts as unlearned behaviors took shape in the 17th century . By that point it was widely believed that nature or God had implanted in animals and humans innate behaviors and predispositions (“instincts”) to promote the survival of the individual and the propagation of the species. Disagreements arose as to whether instincts derived from innate mental images or were mindlessly and mechanically (physiologically) generated from innately specified bodily organization (Richards, 1987 ).

Anti-Instinct Movement in the Age of Enlightenment

Challenges to the instinct concept can be found in the 16th century (see Diamond, 1971 ), but they were most fully developed by empiricist philosophers of the French Sensationalist tradition in the 18th century (Richards, 1987 ). Sensationalists asserted that animals behaved rationally and all of the so-called instincts displayed by animals could be seen as intelligently acquired habits.

For Sensationalists, instincts, as traditionally understood, did not exist. Species-specificity in behavior patterns could be explained by commonalities in physiological organization, needs, and environmental conditions. Even those instinctual behaviors seen at birth (e.g., that newly hatched chicks peck and eat grain) might eventually be explained by the animal’s prenatal experiences. Erasmus Darwin ( 1731–1802 ), for example, speculated that the movements and swallowing experiences in ovo could account for the pecking and eating of grain by young chicks. The anti-instinct sentiment was clearly expressed by the Sensationalist Jean Antoine Guer ( 1713–1764 ), who warned that instinct was an “infantile idea” that could only be held by those who are ignorant of philosophy, that traditional appeals to instincts in animals not only explained nothing but served to hinder scientific explanations, and that nothing could be more superficial than to explain behavior than appealing to so-called instincts (Richards, 1987 ).

The traditional instinct concept survived. For most people, the complex, adaptive, species-specific behaviors displayed by naïve animals (e.g., caterpillars building cocoons; infant suckling behaviors) appeared to be predetermined and unlearned. Arguably as important, however, was the resistance to the theological implications of Sensationalist philosophy.

One of the strongest reactions to Sensationalism was put forward in Germany by Herman Samuel Reimarus ( 1694–1768 ). As a natural theologian, Reimarus, sought evidence of a God in the natural world, and the species-specific, complex, and adaptive instincts of animals seemed to stand as the best evidence of God’s work. More so than any other, Reimarus extensively catalogued instincts in humans and animals. Rather than treat instincts as behaviors, he defined instincts as natural impulses (inner drives) to act that were expressed perfectly, without reflection or practice, and served adaptive goals (Richards, 1987 ). He even proposed instincts for learning, a proposal that would resurface in the mid- 20th century , as would his drive theory of instinct (Jaynes & Woodward, 1974 ).

Partly as a result of Reimarus’ efforts, the instinct concept survived going into the 19th century . But many issues surrounding the instinct concept were left unsettled. How do instincts differ from reflexive behaviors? What role does learning play in the expression of instincts, if any? Do humans have more or fewer instincts than animals? These questions would persist well into the first decades of the 20th century and ultimately fuel another anti-instinct movement.

Instinct in the 19th Century

In the 19th century , the tension about the nature and nurture of instincts in the lifetime of animals led to debates about the nature and nurture of instincts across generations . These debates dealt with whether instincts should be viewed as “inherited habits” from previous generations or whether they result from the natural selection. Debating the relative roles of neo-Lamarckian use-inheritance versus neo-Darwinian natural selection in the transmutation of species became a significant source of tension in the latter half of the 19th century . Although the neo-Lamarckian notion of instincts as being inherited habits was rejected in the 20th century , it has resurged in recent years (e.g., see Robinson & Barron, 2017 ).

Darwinian evolutionary theory required drawing distinctions between native and acquired behaviors, and, perhaps more so than before, behaviors were categorized along a continuum from the purely instinctive (unlearned), to the partially instinctive (requiring some learning), to the purely learned. Still, it was widely assumed that a purely instinctive response would be modified by experience after its first occurrence. As a result, instinct and habit were very much entangled in the lifetime of the organism. The notion of instincts as fixed and unmodifiable would not be widely advanced until after the rise of Weismann’s germ-plasm theory in the late 19thcentury .

Given their importance in evolutionary theory, there was greater interest in more objectively identifying pure instincts beyond anecdotal reports. Some of the most compelling evidence was reported by Douglas Spalding ( 1844–1877 ) in the early 1870s (see Gray, 1967 ). Spalding documented numerous instances of how naïve animals showed coordinated, seemingly adaptive responses (e.g., hiding) to objects (e.g., sight of predators) upon their first encounter, and he helped pioneer the use of the deprivation experiment to identify instinctive behaviors. This technique involved selectively depriving young animals of seemingly critical learning experiences or sensory stimulation. Should animals display some species-typical action following deprivation, then, presumably, the behavior could be labeled as unlearned or innate. In all, these studies seemed to show that animals displayed numerous adaptive responses at the very start, prior to any relevant experience. In a variety of ways, Spalding’s work anticipated 20th-century studies of innate behavior. Not only would the deprivation experiment be used as the primary means of detecting native tendencies by European zoologists and ethologists, but Spalding also showed evidence of what would later be called imprinting, critical period effects and evidence of behavioral maturation.

Reports of pure instinct did not go unchallenged. Lloyd Morgan ( 1896 ) questioned the accuracy of these reports in his own experimental work with young animals. In some cases, he failed to replicate the results and in other cases he found that instinctive behaviors were not as finely tuned to objects in the environment as had been claimed. Morgan’s research pointed to taking greater precision in identifying learned and instinctive components of behavior, but, like most at the turn of the 20th century , he did not question that animal behavior involved both learned and instinctive elements.

A focus on instinctive behaviors intensified in the 1890s as Weismann’s germ-plasm theory grew in popularity. More so than before, a sharp distinction was drawn between native and acquired characteristics, including behavior (Johnston, 1995 ). Although some psychologists continued to maintain neo-Lamarckian notions, most German (Burnham, 1972 ) and American (Cravens & Burnham, 1971 ) psychologists were quick to adopt Weismann’s theory. They envisioned a new natural science of psychology that would experimentally identify the germinally determined, invariable set of native psychological traits in species and their underlying physiological (neural) basis. However, whereas English-speaking psychologists tended to focus on how this view impacted our understanding of social institutions and its social implications, German psychologists were more interested in the longstanding philosophical implications of Weismann’s doctrine as it related to the differences (if any) between man and beast (Burnham, 1972 ).

Some anthropologists and sociologists, however, interpreted Weismann’s theory quite differently and used it elevate sociology as its own scientific discipline. In the 1890s, the French sociologist Emil Durkheim, for example, interpreted Weismann’s germinal determinants as a generic force on human behavior that influenced the development of general predispositions that are molded by the circumstances of life (Meloni, 2016 ). American anthropologists reached similar conclusions in the early 20th century (Cravens & Burnham, 1971 ). Because Weismann’s theory divorced biological inheritance from social inheritance, and because heredity was treated as a generic force, sociologists felt free to study social (eventually, “cultural”) phenomena without reference to biological or psychological concerns.

Anti-Instinct Movement in the 1920s

Despite their differences, in the first two decades of the 20th century both psychologists and sociologists generally assumed that humans and animals had some native tendencies or instincts. Concerns were even voiced that instinct had not received enough attention in psychology. Disagreements about instincts continued to focus on (the now centuries old debates of) how to conceptualize them. Were they complex reflexes, impulses, or motives to act, or should instinct be a mental faculty (like intuition), separate from reasoning and reflex (Herrnstein, 1972 )?

In America, the instinct concept came under fire following a brief paper in 1919 by Knight Dunlap titled “Are There Any Instincts?” His primary concern dealt with teleological definitions of instincts in which an instinct referred to all the activities involved in obtaining some end-state (e.g., instincts of crying, playing, feeding, reproduction, war, curiosity, or pugnacity). Defined in this way, human instincts were simply labels for human activities, but how these activities were defined was arbitrarily imposed by the researchers. Is feeding, for instance, an instinct, or is it composed of more basic instincts (like chewing and swallowing)? The arbitrariness of classifying human behavior had led to tremendous inconsistencies and confusion among psychologists.

Not all of the challenges to instinct dealt with its teleological usage. Some of the strongest criticisms were voiced by Zing-Yang Kuo throughout the 1920s. Kuo was a Chinese animal psychologist who studied under Charles Tolman at the University of California, Berkeley. Although Kuo’s attacks on instinct changed throughout the 1920s (see Honeycutt, 2011 ), he ultimately argued that all behaviors develop in experience-dependent ways and that appeals to instinct were statements of ignorance about how behaviors develop. Like Dunlap, he warned that instincts were labels with no explanatory value. To illustrate, after returning to China, he showed how the so-called rodent-killing instinct in cats often cited by instinct theorists is not found in kittens that are reared with rodents (Kuo, 1930 ). These kittens, instead, became attached to the rodents, and they resisted attempts to train rodent-killing. Echoing the point made by Guer, Kuo claimed that appeals to instinct served to stunt scientific inquiry into the developmental origins of behavior.

But Kuo did not just challenge the instinct concept. He also argued against labeling behaviors as “learned.” After all, whether an animal “learns” depends on the surrounding environmental conditions, the physiological and developmental status of the animal, and, especially, the developmental (or experiential) history of that animal. Understanding learning also required developmental analysis. Thus Kuo targeted the basic distinction between nature and nurture, and he was not alone in doing so (e.g., see Carmichael, 1925 ), but his call to reject it did not spread to mainstream American psychologists.

By the 1930s, the term instinct had fallen into disrepute in psychology, but experimental psychologists (including behaviorists) remained committed to a separation of native from acquired traits. If anything, the dividing line between native and acquired behaviors became more sharply drawn than before (Logan & Johnston, 2007 ). For some psychologists, instinct was simply rebranded in the less contentious (but still problematic) language of biological drives or motives (Herrnstein, 1972 ). Many other psychologists simply turned to describing native traits as due to “maturation” and/or “heredity” rather than “instinct.”

Fixed Action Patterns

The hereditarian instinct concept received a reboot in Europe in the 1930s with the rise of ethology led by Konrad Lorenz, Niko Tinbergen, and others. Just as animals inherit organs that perform specific functions, ethologists believed animals inherit behaviors that evolved to serve adaptive functions as well. Instincts were described as unlearned (inherited), blind, stereotyped, adaptive, fixed action patterns, impervious to change that are initiated (released) by specific stimuli in the environment.

Ethologists in 1930s and 1940s were united under the banner of innateness. They were increasingly critical of the trend by American psychologists (i.e., behaviorists) to focus on studying on how a limited number of domesticated species (e.g., white rat) responded to training in artificial settings (Burkhardt, 2005 ). Ethologists instead began with rich descriptions of animal behavior in more natural environments along with detailed analyses of the stimulus conditions that released the fixed action patterns. To test whether behavioral components were innate, ethologists relied primarily on the deprivation experiment popularized by Spalding in the 19th century . Using these methods (and others), ethologists identified numerous fascinating examples of instinctive behaviors, which captured mainstream attention.

In the early 1950s, shortly after ethology had gained professional status (Burkhardt, 2005 ), a series of challenges regarding instinct and innateness were put forth by a small cadre of North American behavioral scientists (e.g., T. C. Schneirla, Donald Hebb, Frank Beach). Arguably the most influential critique was voiced by comparative psychologist Daniel Lehrman ( 1953 ), who presented a detailed and damning critique of deprivation experiments on empirical and logical grounds. Lehrman explained that deprivation experiments isolate the animal from some but not all experiences. Thus deprivation experiments simply change what an animal experiences rather than eliminating experience altogether, and so they cannot possibly determine whether a behavior is innate (independent of experience). Instead, these experiments show what environmental conditions do not matter in the development of a behavior but do not speak to what conditions do matter .

Lehrman went on to argue that the whole endeavor to identify instinctive or innate behavior was misguided from the start. All behavior, according to Lehrman, develops from a history of interactions between an organism and its environment. If a behavior is found to develop in the absence of certain experiences, the researcher should not stop and label it as innate. Rather, research should continue to identify the conditions under which the behavior comes about. In line with Kuo, Lehrman repeated the warning that to label something as instinctive (or inherited or maturational) is a statement of ignorance about how that behavior develops and does more to stunt than promote research.

Lehrman’s critique created significant turmoil among ethologists. As a result, ethologists took greater care in using the term innate , and it led to new attempts to synthesize or re-envision learning and instinct .

Some of these attempts focused on an increased role for learning and experience in the ontogeny of species-typical behaviors. These efforts spawned significant cross-talk between ethologists and comparative psychologists to more thoroughly investigate behavioral development under natural conditions. Traditional appeals to instinct and learning (as classical and operant conditioning) were both found to be inadequate for explaining animal behavior. In their stead, these researchers focused more closely on how anatomical, physiological, experiential, and environmental conditions influenced the development of species-typical behaviors.

Tinbergen ( 1963 ) was among those ethologists who urged for greater developmental analysis of species-typical behaviors, and he included it as one of his four problems in the biological study of organisms, along with causation (mechanism), survival value (function), and evolution. Of these four problems, Tinbergen believed ethologists were especially well suited to study survival value, which he felt had been seriously neglected (Burkhardt, 2005 ).

The questions of survival value coupled with models of population genetics would gain significant momentum in the 1960s and 1970s in England and the United States with the rise of behavioral ecology and sociobiology (Griffiths, 2008 ). But because these new fields seemed to promote some kind of genetic determinism in behavioral development, they were met with much resistance and reignited a new round of nature–nurture debates in the 1970s (see Segerstrale, 2000 ).

However, not all ethologists abandoned the instinct concept. Lorenz, in particular, continued to defend the division between nature and nurture. Rather than speaking of native and acquired behaviors, Lorenz later spoke of two different sources of information for behavior (innate/genetic vs. acquired/environmental), which was more a subtle shift in language than it was an actual change in theory, as Lehrman later pointed out.

Some ethologists followed Lorenz’s lead and continued to maintain more of a traditional delineation between instinct and learning. Their alternative synthesis viewed learning as instinctive (Gould & Marler, 1987 ). They proposed that animals have evolved domain-specific “instincts to learn” that result from the its genetic predispositions and innate knowledge. To support the idea of instincts for learning, ethologists pointed to traditional ethological findings (on imprinting and birdsong learning), but they also drew from the growing body of work in experimental psychology that seemed to indicate certain types of biological effects on learning.

Biological Constraints and Preparedness

While ethology was spreading in Europe in the 1930s–1950s, behaviorism reigned in the United States. Just as ethologists were confronted with including a greater role of nurture in their studies, behaviorists were challenged to consider a greater role of nature.

Behaviorists assumed there to be some behavioral innateness (e.g., fixed action patterns, unconditioned reflexes, primary reinforcers and drives). But because behaviorists focused on learning, they tended to study animals in laboratory settings using biologically (or ecologically) irrelevant stimuli and responses to minimize any role of instinct (Johnston, 1981 ). It was widely assumed that these studies would identify general laws of learning that applied to all species regardless of the specific cues, reinforcers, and responses involved.

Challenges to the generality assumption began to accumulate in the 1960s. Some studies pointed to failures that occurred during conditioning procedures. Breland and Breland ( 1961 ), for example, reported that some complex behaviors formed through operant conditioning would eventually become “displaced” by conditioned fixed action patterns in a phenomenon they called “instinctive drift.” Studies of taste-aversion learning (e.g., Garcia & Koelling, 1966 ) also reported the failure of rats to associate certain events (e.g., flavors with shock or audiovisual stimuli with toxicosis).

Other studies were pointing to enhanced learning. In particular, it was found that rats could form strong conditioned taste aversions after only a single pairing between a novel flavor and illness. (This rapid “one trial learning” was a major focus in the research from Niko Tinbergen’s ethological laboratory.) Animals, it seemed, had evolved innate predispositions to form (or not form) certain associations.

In humans, studies of biological constraints on learning were mostly limited to fear conditioning. Evidence indicated that humans conditioned differently to (biologically or evolutionarily) fear-relevant stimuli like pictures of spiders or snakes than to fear-irrelevant stimuli like pictures of mushrooms or flowers (Ohman, Fredrikson, Hugdahl, & Rimmö, 1976 ).

These findings and others were treated as a major problem in learning theory and led to calls for a new framework to study learning from a more biologically oriented perspective that integrated the evolutionary history and innate predispositions of the species. These predispositions were described as biological “constraints” on, “preparedness,” or “adaptive specializations” for learning, all of which were consistent with the “instincts to learn” framework proposed by ethologists.

By the 1980s it was becoming clear that the biological preparedness/constraint view of learning suffered some limitations. For example, what constraints count as “biological” was questioned. It was well established that there were general constraints on learning associated with the intensity, novelty, and timing of stimuli. But, arbitrarily it seemed, these constraints were not classified as “biological” (Domjan & Galef, 1983 ). Other studies of “biological constraints” found that 5- and 10-day old rats readily learned to associated a flavor with shock (unlike in adults), but (like in adults) such conditioning was not found in 15-day-old rats (Hoffman & Spear, 1988 ). In other words, the constraint on learning was not present in young rats but developed later in life, suggesting a possible role of experience in bringing about the adult-like pattern.

Attempts to synthesize these alternatives led to numerous calls for more ecologically oriented approaches to learning not unlike the synthesis between ethology and comparative psychology in the 1960s. All ecological approaches to learning proposed that learning should be studied in the context of “natural” (recurrent and species-typical) problems that animals encounter (and have evolved to encounter) using ecologically meaningful stimuli and responses. Some argued (e.g., Johnston, 1981 ) that studies of learning should take place within the larger context of studying how animals develop and adapt to their surround. Others (Domjan & Galef, 1983 ) pointed to more of a comparative approach in studying animal learning in line with behavioral ecology that takes into account how learning can be influenced by the possible selective pressures faced by each species. Still, how to synthesize biological constraints (and evolutionary explanations) on learning with a general process approach remains a source of tension in experimental psychology.

Nativism in Mind: Innate Ideas

Nativism and empiricism in philosophy.

In the philosophy of mind, nature–nurture debates are voiced as debates between nativists and empiricists. Nativism is a philosophical position that holds that our minds have some innate (a priori to experience) knowledge, concepts, or structure at the very start of life. Empiricism, in contrast, holds that all knowledge derives from our experiences in the world.

However, rarely (if ever) were there pure nativist or empiricist positions, but the positions bespeak a persistent tension. Empiricists tended to eschew innateness and promote a view of the mental content that is built by general mechanisms (e.g., association) operating on sensory experiences, whereas nativists tend to promote a view of mind that contains domain-specific, innate processes and/or content (Simpson, Carruthers, Laurence, & Stich, 2005 ). Although the tension about mental innateness would loosen as empiricism gained prominence in philosophy and science, the strain never went away and would intensify again in the 20th century .

Nativism in 20th Century Psychology: The Case of Language Development

In the first half of the 20th century , psychologists generally assumed that knowledge was gained or constructed through experience with the world. This is not to say that psychologists did not assume some innate knowledge. The Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget, for example, believed infants enter the world with some innate knowledge structures, particularly as they relate to early sensory and motor functioning (see Piaget, 1971 ). But the bulk of his work dealt with the construction of conceptual knowledge as children adapt to their worlds. By and large, there were no research programs in psychology that sought to identify innate factors in human knowledge and cognition until the 1950s (Samet & Zaitchick, 2017 )

An interest in psychological nativism was instigated in large part by Noam Chomsky’s ( 1959 ) critique of B. F. Skinner’s book on language. To explain the complexity of language, he argued, we must view language as the knowledge and application of grammatical rules. He went on to claim that the acquisition of these rules could not be attributed to any general-purpose, learning process (e.g., reinforcement). Indeed, language acquisition occurs despite very little explicit instruction. Moreover, language is special in terms of its complexity, ease, and speed of acquisition by children and in its uniqueness to humans. Instead, he claimed that our minds innately contain some language-specific knowledge that kick-starts and promotes language acquisition. He later claimed this knowledge can be considered some sort of specialized mental faculty or module he called the “language acquisition device” (Chomsky, 1965 ) or what Pinker ( 1995 ) later called the “language instinct.”

To support the idea of linguistic nativism, Chomsky and others appealed to the poverty of the stimulus argument. In short, this argument holds that our experiences in life are insufficient to explain our knowledge and abilities. When applied to language acquisition, this argument holds children’s knowledge of language (grammar) goes far beyond the limited, and sometimes broken, linguistic events that children directly encounter. Additional evidence for nativism drew upon the apparent maturational quality of language development. Despite wide variations in languages and child-rearing practices across the world, the major milestones in language development appear to unfold in children in a universal sequence and timeline, and some evidence suggested a critical period for language acquisition.

Nativist claims about language sparked intense rebuttals by empiricist-minded psychologists and philosophers. Some of these retorts tackled the logical limitations of the poverty of stimulus argument. Others pointed to the importance of learning and social interaction in driving language development, and still others showed that language (grammatical knowledge) may not be uniquely human (see Tomasello, 1995 , for review). Nativists, in due course, provided their own rebuttals to these challenges, creating a persistent tension in psychology.

Extending Nativism Beyond Language Development

In the decades that followed, nativist arguments expanded beyond language to include cognitive domains that dealt with understanding the physical, psychological, and social worlds. Developmental psychologists were finding that infants appeared to be much more knowledgeable in cognitive tasks (e.g., on understanding object permanence) and skillful (e.g., in imitating others) than had previously been thought, and at much younger ages. Infants also showed a variety of perceptual biases (e.g., preference for face-like stimuli over equally complex non-face-like stimuli) from very early on. Following the standard poverty of the stimulus argument, these findings were taken as evidence that infants enter the world with some sort of primitive, innate, representational knowledge (or domain-specific neural mechanisms) that constrains and promotes subsequent cognitive development. The nature of this knowledge (e.g., as theories or as core knowledge), however, continues to be debated (Spelke & Kinzler, 2007 ).

Empiricist-minded developmental psychologists responded by demonstrating shortcomings in the research used to support nativist claims. For example, in studies of infants’ object knowledge, the behavior of infants (looking time) in nativist studies could be attributed to relatively simple perceptual processes rather than to the infants’ conceptual knowledge (Heyes, 2014 ). Likewise, reports of human neonatal imitation not only suffered from failures to replicate but could be explained by simpler mechanisms (e.g., arousal) than true imitation (Jones, 2017 ). Finally, studies of perceptual preferences found in young infants, like newborn preferences for face-like stimuli, may not be specific preferences for faces per se but instead may reflect simpler, nonspecific perceptual biases (e.g., preferences for top-heavy visual configurations and congruency; Simion & Di Giorgio, 2015 ).

Other arguments from empiricist-minded developmental psychologists focused on the larger rationale for inferring innateness. Even if it is conceded that young infants, like two-month-olds, or even two-day-olds, display signs of conceptual knowledge, there is no good evidence to presume the knowledge is innate. Their knowledgeable behaviors could still be seen as resulting from their experiences (many of which may be nonobvious to researchers) leading up to the age of testing (Spencer et al., 2009 ).

In the 21st century , there is still no consensus about the reality, extensiveness, or quality of mental innateness. If there is innate knowledge, can experience add new knowledge or only expand the initial knowledge? Can the doctrine of innate knowledge be falsified? There are no agreed-upon answers to these questions. The recurring arguments for and against mental nativism continue to confound developmental psychologists.

Maturation Theory

The emergence of bodily changes and basic behavioral skills sometimes occurs in an invariant, predictable, and orderly sequence in a species despite wide variations in rearing conditions. These observations are often attributed to the operation of an inferred, internally driven, maturational process. Indeed, 21st-century textbooks in psychology commonly associate “nature” with “maturation,” where maturation is defined as the predetermined unfolding of the individual from a biological or genetic blueprint. Environmental factors play a necessary, but fundamentally supportive, role in the unfolding of form.

Preformationism Versus Epigenesis in the Generation of Form

The embryological generation of bodily form was debated in antiquity but received renewed interest in the 17th century . Following Aristotle, some claimed that embryological development involved “epigenesis,” defined as the successive emergence of form from a formless state. Epigenesists, however, struggled to explain what orchestrated development without appealing to Aristotelean souls. Attempts were made to invoke to natural causes like physical and chemical forces, but, despite their best efforts, the epigenesists were forced to appeal to the power of presumed, quasi-mystical, vitalistic forces (entelechies) that directed development.

The primary alternative to epigenesis was “preformationism,” which held that development involved the growth of pre-existing form from a tiny miniature (homunculus) that formed immediately after conception or was preformed in the egg or sperm. Although it seems reasonable to guess that the invention and widespread use of the microscope would immediately lay to rest any claim of homuncular preformationism, this was not the case. To the contrary, some early microscopists claimed to see signs of miniature organisms in sperm or eggs, and failures to find these miniatures were explained away (e.g., the homunculus was transparent or deflated to the point of being unrecognizable). But as microscopes improved and more detailed observations of embryological development were reported in the late 18th and 19th centuries , homuncular preformationism was finally refuted.

From Preformationism to Predeterminism

Despite the rejection of homuncular preformationism, preformationist appeals can be found throughout the 19th century . One of the most popular preformationist theories of embryological development was put forth by Ernst Haeckel in the 1860s (Gottlieb, 1992 ). He promoted a recapitulation theory (not original to Haeckel) that maintained that the development of the individual embryo passes through all the ancestral forms of its species. Ontogeny was thought to be a rapid, condensed replay of phylogeny. Indeed, for Haeckel, phylogenesis was the mechanical cause of ontogenesis. The phylogenetic evolution of the species created the maturational unfolding of embryonic form. Exactly how this unfolding takes place was less important than its phylogenetic basis.

Most embryologists were not impressed with recapitulation theory. After all, the great embryologist Karl Ernst von Baer ( 1792–1876 ) had refuted strict recapitulation decades earlier. Instead, there was greater interest in how best to explain the mechanical causes of development ushering in a new “experimental embryology.” Many experimental embryologists followed the earlier epigenesists by discussing vitalistic forces operating on the unorganized zygote. But it soon became clear that the zygote was structured, and many people believed the zygote contained special (unknown) substances that specified development. Epigenesis-minded experimental embryologists soon warned that the old homuncular preformationism was being transformed into a new predetermined preformationism.

As a result, the debates between preformationism and epigenesis were reignited in experimental embryology, but the focus of these debates shifted to the various roles of nature and nurture during development. More specifically, research focused on the extent to which early cellular differentiation was predetermined by factors internal to cells like chromosomes or cytoplasm (preformationism, nature) or involved factors (e.g., location) outside of the cell (epigenesis, nurture). The former emphasized reductionism and developmental programming, whereas the latter emphasized some sort of holistic, regulatory system responsive to internal and external conditions. The tension between viewing development as predetermined or “epigenetic” persists into the 21st century .

Preformationism gained momentum in the 20th century following the rediscovery of Mendel’s studies of heredity and the rapid rise of genetics, but not because of embryological research on the causes of early differentiation. Instead, preformationism prevailed because it seemed embryological research on the mechanisms of development could be ignored in studies of hereditary patterns.

The initial split between heredity and development can be found in Galton’s speculations but is usually attributed to Weismann’s germ-plasm theory. Weismann’s barrier seemed to posit that the germinal determinants present at conception would be the same, unaltered determinants transmitted during reproduction. This position, later dubbed as “Weismannism,” was ironically not one promoted by Weismann. Like nearly all theorists in the 19th century , he viewed the origins of variation and heredity as developmental phenomena (Amundson, 2005 ), and he claimed that the germ-plasm could be directly modified in the lifetime of the organism by environmental (e.g., climactic and dietary) conditions (Winther, 2001 ). Still, Weismann’s theory treated development as a largely predetermined affair driven by inherited, germinal determinants buffered from most developmental events. As such, it helped set the stage for a more formal divorce between heredity and development with the rise of Mendelism in the early 20th century .

Mendel’s theory of heredity was exceptional in how it split development from heredity (Amundson, 2005 ). More so than in Weismann’s theory, Mendel’s theory assumed that the internal factors that determine form and are transmitted across generations remain unaltered in the lifetime of the organism. To predict offspring outcomes, one need only know the combination of internal factors present at conception and their dominance relations. Exactly how these internal factors determined form could be disregarded. The laws of hereditary transmission of the internal factors (e.g., segregation) did not depend on the development or experiences of the organism or the experiences the organism’s ancestors. Thus the experimental study of heredity (i.e., breeding) could proceed without reference to ancestral records or embryological concerns (Amundson, 2000 ). By the mid-1920s, the Mendelian factors (now commonly called “genes”) were found to be structurally arranged on chromosomes, and the empirical study of heredity (transmission genetics) was officially divorced from studies of development.

The splitting of heredity and development found in Mendel’s and Weismann’s work met with much resistance. Neo-Lamarckian scientists, especially in the United States (Cook, 1999 ) and France (Loison, 2011 ), sought unsuccessfully to experimentally demonstrate the inheritance of acquired characteristics into the 1930s.

In Germany during the 1920s and 1930s, resistance to Mendelism dealt with the chromosomal view of Mendelian heredity championed by American geneticists who were narrowly focused on studying transmission genetics at the expense of developmental genetics. German biologists, in contrast, were much more interested in the broader roles of genes in development (and evolution). In trying to understand how genes influence development, particularly of traits of interest to embryologists, they found the Mendelian theory to be lacking. In the decades between the world wars, German biologists proposed various expanded views of heredity that included some form of cytoplasmic inheritance (Harwood, 1985 ).

Embryologists resisted the preformationist view of development throughout the early to mid- 20th century , often maintaining no divide between heredity and development, but their objections were overshadowed by genetics and its eventual synthesis with evolutionary theory. Consequently, embryological development was treated by geneticists and evolutionary biologists as a predetermined, maturational process driven by internal, “genetic” factors buffered from environmental influence.

Maturation Theory in Psychology

Maturation theory was applied to behavioral development in the 19th century in the application of Haeckel’s recapitulation theory. Some psychologists believed that the mental growth of children recapitulated the history of the human race (from savage brute to civilized human). With this in mind, many people began to more carefully document child development. Recapitulationist notions were found in the ideas of many notable psychologists in the 19th and early 20th centuries (e.g., G. S. Hall), and, as such, the concept played an important role in the origins of developmental psychology (Koops, 2015 ). But for present purposes what is most important is that children’s mental and behavioral development was thought to unfold via a predetermined, maturational process.

With the growth of genetics, maturational explanations were increasingly invoked to explain nearly all native and hereditary traits. As the instinct concept lost value in the 1920s, maturation theory gained currency, although the shift was largely a matter of semantics. For many psychologists, the language simply shifted from “instinct versus learning” to “maturation versus practice/experience” (Witty & Lehman, 1933 ).

Initial lines of evidence for maturational explanations of behavior were often the same as those that justified instinct and native traits, but new embryological research presented in the mid-1920s converged to show support for strict maturational explanations of behavioral development. In these experiments (see Wyman, 2005 , for review), spanning multiple laboratories, amphibians (salamanders and frogs) were exposed to drugs that acted as anesthetics and/or paralytics throughout the early stages of development, thus reducing sensory experience and/or motor practice. Despite the reduced sensory experiences and being unable to move, these animals showed no delays in the onset of motor development once the drugs wore off.

This maturational account of motor development in amphibians fit well with contemporaneous studies of motor development in humans. The orderly, invariant, and predictable (age-related) sequential appearance of motor skills documented in infants reared under different circumstances (in different countries and across different decades) was seen as strong evidence for a maturational account. Additional evidence was reported by Arnold Gessell and Myrtle McGraw, who independently presented evidence in the 1920s to show that the pace and sequence of motor development in infancy were not altered by special training experiences. Although the theories of these maturation theorists were more sophisticated when applied to cognitive development, their work promoted a view in which development was primarily driven by neural maturation rather than experience (Thelen, 2000 ).

Critical and Sensitive Periods

As the maturation account of behavioral development gained ground, it became clear that environmental input played a more informative role than had previously been thought. Environmental factors were found to either disrupt or induce maturational changes at specific times during development. Embryological research suggested that there were well-delineated time periods of heightened sensitivity in which specific experimental manipulations (e.g., tissue transplantations) could induce irreversible developmental changes, but the same manipulation would have no effect outside of that critical period.

In the 1950s–1960s a flurry of critical period effects were reported in birds and mammals across a range of behaviors including imprinting, attachment, socialization, sensory development, bird song learning, and language development (Michel & Tyler, 2005 ). Even though these findings highlighted an important role of experience in behavioral development, evidence of critical periods was usually taken to imply some rigid form of biological determinism (Oyama, 1979 ).

As additional studies were conducted on critical period effects, it became clear that many of the reported effects were more gradual, variable, experience-dependent, and not necessarily as reversible as was previously assumed. In light of these reports, there was a push in the 1970s (e.g., Connolly, 1972 ) to substitute “sensitive period” for “critical period” to avoid the predeterminist connotations associated with the latter and to better appreciate that these periods simply describe (not explain) certain temporal aspects of behavioral development. As a result, a consensus emerged that behaviors should not be attributed to “time” or “age” but to the developmental history and status of the animal under investigation (Michel & Tyler, 2005 ).

Heredity and Genetics

In the decades leading up to and following the start of the 20th century , it was widely assumed that many psychological traits (not just instincts) were inherited or “due to heredity,” although the underlying mechanisms were unknown. Differences in intelligence, personality, and criminality within and between races and sexes were largely assumed to be hereditary and unalterable by environmental intervention (Gould, 1996 ). The evidence to support these views in humans was often derived from statistical analyses of how various traits tended to run in families. But all too frequently, explanations of data were clouded by pre-existing, hereditarian assumptions.

Human Behavioral Genetics

The statistical study of inherited human (physical, mental, and behavioral) differences was pioneered by Galton ( 1869 ). Although at times Galton wrote that nature and nurture were so intertwined as to be inseparable, he nevertheless devised statistical methods to separate their effects. In the 1860s and 1870s, Galton published reports purporting to show how similarities in intellect (genius, talent, character, and eminence) in European lineages appeared to be a function of degree of relatedness. Galton considered, but dismissed, environmental explanations of his data, leading him to confirm his belief that nature was stronger than nurture.

Galton also introduced the use of twin studies to tease apart the relative impact of nature versus nurture, but the twin method he used was markedly different from later twin studies used by behavioral geneticists. Galton tracked the life history of twins who were judged to be very similar or very dissimilar near birth (i.e., by nature) to test the power of various postnatal environments (nurture) that might make them more or less similar over time. Here again, Galton concluded that nature overpowers nurture.

Similar pedigree (e.g., the Kallikak study; see Zenderland, 2001 ) and twin studies appeared in the early 1900s, but the first adoption study and the modern twin method (which compares monozygotic to dizygotic twin pairs) did not appear until the 1920s (Rende, Plomin, & Vandenberg, 1990 ). These reports led to a flurry of additional work on the inheritance of mental and behavioral traits over the next decade.

Behavioral genetic research peaked in the 1930s but rapidly lost prominence due in large part to its association with the eugenics movement (spearheaded by Galton) but also because of the rise and eventual hegemony of behaviorism and the social sciences in the United States. Behavioral genetics resurged in the 1960s with the rising tide of nativism in psychology, and returned to its 1930s-level prominence in the 1970s (McGue & Gottesman, 2015 ).

The resurgence brought with a new statistical tool: the heritability statistic. The origins of heritability trace back to early attempts to synthesize Mendelian genetics with biometrics by Ronald Fisher and others. This synthesis ushered in a new field of quantitative genetics and it marked a new way of thinking about nature and nurture. The shift was to no longer think about nature and nurture as causes of traits in individuals but as causes of variation in traits between populations of individuals. Eventually, heritability came to refer to the amount of variance in a population sample that could be statistically attributed to genetic variation in that sample. Kinship (especially twin) studies provided seemingly straightforward ways of partitioning variation in population trait attributes into genetic versus environmental sources.

Into the early 21st century , hundreds of behavioral genetic studies of personality, intelligence, and psychopathology were reported. With rare exceptions, these studies converge to argue for a pervasive influence of genetics on human psychological variation.

These studies have also fueled much controversy. Citing in part behavioral genetic research, the educational psychologist Arthur Jensen ( 1969 ) claimed that the differences in intelligence and educational achievement in the United States between black and white students appeared to have a strong genetic basis. He went on to assume that because these racial differences appeared hereditary, they were likely impervious to environmental (educational) intervention. His article fanned the embers of past eugenics practices and ignited fiery responses (e.g., Hirsch, 1975 ). The ensuing debates not only spawned a rethinking of intelligence and how to measure it, but they ushered in a more critical look at the methods and assumptions of behavioral genetics.

Challenges to Behavioral Genetics

Many of the early critiques of behavioral genetics centered on interpreting the heritability statistic commonly calculated in kinship (family, twin, and adoption) studies. Perhaps more so than any other statistic, heritability has been persistently misinterpreted by academics and laypersons alike (Lerner, 2002 ). Contrary to popular belief, heritability tells us nothing about the relative impact of genetic and environmental factors on the development of traits in individuals. It deals with accounting for trait variation between people, not the causes of traits within people. As a result, a high heritability does not indicate anything about the fixity of traits or their imperviousness to environmental influence (contra Jensen), and a low heritability does not indicate an absence of genetic influence on trait development. Worse still, heritability does not even indicate anything about the role of genetics in generating the differences between people.

Other challenges to heritability focused not on its interpretation but on its underlying computational assumptions. Most notably, heritability analyses assume that genetic and environmental contributions to trait differences are independent and additive. The interaction between genetic and environmental factors were dismissed a priori in these analyses. Studies of development, however, show that no factor (genes, hormones, parenting, schooling) operates independently, making it impossible to quantify how much of a given trait in a person is due to any causal factor. Thus heritability analyses are bound to be misleading because they are based on biologically implausible and logically indefensible assumptions about development (Gottlieb, 2003 ).

Aside from heritability, kinship studies have been criticized for not being able to disentangle genetic and environmental effects on variation. It had long been known that that in family (pedigree) studies, environmental and genetic factors are confounded. Twin and adoption studies seemed to provide unique opportunities to statistically disentangle these effects, but these studies are also deeply problematic in assumptions and methodology. There are numerous plausible environmental reasons for why monozygotic twin pairs could resemble each other more than dizygotic twin pairs or why adoptive children might more closely resemble their biological than their adoptive parents (Joseph & Ratner, 2013 ).

A more recent challenge to behavioral genetics came from an unlikely source. Advances in genomic scanning in the 21st century made it possible in a single study to correlate thousands of genetic polymorphisms with variation in the psychological profiles (e.g., intelligence, memory, temperament, psychopathology) of thousands of people. These “genome-wide association” studies seemed to have the power and precision to finally identify genetic contributions to heritability at the level of single nucleotides. Yet, these studies consistently found only very small effects.

The failure to find large effects came to be known as the “missing heritability” problem (Maher, 2008 ). To account for the missing heritability, some behavioral geneticists and molecular biologists asserted that important genetic polymorphisms remain unknown, they may be too rare to detect, and/or that current studies are just not well equipped to handle gene–gene interactions. These studies were also insensitive to epigenetic profiles (see the section on Behavioral Epigenetics), which deal with differences in gene expression. Even when people share genes, they may differ in whether those genes get expressed in their lifetimes.

But genome-wide association studies faced an even more problematic issue: Many of these studies failed to replicate (Lickliter & Honeycutt, 2015 ). For those who viewed heritability analyses as biologically implausible, the small effect sizes and failures to replicate in genome-wide association studies were not that surprising. The search for independent genetic effects was bound to fail, because genes simply do not operate independently during development.

Behavioral Epigenetics

Epigenetics was a term coined in the 1940s by the developmental biologist Conrad Waddington to refer to a new field of study that would examine how genetic factors interact with local environmental conditions to bring about the embryological development of traits. By the end of the 20th century , epigenetics came to refer to the study of how nongenetic, molecular mechanisms physically regulate gene expression patterns in cells and across cell lineages. The most-studied mechanisms involve organic compounds (e.g., methyl-groups) that physically bind to DNA or the surrounding proteins that package DNA. The addition or removal of these compounds can activate or silence gene transcription. Different cell types have different, stable epigenetic markings, and these markings are recreated during cell division so that cells so marked give rise to similar types of cells. Epigenetic changes were known to occur during developmental periods of cellular differentiation (e.g., during embryogenesis), but not until 2004 was it discovered that these changes can occur at other periods in the life, including after birth (Roth, 2013 )

Of interest to psychologists were reports that different behavioral and physiological profiles (e.g., stress reactivity) of animals were associated with different epigenetic patterns in the nervous system (Moore, 2015 ). Furthermore, these different epigenetic patterns could be established or modified by environmental factors (e.g., caregiving practices, training regimes, or environmental enrichment), and, under certain conditions, they remain stable over long periods of time (from infancy to adulthood).

Because epigenetic research investigates the physical interface between genes and environment, it represents an exciting advance in understanding the interaction of nature and nurture. Despite some warnings that the excitement over behavioral epigenetic research may be premature (e.g., Miller, 2010 ), for many psychologists, epigenetics underscores how development involves both nature and nurture.

For others, what is equally exciting is the additional evidence epigenetics provides to show that the genome is an interactive and regulated system. Once viewed as the static director of development buffered from environment influence, the genome is better described as a developing resource of the cell (Moore, 2015 ). More broadly, epigenetics also points to how development is not a genetically (or biologically) predetermined affair. Instead, epigenetics provides additional evidence that development is a probabilistic process, contingent upon factors internal and external to the organism. In this sense, epigenetics is well positioned to help dissolve the nature–nurture dichotomy.

Beyond Nature–Nurture

In the final decades of the 20th century , a position was articulated to move beyond the dichotomous nature–nurture framework. The middle-ground position on nature–nurture did not seem up to the task of explaining the origins of form, and it brought about more confusion than clarity. The back-and-forth (or balanced) pendulum between nature- and nurture-based positions throughout history had only gone in circles. Moving forward would require moving beyond such dichotomous thinking (Johnston, 1987 ).

The anti-dichotomy position, referred to as the Developmentalist tradition, was expressed in a variety of systems-based, metatheoretical approaches to studying development, all of which extended the arguments against nature–nurture expressed earlier by Kuo and Lehrman. The central problem with all nativist claims according to Developmentalists is a reliance on preformationism (or predeterminism).

The problem with preformationism, they argue, besides issues of evidence, is that it is an anti-developmental mindset. It presumes the existence of the very thing(s) one wishes to explain and, consequently, discourages developmental analyses. To claim that some knowledge is innate effectively shuts down research on the developmental origins of that knowledge. After all, why look for the origins of conceptual knowledge if that knowledge is there all along? Or why search for any experiential contributions to innate behaviors if those behaviors by definition develop independently of experience? In the words of Developmentalists Thelen and Adolph ( 1992 ), nativism “leads to a static science, with no principles for understanding change or for confronting the ultimate challenge of development, the source of new forms in structure and function” (p. 378).

A commitment to maturational theory is likely one of the reasons why studies of motor development remained relatively dormant for decades following its heyday in the 1930–1940s (Thelen, 2000 ). Likewise, a commitment to maturational theory also helps explain the delay in neuroscience to examine how the brain physically changes in response to environmental conditions, a line of inquiry that only began in the 1960s.

In addition to the theoretical pitfalls of nativism, Developmentalists point to numerous studies that show how some seemingly native behaviors and innate constraints on learning are driven by the experiences of animals. For example, the comparative psychologist Gilbert Gottlieb ( 1971 ) showed that newly hatched ducklings display a naïve preference for a duck maternal call over a (similarly novel) chicken maternal call (Gottlieb, 1971 ), even when duck embryos were repeatedly exposed to the chicken call prior to hatching (Gottlieb, 1991 ). It would be easy to conclude that ducklings have an innate preference to approach their own species call and that they are biologically constrained (contraprepared) in learning a chicken call. However, Gottlieb found that the naïve preference for the duck call stemmed from exposure to the duck embryos’ own (or other) vocalizations in the days before hatching (Gottlieb, 1971 ). Exposure to these vocalizations not only made duck maternal calls more attractive, but it hindered the establishment of a preference for heterospecific calls. When duck embryos were reared in the absence of the embryonic vocalizations (by devocalizing embryos in ovo ) and exposed instead to chicken maternal calls, the newly hatched ducklings preferred chicken over duck calls (Gottlieb, 1991 ). These studies clearly showed how seemingly innate, biologically based preferences and constraints on learning derived from prenatal sensory experiences.

For Developmentalists, findings like these suggest that nativist explanations of any given behavior are statements of ignorance about how that behavior actually develops. As Kuo and Lehrman made clear, nativist terms are labels, not explanations. Although such appeals are couched in respectable, scientific language (e.g., “X is due to maturation, genes, or heredity”), they argue it would be more accurate simply to say that “We don’t know what causes X” or that “X is not due to A, B, or C.” Indeed, for Developmentalists, the more we unpack the complex dynamics about how traits develop, the less likely we are to use labels like nature or nurture (Blumberg, 2005 ).

On the other hand, Developmentalists recognize that labeling a behavior as “learned” also falls short as an explanatory construct. The empiricist position that knowledge or behavior is learned does not adequately take into account that what is learned and how easily something is learned depends on (a) the physiological and developmental status of the person, (b) the nature of the surrounding physical and social context in which learning takes place, and the (c) experiential history of the person. The empiricist tendency to say “X is learned or acquired through experience” can also short-circuit developmental analyses in the same way as nativist claims.

Still, Developmentalists appreciate that classifying behaviors can be useful. For example, the development of some behaviors may be more robust, reliably emerging across a range of environments and/or remaining relatively resistant to change, whereas others are more context-specific and malleable. Some preferences for stimuli require direct experience with those stimuli. Other preferences require less obvious (indirect) types of experiences. Likewise, it can still be useful to describe some behaviors in the ways shown in Table 1 . Developmentalists simply urge psychologists to resist the temptation to treat these behavioral classifications as implying different kinds of explanations (Johnston, 1987 ).

Rather than treat nature and nurture as separate developmental sources of causation (see Figure 1 ), Developmentalists argue that a more productive way of thinking about nature–nurture is to reframe the division as that between product and process (Lickliter & Honeycutt, 2015 ). The phenotype or structure (one’s genetic, epigenetic, anatomical, physiological, behavioral, and mental profile) of an individual at any given time can be considered one’s “nature.” “Nurture” then refers to the set of processes that generate, maintain, and transform one’s nature (Figure 2 ). These processes involve the dynamic interplay between phenotypes and environments.

Figure 2. The developmentalist alternative view of nature–nurture as product–process. Developmentalists view nature and nurture not as separate sources of causation in development (see Figure 1 ) but as a distinction between process (nurture) and product (nature).

It is hard to imagine any set of findings that will end debates about the roles of nature and nurture in human development. Why? First, more so than other assumptions about human development, the nature–nurture dichotomy is deeply entrenched in popular culture and the life sciences. Second, throughout history, the differing positions on nature and nurture were often driven by other ideological, philosophical, and sociopolitical commitments. Thus the essential source of tension in debates about nature–nurture is not as much about research agendas or evidence as about basic differences in metatheoretical positions (epistemological and ontological assumptions) about human behavior and development (Overton, 2006 ).

Amundson, R. (2000). Embryology and evolution 1920–1960: Worlds apart? History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences , 22 , 335–352.
Amundson, R. (2005). The changing role of the embryo in evolutionary thought: Roots of evo-devo . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Blumberg, M. S. (2005). Basic instinct: The genesis of novel behavior . New York, NY: Thunder’s Mouth Press.
Breland, K. , & Breland, M. (1961). The misbehavior of organisms. American Psychologist , 16 , 681–684.
Burkhardt, R. (2005). Patterns of behavior: Konrad Lorenz, Niko Tinbergen and the founding of ethology . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Burnham, J. C. (1972). Instinct theory and the German reaction to Weismannism. Journal of the History of Biology , 5 , 321–326.
Carmichael, L. (1925). Heredity and environment: Are they antithetical? The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 20 (3), 245–260.
Chomsky, N. (1959). A review of B. F. Skinner’s verbal behavior. Language , 35 , 26–57.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Connolly, K. (1972). Learning and the concept of critical periods in infancy. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology , 14 (6), 705–714.
Cook, G. M. (1999). Neo-Lamarckian experimentalism in America: Origins and consequences. Quarterly Review of Biology , 74 , 417–437.
Cowan, R. S. C. (2016). Commentary: Before Weismann and germplasm there was Galton and eugenics: The biological and political meaning of the inheritance of acquired characteristics in the late 19th century . International Journal of Epidemiology , 45 , 15–20.
Cravens, H. , & Burnham, J. C. (1971). Psychology and evolutionary naturalism in American thought, 1890–1940. American Quarterly , 23 , 635–657.
Diamond, S. (1971). Gestation of the instinct concept. History of the Behavioral Sciences , 7 (4), 323–336.
Domjan, M. , & Galef, B. G. (1983). Biological constraints on instrumental and classical conditioning: Retrospect and prospect. Animal Learning & Behavior , 11 (2), 151–161.
Dunlap, K. (1919). Are there any instincts? Journal of Abnormal Psychology , 14 , 307–311.
Galton, F. (1869). Hereditary genius . London, U.K.: Macmillan.
Garcia, J. , & Koelling, R. A. (1966). Relation of cue to consequence in avoidance learning. Psychonomics , 4 (1), 123–124.
Gottlieb, G. (1971). Development of species identification in birds . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Gottlieb, G. (1991). Experiential canalization of behavioral development: Results. Developmental Psychology , 27 (1), 35–39.
Gottlieb, G. (1992). Individual development and evolution: The genesis of novel behavior . New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Gottlieb, G. (2003). On making behavioral genetics truly developmental. Human Development , 46 , 337–355.
Gould, J. L. , & Marler, P. (1987). Learning by instinct. Scientific American , 256 (1), 74–85.
Gould, S. J. (1996). The mismeasure of man (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Norton.
Gray, P. H. (1967). Spalding and his influence on research in developmental behavior. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences , 3 , 168–179.
Griffiths, P. E. (2008). Ethology, sociobiology, and evolutionary psychology. In S. Sarkar & A. Plutnsky (Eds.), A companion to the philosophy of biology (pp. 393–414). New York, NY: Blackwell.
Harwood, J. (1985). Geneticists and the evolutionary synthesis in interwar Germany. Annals of Science , 42 , 279–301.
Herrnstein, R. J. (1972). Nature as nurture: Behaviorism and the instinct doctrine. Behaviorism , 1 (1), 23–52.
Heyes, C. (2014). False belief in infancy: A fresh look. Developmental Science , 17 (5), 647–659.
Hirsch, J. (1975). Jensenism: The bankruptcy of “science” without scholarship. Educational Theory , 25 , 3–27.
Hoffman, H. , & Spear, N. E. (1988). Ontogenetic differences in conditioning of an aversion to a gustatory CS with a peripheral US. Behavioral and Neural Biology , 50 , 16–23.
Honeycutt, H. (2011). The “enduring mission” of Zing-Yang Kuo to eliminate the nature–nurture dichotomy in psychology. Developmental Psychobiology , 53 (4), 331–342.
Jaynes, J. , & Woodward, W. (1974). In the shadow of the enlightenment. II. Reimarus and his theory of drives. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences , 10 , 144–159.
Jensen, A. (1969). How much can we boost IQ and scholastic achievement. Harvard Educational Review , 39 , 1–123.
Johnston, T. (1981). Contrasting approaches to a theory of learning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 4 , 125–173.
Johnston, T. (1987). The persistence of dichotomies in the study of behavior. Developmental Review , 7 , 149–172.
Johnston, T. (1995). The influence of Weismann’s germ-plasm theory on the distinction between learned and innate behavior. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences , 31 , 115–128.
Jones, S. (2017). Can newborn infants imitate? Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science , 8 , e1410.
Joseph, J. , & Ratner, C. (2013). The fruitless search for genes in psychiatry and psychology: Time to reexamine a paradigm. In S. Krimsky & J. Gruber (Eds.), Genetic explanations: Sense and nonsense (pp. 94–106). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Keller, E. F. (2010). The mirage of space between nature and nurture . Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Koops, W. (2015). No developmental psychology without recapitulation theory . European Journal of Developmental Psychology , 12 (6), 630–639.
Kuo, Z. Y. (1930). The genesis of the cat’s response to the rat. Journal of Comparative Psychology , 11 , 1–36.
Lehrman, D. S. (1953). A critique of Konrad Lorenz’s theory of instinctive behavior. Quarterly Review of Biology , 28 , 337–363.
Lerner, R. (2002). Concepts and theories of human development (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lickliter, R. , & Honeycutt, H. (2015). Biology, development and human systems . In W. Overton & P. C. M. Molenaar (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science . Vol. 1: Theory and method (7th ed., pp. 162–207). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Logan, C. A. , & Johnston, T. D. (2007). Synthesis and separation in the history of “nature” and “nurture.” Developmental Psychobiology , 49 (8), 758–769.
Loison, L. (2011). French roots of French neo-Lamarckisms,1879–1985 . Journal of the History of Biology , 44 , 713–744.
Maher, B. (2008). Personal genomes: The case of the missing heritability . Nature , 456 , 18–21.
McGue, M. , & Gottesman, I. I. (2015). Behavior genetics . In R. L. Cautin & S. O. Lilienfeld (Eds.), The encyclopedia of clinical psychology (Vol. 1). Chichester, U.K.: Wiley Blackwell.
Meloni, M. (2016). The transcendence of the social: Durkheim, Weismann and the purification of sociology . Frontiers in Sociology , 1 , 1–13.
Michel, G. F. , & Tyler, A. N. (2005). Critical period: A history of transition of questions of when, to what, to how . Developmental Psychobiology , 46 (3), 156–162.
Miller, G. (2010).The seductive allure of behavioral epigenetics. Science , 329 (5987), 24–27.
Moore, D. S. (2015). The developing genome. An introduction to behavioral epigenetics . New York, NY: Oxford University Press
Morgan, C. L. (1896). Habit and instinct . New York, NY: Edward Arnold.
Muller-Wille, S. , & Rheinberger, H.-J. (2012). A cultural history of heredity . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Ohman, A. , Fredrikson, M. , Hugdahl, K. , & Rimmö, P.A. (1976). The premise of equipotentiality in human classical conditioning: Conditioned electrodermal responses to potentially phobic stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General , 105 (4), 313–337.
Overton, W. F. (2006). Developmental psychology: Philosophy, concepts, methodology. In R. Lerner (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development (pp. 18–88). New York, NY: Wiley.
Oyama, S. (1979). The concept of the sensitive period in developmental studies. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly , 25 (2), 83–103.
Piaget, J. (1971). Biology and knowledge: An essay on the relation between organic regulations and cognitive processes . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Pinker, S. (1995). The language instinct: How the mind creates language . London, U.K.: Penguin.
Rende, R. D. , Plomin, R. , & Vandenberg, S. G. (1990). Who discovered the twin method? Behavioral Genetics , 20 (2), 277–285.
Renwick, C. (2011). From political economy to sociology: Francis Galton and the social-scientific origins of eugenics . British Journal for the History of Science , 44 , 343–369.
Richards, R. J. (1987). Darwin and the emergence of evolutionary theories of mind and behavior . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Robinson, G. E. , & Barron, A. B. (2017). Epigenetics and the evolution of instincts. Science , 356 (6333), 26–27.
Roth, T. L. (2013). Epigenetic mechanisms in the development of behavior: Advances, challenges, and future promises of a new field . Development and Psychopathology , 25 , 1279–1291.
Samet, J. , & Zaitchick, D. (2017). Innateness and contemporary theories of cognition . In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy . Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
Segerstrale, U. (2000). Defenders of the truth: The battle for science in the sociobiology debate and beyond . New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Simion, F. , & Di Giorgio, E. (2015). Face perception and processing in early infancy: Inborn predispositions and developmental changes . Frontiers in Psychology , 6 , 969.
Simpson, T. , Carruthers, P. , Laurence, S. , & Stich, S. (2005). Introduction: Nativism past and present . In P. Carruthers , S. Laurence , & S. Stich (Eds.), The innate mind: Structure and contents (pp. 3–19). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Spelke, E. , & Kinzler, K. D. (2007). Core knowledge . Developmental Science , 10 (1), 89–96.
Spencer, J. P. , Samuelson, L. K. , Blumberg, M. S. , McMurray, R. , Robinson, S. R. , & Tomblin, J. B. (2009). Seeing the world through a third eye: Developmental systems theory looks beyond the nativist-empiricist debate. Child Development Perspectives , 3 , 103–105.
Thelen, E. (2000). Motor development as foundation and future of developmental psychology. International Journal of Behavioral Development , 24 (4), 385–397.
Thelen, E. , & Adolph, K. E. (1992). Arnold L. Gesell: The paradox of nature and nurture. Developmental Psychology , 28 (3), 368–380.
Tinbergen, N. (1963). On the aims and methods of ethology. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie , 20 , 410–433.
Tomasello, M. T. (1995). Language is not an instinct. Cognitive Development , 10 , 131–156.
Winther, R. G. (2001). Weismann on germ-plasm variation. Journal of the History of Biology , 34 , 517–555.
Witty, P. A. , & Lehman, H. C. (1933). The instinct hypothesis versus the maturation hypothesis. Psychological Review , 40 (1), 33–59.
Wyman, R. J. (2005). Experimental analysis of nature–nurture. Journal of Experimental Zoology , 303 , 415–421.
Zenderland, L. (2001). Measuring minds. Henry Herbert Goddard and the origins of American intelligence testing . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Psychology. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 21 August 2024

Cookie Policy
Privacy Policy
Legal Notice
Accessibility
[162.248.224.4]
162.248.224.4

Character limit 500 /500

Bachelor’s Degrees
Master’s Degrees
Doctorate Degrees
Certificate Programs
Nursing Degrees
Cybersecurity
Human Services
Science & Mathematics
Communication
Liberal Arts
Social Sciences
Computer Science
Admissions Overview
Tuition and Financial Aid
Incoming Freshman and Graduate Students
Transfer Students
Military Students
International Students
Early Access Program
About Maryville
Our Faculty
Our Approach
Our History
Accreditation
Tales of the Brave
Student Support Overview
Online Learning Tools
Infographics

Home / Blog

Nature vs. Nurture Child Development: Exploring Key Differences

October 8, 2020

Whether a child’s personality traits and behavioral tendencies are the sole result of heredity or a consequence of their upbringing is an age-old debate. Much of the controversy in nature vs. nurture child development is the result of a misunderstanding about genetics: the mistaken belief that fate and genetics are synonymous.

In fact, children’s genetic makeup is determined in many ways by their own experiences in their environment. The burgeoning field of epigenetics studies the effect of children’s early experiences on the chemical marks that accumulate in DNA and determine how much of a specific gene will be expressed, as the child development site First Five Years explains. All of these marks combined make up the epigenome; epigenetics is the study of these marks and their impact on children and adults.

A group of children playing tug of war in the park

Epigenetics and related fields in child development promise to give parents and educators new insights into how and why certain genes are expressed and others aren’t. Degree programs such as Maryville University’s online Bachelor of Arts in Human Development and Family Studies explore these areas to prepare students for careers that help families overcome challenges in their lives.

Learn how people develop physically, emotionally and socially within the context of family and society

The online BA in human development and family studies from Maryville University prepares you with the knowledge and skills related to child development, family dynamics and interpersonal relationships. No SAT or ACT scores required.

Benefit from a curriculum that follows the 10 content areas of the National Council on Family Relations (NCFR).
Engage in a range of relevant course topics, from interpersonal relationships to medical terminology.

Definitions: Nature vs. Nurture Child Development

In the nature vs. nurture debate, “nature” is defined as all genes and hereditary factors that contribute to a person’s unique physical appearance, personality, and physiology. “Nurture” is defined as the many environmental variables that affect a person, including their experiences in early childhood, family and social relationships, culture, and community.

Both nature and nurture are linked to the philosophical concepts of empiricism and rationalism.

Empiricists believe that the ultimate source of all concepts and knowledge is our sense experience.
Rationalists hold that the content of concepts and knowledge may at times surpass the information that sense experience alone provides. They also believe that some form of reasoning is the source of this added information about the world.

Most researchers in child development are more interested in how nature and nurture interact than in determining which of the two may predominate. For example, Simply Psychology places various approaches to psychology on a continuum:

At one end is the extreme nature position of nativists , who believe that behavioral tendencies, personality, and mental abilities are determined solely by heredity.
At the opposite end is the extreme nurture position of empiricists , who consider a person’s psychological and physiological makeup to be entirely the result of their sense experiences.

Between these two extremes are a number of fields that focus on the interplay of nature and nurture in child development. Among these are behavioral genetics , which studies the genetic impact on variations in behavior, and polygenic inheritance , which looks at the effect that large groups of genes collectively have on a person’s behavior.

Similarities Between Nature and Nurture Child Development

As researchers delve deeper into nature vs. nurture child development, they find that many aspects of development that were once thought to be determined by a child’s environment also have a genetic component, whereas others that were believed to be controlled solely by heredity are greatly influenced by external factors.

Today’s Parent explains that many past studies on the effect of a child’s experiences and environment are flawed because it’s impossible for researchers to effectively control for genetics. Conversely, studies that claim parenting has no impact on a child’s development ignore the vital role that parents play in encouraging the best attributes and behaviors in their children — and discouraging harmful or negative behaviors.

Nature vs. Nurture: Influences Impacting Child Development

Genes determine certain human characteristics, such as eye and hair color and the incidence of genetic diseases. However, most human traits, including life expectancy, height, and weight, have both an environmental and genetic component. For example, social learning theory states that children learn by observing the behavior of others, so parenting styles and the child’s learned experiences determine whether they behave politely or aggressively in specific situations.

By contrast, learning’s genetic component encompasses the biological foundation of cognitive processes, as explained in Frontiers in Psychology . Genetic and epigenetic contributions to the learning process are inheritable and interact with behavioral learning such as study habits and the availability of educational resources.

Nature vs. Nurture: Children’s Physical and Personality Traits

Two recent studies illustrate the important role of epigenetics in a child’s development. Researchers at the University of British Columbia, UCLA, and British Columbia Children’s Hospital discovered a genetic marker in a child’s DNA that serves as a chemical “clock” to indicate the child’s biological age, as reported in Science Daily.

In a separate study reported in Psychology Today , researchers determined that toxin-related epigenetic changes, such as those caused by inhaling cigarette smoke, can be passed from parent to child genetically. The smoke triggers the expression of cancer-causing genes or suppresses the expression of those that protect against cancer. Children can inherit an epigenetic alteration from a parent.

Nature vs. Nurture: How Both Contribute to Child Development

The field of behavioral genetics studies how nature and nurture combine to affect a child’s development. It states that while genetics have a greater overall impact on a person’s makeup than their family environment does, most of an individual’s behavioral traits cannot be traced to specific genes or family characteristics. Instead, each human behavioral trait is associated with a great number of genetic variants, each of which contributes a very small amount to the expression of the trait.

Differences Between Nature and Nurture Child Development

Within the complex relationship between a child’s genetic makeup and learned experiences, distinctions can be drawn between the human traits that children are born with and those that result from their environment. The differences are evident in activities such as sleeping, crying, eating, socializing, and moving, all of which have clear nature and nurture components, as Firstcry Parenting explains.

Nature: Genetic and Hereditary Influences

A study of fraternal and identical twins found that babies’ sleeping patterns are determined primarily by genetics. Similarly, 60% of a baby’s temperament is set by their genetic makeup; whether they are sociable or shy is also primarily driven by genes. Also controlled primarily by heredity are the foods a baby prefers and whether the baby is active or sedentary.

Nurture: Environmental Influences

While genetics are key drivers of these and other aspects of a child’s development, that development is also influenced by what babies experience. For example, babies with poor sleep patterns can benefit from being exposed to sunlight during the day and by parents establishing a bedtime routine that induces better sleep. Whether a baby is easy to calm and soothe when crying is determined by genes, but swaddling, rocking, swaying, and other activities help overcome this genetic predisposition.

Nature’s Biological Psychology, Nurture’s Behaviorism

Biological psychology examines thoughts, feelings, and behaviors from a physiological perspective, as Verywell Mind describes. The field studies how a person’s brain, nervous system, hormones, and other physical features affect behavior. It also studies the mechanisms of inheritance via genes on the behavioral likeness of identical twins, for example.

Conversely, behaviorism (also called behavioral psychology ) considers how interaction with the environment can condition behavior. This field considers only observable behavior, believing that moods, cognition, and emotions are too subjective to be measurable. Types of conditioning include classical conditioning, which pairs a neutral stimulus with a naturally occurring stimulus until each evokes the same response, and operant or instrumental conditioning, which uses reinforcements and punishments to evoke the desired behavior.

Nature’s Scientific Influences, Nurture’s Social Constructs

While approaches to child development that emphasize nature over nurture may appear to be more grounded in science than in behavior modification, both nature and nurture have scientific foundations that are paired with environmental controls. In general, nature looks at the impact of such physical approaches as neurotransmitters and genome sequencing on child development, while nurture focuses on aspects such as peer pressure and social influences.

Studying the Relationships and Experiences That Shape Children and Families

New discoveries in epigenetics, behavioral psychology, and related areas make child development one of the most exciting fields of scientific research. Programs such as Maryville University’s online Bachelor of Arts in Human Development and Family Studies prepare students to help individuals, families, and communities promote healthy child development.

Learn more about how Maryville provides students with the flexibility, affordability, and personalized coursework to begin pursuing a career serving families in need.

Take Your Next Brave Step

Receive information about the benefits of our programs, the courses you'll take, and what you need to apply.

Human development, nature and nurture: Working beyond the divide

Thinking on the Edge
Published: 03 September 2012
Volume 7 , pages 308–321, ( 2012 )

Cite this article

Ilina Singh 1

4330 Accesses

58 Citations

11 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

In this essay, I explore what social science might contribute to building a better understanding of relations between ‘nature’ and ‘nurture’ in human development. I first outline changing scientific perspectives on the role of the environment in the developmental and behavioural sciences, beginning with a general historical view of the developmental science of human potentials in the twentieth century, and then reflecting on a call to arms against ‘toxic stress’ issued in 2012 by the American Academy of Pediatrics. I suggest that such post-genomic programmes of early intervention, which draw on emerging scientific theories of organismic plasticity and developmental malleability, raise significant social and ethical concerns. At the same time, such programmes challenge social scientists to move beyond critique and to contribute to new developmental models that deconstruct the old divide between nature and nurture. I conclude by describing efforts that posit new terms of reference and, simultaneously, new kinds of research interests and questions that are not founded upon, and are not efforts to resolve, the nature–nurture debate.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

Get 10 units per month
Download Article/Chapter or eBook
1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
Cancel anytime

Price excludes VAT (USA) Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Promoting Resilience in Early Childhood

Nurturing Care for Early Childhood Development: Global Perspective and Guidance

The Importance of Positive Environments on Infant and Early Childhood Neurodevelopment: A Review and Preview of Upcoming, “BE POSITIVE,” Research

Some of this history is covered in Singh (2002) , and far more completely in Shorter (1997) .

Fox Keller takes the phrase ‘system of inheritance’ from Jablonka and Lamb (2005) .

To be fair, this is a quotation from an interview with a journalist. Shonkoff is also the lead author of the toxic stress report in Pediatrics , which suggests a more sophisticated understanding of the science. Nevertheless, it is important to note the continued salience of claims to have discovered the ‘biology of (insert socially undesirable status or behavior)’.

Interestingly, there were no positive effects of intervention on boys born to visited mothers, which should raise a question of the overall success of the programme, given that men are more likely than women to be arrested and convicted of crimes.

www.nursefamilypartnership.org/assets/PDF/Press-Releases-(1)/2012_MIECHVP_Funding_12_23_11.aspx .

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979) The Ecology of Human Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Google Scholar

Champagne, F.A. (2010a) Epigenetic influence of social experiences across the lifespan. Developmental Psychobiology 52 (4): 299–311.

Article Google Scholar

Champagne, F.A. (2010b) Early adversity and developmental outcomes: Interaction between genetics, epigenetics and social experiences across the lifespan. Perspectives on Psychological Science 5 (5): 564–574.

Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Administration for Children and Families. (2010, January) Head Start Impact Study, Final Report. Washington DC: DHHS.

Dillon, M. (2007) Governing terror: The state of emergency of biopolitical emergence. International Political Sociology 1 (1): 7–28.

Dugdale, R. (1969 [1877] ) The Jukes: A Study of Crime, Pauperism, Disease and Heredity, Paper 1, Georgia, USA: GSU College of Law Faculty Publications, http://digitalarchive.gsu.edu/col_facpub/1 .

Eckenrode, J. et al (2010) Long-term effects of prenatal and infancy nurse home visitation on the life course of youths: 19-year follow-up of a randomized trial. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine 164 (1): 9–15.

Fox Keller, E. (2010) The Mirage of a Space between Nature and Nurture. Chapel Hill, NC: Duke University Press.

Book Google Scholar

Francis, R.C. (2011) Epigenetics: The Ultimate Mystery of Inheritance. New York: Norton.

Franklin, S. and Roberts, C. (2006) Born and Made: An Ethnography of Pre-Implantation Genetic Diagnosis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Gaudillie`re, J.-P. and Rheinberger, H.-J. (eds.) (2004) From Molecular Genetics to Genomics: The Mapping Cultures of Twentieth Century Genetics. New York: Routledge.

Goddard, H.H. (1912) The Kallikak Family: A Study in the Heredity of Feeble Mindedness. New York: MacMillan.

Haraway, D. (1991) Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Re-Invention of Nature. New York: Routledge.

Harrington, A. (2008) The Cure Within: A History of Mind-Body Medicine. New York: Norton.

Healy, D. (1999) The Anti-Depressant Era. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Horowitz, A. (2002) Creating Mental Illness. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.

Jablonka, E. and Lamb, M. (2005) Evolution in Four Dimensions: Genetic, Epigenetic, Behavioral and Symbolic Variation in the History of Life. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Kristof, N.D. (2012) The poverty solution that starts with a hug. New York Times Sunday Review, 7 January, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/08/opinion/sunday/kristof-a-poverty-solution-that-starts-with-a-hug.html .

Kutchins, H. and Kirk, S.A. (1999) Making Us Crazy. New York: Constable.

Laing, R.D. and Esterson, A. (1970) Sanity, Madness and the Family: Families of Schizophrenics. London: Penguin.

Lederbogen, F. et al (2011) City living and urban upbringing affect neural social stress processing in humans. Nature 474 (7352): 498–501.

Lock, M. (2001) The tempering of medical anthropology: Troubling natural categories. Medical Anthropology Quarterly 15 (4): 478–492.

Lombroso, C. (2004 [1876]) Criminal Man. Chapel Hill, NC: Duke University Press.

Low, S.M. (1981) The meaning of nervios: A sociocultural analysis of symptom presentation in San Jose, Costa Rica. Culture, Medicine & Psychiatry 5 (1): 25–47.

Niewohner, J. (2011) Epigenetics: Embedded bodies and the molecularisation of biography and milieu. BioSocieties 6 (4): 279–298.

Roepstorff, A., Niewohner, J. and Beck, S. (2010) Enculturing brains through patterned practices. Neural Networks 23 (8–9): 1051–1059.

Shonkoff, J.P. et al (2011) Early childhood adversity, toxic stress and the role of the pediatrician: Translating developmental science into lifelong health. Pediatrics 26 (December): e232–e246.

Shorter, E. (1997) A History of Psychiatry: From the Era of the Asylum to the Age of Prozac. New York: Wiley.

Shostak, S. (forthcoming 2013) Defining Vulnerabilities: Genes, the Environment, and the Politics of Population Health. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Showalter, E. (1998) Hystories: Hysteria, Gender and Culture. New York: Picador.

Singh, I. (2002) Bad boys, good mothers and the ‘miracle’ of Ritalin. Science in Context 15 (4): 577–603.

Singh, I. (2011) A disorder of anger and aggression: Children's perspectives on attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder in the UK. Social Science and Medicine, Special Issue on Diagnosis 73 (6): 889–896.

Skinner, B.F. (1938) The Behavior of Organisms: An Experimental Analysis. New York: Appleton-Century.

Skinner, B.F. (2005 [1948]) Walden Two. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing.

Sulloway, F. (1992) Freud, Biologist of the Mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Szasz, T. (1961) The Myth of Mental Illness: Foundations of a Theory of Personal Conduct. New York: Harper & Row.

Walsh, P., Elsabbagh, M., Bolton, P. and Singh, I. (2011) In search of biomarkers for autism: Scientific, policy and ethical challenges. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 12 (10): 603–612.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

London School of Economics & Political Science, Houghton Street, London, WC2A 2AE, UK

Ilina Singh

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Singh, I. Human development, nature and nurture: Working beyond the divide. BioSocieties 7 , 308–321 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1057/biosoc.2012.20

Download citation

Published : 03 September 2012

Issue Date : 01 September 2012

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/biosoc.2012.20

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

epigenetics
toxic stress
Nurse–Family Partnership
ecobiodevelopmental model
Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

View all journals
Explore content
About the journal
Publish with us
Sign up for alerts
Perspective
Open access
Published: 08 January 2021

Nurture might be nature: cautionary tales and proposed solutions

Sara A. Hart ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9793-0420 1 , 2 ,
Callie Little 2 , 3 &
Elsje van Bergen ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5860-5745 4

npj Science of Learning volume 6 , Article number: 2 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

40k Accesses

68 Citations

135 Altmetric

Metrics details

Human behaviour

Across a wide range of studies, researchers often conclude that the home environment and children’s outcomes are causally linked. In contrast, behavioral genetic studies show that parents influence their children by providing them with both environment and genes, meaning the environment that parents provide should not be considered in the absence of genetic influences, because that can lead to erroneous conclusions on causation. This article seeks to provide behavioral scientists with a synopsis of numerous methods to estimate the direct effect of the environment, controlling for the potential of genetic confounding. Ideally, using genetically sensitive designs can fully disentangle this genetic confound, but these require specialized samples. In the near future, researchers will likely have access to measured DNA variants (summarized in a polygenic scores), which could serve as a partial genetic control, but that is currently not an option that is ideal or widely available. We also propose a work around for when genetically sensitive data are not readily available: the Familial Control Method. In this method, one measures the same trait in the parents as the child, and the parents’ trait is then used as a covariate (e.g., a genetic proxy). When these options are all not possible, we plead with our colleagues to clearly mention genetic confound as a limitation, and to be cautious with any environmental causal statements which could lead to unnecessary parent blaming.

Dissecting polygenic signals from genome-wide association studies on human behaviour

Genetic architecture of Environmental Sensitivity reflects multiple heritable components: a twin study with adolescents

Behavioural genetics methods

Most parents spend hours fretting over decisions about the environment they provide to their children. The scientific literature mirrors this idea. Across a wide range of studies from many psychological domains, researchers often conclude that the environment parents provide and children’s outcomes are causally linked, through environmental transmission (see Box 1 ). For example, a study examining the association of having a home library as an adolescent and later adult literacy, numeracy and technology skills drew our attention because of in-depth coverage in the Guardian ( https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/oct/10/growing-up-in-a-house-full-of-books-is-major-boost-to-literacy-and-numeracy-study-finds ). This study used a very rich and well-powered dataset, and found a correlation between the number of books in adolescents’ homes and literacy performance in adulthood. They conclude that “growing up with home libraries boosts adult skills”, inferring a causal connection 1 . This is depicted in Fig. 1 . Here we discuss how the correlation between the environments parents provide, the “rearing environment”, and their children’s outcomes can indeed be fully due to a causal association, or importantly, can also be partly or fully due to a genetic confounding, illustrated in Fig. 2 (see Footnote 1 in the Supplementary Notes ). After highlighting the problem, we suggest ways that psychological scientists can examine research questions related to the rearing environment and children’s outcomes in ways that account for, or at least acknowledge, genetic confounding.

Number of books in the home is thought to be an environmental causal effect on children’s reading ability. Figure by ref. 66 available at https://bit.ly/3gl8MVk under a CC BY 4.0 license.

Parents share genes related to reading ability with their children, and also control the number of books in their home. This creates gene–environment interplay. It is important to note that the environmental effect may still have a causal role, even with gene–environment interplay. If genes play a role but are not modeled (as in Fig. 1 ), the correlation between the environmental measure and the child’s trait is genetically confounded. Here, the role of genes is modeled, allowing for an estimation of the genetic effect and the environmental effect. Figure by ref. 66 available at https://bit.ly/31c52z9 under a CC BY 4.0 license.

Genetic control of exposure to the environment

Decades of work from behavioral genetics show that children’s traits are influenced by both genetic and environmental effects 2 , 3 . Likely more surprising to hear for most is that genetic influences are often seen on measures of the “environment”, suggesting that the contexts surrounding children are partly under genetic control 4 . For example, a meta-analysis found cumulative support for genetic influences on the parenting children received 5 . This idea, that there is genetic influence on exposure to environments, is called a gene–environment correlation. A gene–environment correlation describes the process by which a person’s genotype influences their exposure to the environment 6 . It is certainly not the case that genes are doing this directly, but instead genotypes matter for aspects of our personality, behaviors and cognitions, which then influence how we interact with our environment and how others interact with us 7 . This concept of an individual purposely and dynamically interacting with their surrounding environment is not limited to behavioral genetics; similar processes have been described in other literatures, for example person-centered interactions 8 and the Selective Optimization with Compensation 9 .

Specifically, there are three types of gene–environment correlations that can result in genetic confounds 6 . First, a “passive gene–environment correlation” describes the association between the genotype a child inherits from their parents and the environment the child is raised in. Another way to think of it is that genes are a third variable which influence both the rearing environment a child receives as well as the child’s own traits, via genetic transmission from parents to child. This means it is not possible to draw causal conclusions between the rearing environment and children’s traits. For example, home environments have been found to be less chaotic for children with high effortful control, with results indicating that the same genes in parents which contribute to the levels of structure in their home (i.e., factors such as absence of noise and crowding, as well as presence of structure and routine) are also transmitted to their children and contribute to effortful control 10 . Second, an “evocative gene–environment correlation” is when a person’s genetically influenced trait elicits, or evokes, a specific response from others in the environment. For example, it has been found that a person’s genes are associated with being rated as “more likeable” by others, meaning how others perceive you as a social partner, and then likely interact with you, is influenced by your genes 11 . Third, an “active gene–environment correlation” describes the association of a person’s genetically influenced traits and the environments they select. For example, the genetically influenced personality trait of socialization, measured in childhood, was associated with exposure to risky environments related to substance abuse in adolescence, in that children with low socialization were exposed to more risky environments 12 . All three have the potential to cloud the true combination of genetic and environmental influences transmitted between parents and children (i.e., genetic confounding), but it is theorized that passive gene–environment correlations have a greater effect in childhood 13 , and as such passive gene–environment correlations are the focus of our review.

To give an example of how (passive) gene–environment correlations can result in genetic confounding in studies focused on the rearing environment, a high impact finding reported that parents with higher math anxiety have children with higher math anxiety, solely due to the home environment 14 . The authors attribute helping with math homework as the causal environmental factor, concluding that parents with high math anxiety should not help with their children’s math homework. This causal connection could exist, but equally parents with math anxiety also pass on genetic (and environmental) risks related to both lower math cognition and higher math anxiety 15 . Because this genetic transmission was not controlled for, causal claims and associated parenting advice are not justified.

Another example, this time from the medical literature, examined the intergenerational transmission of smoking behavior from parents to adolescents, concluding that “the attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors toward [adolescent] cigarette use are learned through [parent] modeling” 16 . Again, this study focused on the environmental transmission from parents to offspring without accounting for the transmission of genes related to smoking behaviors and risk-taking behaviors 17 . Furthermore, the authors conclude that smoking cessation interventions in adults can reduce smoking in subsequent generations. Parent-centered interventions might help to reduce adolescent smoking, but what is overlooked is that children carry their own genetic risks for smoking, and direct intervention with the adolescents 18 could more strongly influence their smoking behaviors.

We are certainly not the first to point out this familial transmission confound within the ecological literature. Indeed, nearly 40 years ago, Scarr and McCartney proposed that “the human experience and its effects on development depend primarily on the evolved nature of the human genome” 13 , and nearly 30 years ago Plomin and Bergeman 19 addressed the prevalence of genetic confounding by illustrating that genetic influences are found on most if not all environmental measures. Since then, several reviews have pointed to multiple examples from parental warmth to alcohol use to depression where causal pathways from parent behavior to child outcomes are reported, without accounting for genetic confounding 20 , 21 , 22 . These reviews have called for researchers to use caution with causal statements, and to address genetic confounding in their limitations. Further, they have asked for journal editors and reviewers to be better watch-dogs in this endeavor; to insist that manuscripts adhere to these standards. However, based on our experience listening to conference presentations and reading press releases and newspaper articles, we believe these guidelines are not yet being met.

We believe a reason why these previous reviews have not successfully changed minds and methods is because they have not given actionable correlational design solutions to researchers outside of behavior genetics. Therefore, when faced with not doing the work or publishing work with only a potential genetic confound, researchers have chosen the latter. Therefore, in the following section we will give many possible solutions, from genetically sensitive designs to design solutions that work in lieu of genetically sensitive data, and finally, a renewed call for changes in reporting standards.

Box 1 A glossary of some key terms

Environmental transmission (also called: cultural or phenotypic transmission):	Transmission of traits from parents to their children by non-genetic means. It is used to describe when parents’ traits impact their child’s traits through the environment they create.
Familial Control Method:	Using a measure of the same trait in the parent as the child as a covariate in models estimating the effect of the rearing environment. That covariate then serves as a proxy control for the genetic transmission effect.
Familial transmission:	Transmission of traits from parents to their children, both by genetic and non-genetic means. Familial transmission gives rise to parent–child resemblance.
Gene–environment correlation:	Genetic influence on the exposure to the environment. There are three types: passive, evocative, and active (see text).
Genetic confounding:	Confounding due to gene–environment correlation. Here we focus on confounding due to a gene–environmental correlation, describing a situation where the influence of parental traits on children’s traits is not (solely) due to environmental transmission.
Genetic transmission:	Transmission of traits from parents to their children by genetic means (i.e., children inherit genes from their parents for a given trait).
Genotype:	An individual’s complete heritable information. A combination of alleles for a specific gene or across the whole genome.
GWAS:	Genome-wide association study. Identifies genetic variants (i.e., SNPs) across the genome that are linked to a trait.
Phenotype:	An individual’s observable traits, like eye color, reading ability, or parenting style.
SNP (pronounced “snip”):	Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). A single position in a DNA sequence that varies among individuals. For example, if a particular SNP can be nucleotide G or nucleotide C, then individuals can have GG, GC, or CC (one nucleotide from each parent). SNPs are the basis for genome-wide association studies.

What researchers can do

The designs that we discuss below present a not all-encompassing but global overview of genetically sensitive designs and polygenic-scores (PGS) designs, and include a genetic-proxy control design (the “Familial Control Method”), which we recommend when genetically sensitive data are not available, as well as several other proxy control designs. These designs vary in how well they disentangle the genetic confound and in how challenging they are in terms of obtaining and analyzing the data.

Genetically sensitive designs

Genetically sensitive designs are ideal for studying genetic and environmental influences and their interplay. These designs take advantage of samples of related individuals that differ in genetic relatedness (e.g., monozygotic and dizygotic twins; Fig. 3 ) or differ in environmental exposure (e.g., monozygotic twins reared apart). By far the most commonly used genetically sensitive design is the classical twin design. This design works because twins share either all (identical or monozygotic twins) or half (non-identical or dizygotic twins) of their genes 23 . Both types of twins share some parts of their environment such as their home, school, and neighborhood (referred to as common or shared environmental influences), and experience some aspects of their environments separately from each other such as peer groups, hobbies, or illness (referred to as unique or non-shared environmental influences). By comparing the average correlation between the two twins in a twin pair on a trait for monozygotic versus dizygotic twins, variance can be partitioned into additive genetic influences or heritability, shared environmental influences, and non-shared environmental influences (see Footnote 2 in the Supplementary Notes ) (Fig. 4 ). Heritability of a trait is indicated if the correlation between monozygotic twins is higher than that of dizygotic twins. Shared environmental influences are estimated by subtracting the heritability estimate from the monozygotic twin correlation, and the estimated shared environmental influences is larger when the correlation coefficient between monozygotic versus dizygotic twins are close in magnitude. Finally, non-shared environmental influences are estimated by subtracting the monozygotic twin correlation from one.

The scatter plots depict how much the two types of (reared-together) twins resemble their co-twin on reading ability. Each dot represents the reading scores of both children within a pair. It can be seen that monozygotic twins are much more alike. From this, it can be concluded that differences between children are largely due to genetic differences. The data come from van Bergen et al. 34 and represent word-reading fluency test scores in Grade 2 of twin pairs with complete data. The score is the number of words read correctly within 1 min. In this sample, the monozygotic and dizygotic twin correlations were 0.84 and 0.46, respectively, which yield estimates using the Falconer formulas 67 of A = 0.76, C = 0.08, and E = 0.16 (see Fig. 4 ). Figure by ref. 66 available at https://bit.ly/3k4w2Ji under a CC BY 4.0 license.

In behavioral-genetic models, the three sources of influences on individual differences are commonly labeled by the letters A, C, and E, respectively, stemming from A dditive genetic influences (also known as heritability, and sometimes represented by an h 2 instead on an A), C ommon environmental influences (also known as shared environmental influences), and non-shared E nvironmental influences (and measurement E rror). Note that the latter are by definition uncorrelated between twins. See for a detailed representation of the classical twin model, for example, Figure A.9 in ref. 23 ; r MZ = monozygotic twin correlation; r DZ = dizygotic twin correlation. Figure by ref. 66 available at https://bit.ly/2Xkr29P under a CC BY 4.0 license.

With regard to disentangling possible genetic confounds and instead studying the direct effect of specific aspects of the rearing environment, classical twin studies are limited because both type of twins commonly share their rearing environments. For example, twin children growing up together are exposed to the same home library or household income, so monozygotic and dizygotic twin resemblance cannot be compared for these types of environmental measures. However, a classical twin study can begin to separate the direct effect of the home environment in two cases. First, child twins can be asked to individually rate their own rearing environment (Fig. 4 ). Since individual experiences are correlated with genetic predisposition, monozygotic twins often rate their experiences of the home environment more similarly with each other than dizygotic twins do. Therefore, when child twins can report their own ratings of their rearing environment, these estimates can serve to differentiate monozygotic and dizygotic twins. Twins who are children might not differ in how many books they have in the home, but they will likely differ in how much their parents read to them, or how much their parents monitor their reading. In these cases, the extent to which aspects of children’s rating of their rearing environment do not show entirely environmental influences, in other words, some heritability is measured on the “rearing environment”, this infers that there is a genetic confound, via a passive gene–environment correlation 4 , 19 . Using child twin ratings of their rearing environment, Hanscombe et al. 24 found that 22% of the variance of chaos in the home was attributable to genetic factors, and moreover, 37% of association between chaos in the home and school achievement was due to shared genes. This suggests that this “environmental” variable of chaos in the home, measuring noise and lack of structure in the home, is partially genetically confounded. This means that chaos in the home does not have a completely direct, or causal role, on children’s school achievement.

The second way that the classical twin model can be used to identify the direct effect of the home environment, free of genetic confounding, is by focusing on the environment that adult twins create (see Fig. 4 , but replace “reading ability” with “books in their home” or the like). When twins are adults they can differ in how many books they own and the income of their household, so genetic and environmental influences on their home environments can be studied. These studies quantify genetic and environmental influences on the home environment that twins create 4 , but they do not quantify the influence of these home characteristics on outcomes in their offspring.

Other genetically sensitive designs that can address the direct effect of the rearing environment, after accounting for genetic confounding, are adoption studies, within-family sibling studies, and twin-family studies 25 . In an adoption design, resemblance between adopted children and their biological parents is due to heritability (plus the prenatal environment). In contrast, resemblance between adopted children and their adoptive parents is fully due to the environment that the parents have provided. Another way to examine the rearing environment while partially controlling for genetic confounding is to use non-twin biological siblings within a family 26 , 27 . Because biological siblings, like dizygotic twins, share half of their genes, sibling resemblance on a trait suggests the influence of genetic factors along with some shared environmental influences. However, non-twin siblings can differ on several aspects of the rearing environment such as family size or parental health and age at birth, therefore, any dissimilarity between siblings can help to determine the influences of these non-shared aspects of the rearing environments on a given trait. Sibling designs have also recently incorporated the use of genome-wide PGS which strengthen their ability to control for confounding by disentangling direct genetic influences from gene–environment correlations 28 , 29 . PGS designs are discussed in more detail, below.

Twin-family studies include twins and their family members, like young twins and their parents, or adult twins and their children. The latter, referred to as children-of-twins design (Fig. 5 ), is particularly suitable to study the effect of children’s rearing environment, free of genetic confounding 21 . Put simply, consider a mother who has an identical twin sister. The mother’s son shares half of his genetic variants with his mother, but also with his aunt. If for a given trait he resembles his mother as much as his aunt, this suggests that the resemblance is fully due to shared genes. Conversely, if he is more like his mother than aunt, this demonstrates that the resemblance between mother and son is at least partially due to the environment provided by his mother (see Footnote 3 in the Supplementary Notes ). There are even more complex extended twin family designs, described well in Keller et al. 30 and McAdams et al. 31 .

In the given example, the (adult) twins are sisters. The genetic transmission (left hand side) is fixed at 0.50 because parents and children share 50% of their genome. The other set of genes that influence the child trait (bottom left) are genetic influences that explain variance in the child trait but not the parent trait. The crucial test for presence of environmental transmission is whether the p-path is significant. Note that ‘child’ can refer to child or adult offspring. See, for the full and detailed model, ref. 31 . Figure by ref. 66 available at https://bit.ly/2D0aNYJ under a CC BY 4.0 license.

In sum, genetically sensitive designs can assess whether the rearing environment is influencing children’s outcomes, outside of genetic confounds. Although they are observational and hence cannot establish causality, or the absence thereof, they can strongly infer causality above and beyond the majority of typical observational studies. An important point to make is if a genetically sensitive study suggests no direct causality of the rearing environment on children’s outcomes, it does not imply that intervening is pointless. Successful parenting interventions are able to experimentally induce changes in parents’ skills or behaviors, which then causally improve child outcomes. Thus, observational studies, such as all the genetically sensitive designs described here, and experimental studies (preferably randomized controlled trials 32 ) answer related but different questions: the first on “what is”, so causality in the natural situation, and the second on “what could be”, so causality due to intervening 33 , 34 .

Returning to genetically sensitive designs, the disadvantage is that they require access to such data, which are challenging to collect and analyze. We note for a reader interested in using twin data to better answer their questions about the direct role of the rearing environment, twin datasets are increasingly becoming publically available. For example, TwinLife ( https://www.twin-life.de/en ), TEDS ( http://www.teds.ac.uk/researchers ), NLSY kinship links ( http://nlsy-links.github.io/NlsyLinks/ ), Netherlands Twin Register ( http://tweelingenregister.vu.nl/research ), and others are available online or via application. In addition, there is a data sharing culture in the behavioral genetics community, and most will likely share when asked. We suggest that researchers consider using these resources to better test their research questions.

PGS designs

A new avenue to study intertwined genetic and environmental effects employs genome-wide PGS. This method relies on genome-wide association studies (GWASs) which pinpoint genetic variants (i.e., single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs)) that are linked to a trait (Fig. 6 ). The most powerful GWAS to date ( N > 1 million) has identified 1271 genetic variants associated with educational attainment 35 . Each of them has a tiny effect, but these tiny effects can be summed in a PGS. The PGS, calculated for all (unrelated) individuals in an independent sample, explains 12% of the variance in educational attainment. Note that twin studies estimate the heritability of educational attainment at 40% 36 , so the PGS currently captures less than one-third of this; the remainder is the “missing heritability” 37 .

Left panel: A published genome-wide association study (GWAS) serves as an external database. In an extremely large sample, a GWAS estimates tiny associations ( \({\hat{\mathrm b}}\) ) between the trait of interest and millions of genetic variants. Specifically, the genetic variants studied are single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), located across the genome. Middle panel: Polygenic scoring can be done in a sample that was not part of the GWAS. For each individual in this sample, the SNP effects ( \({\hat{\mathrm b}}\) ) are multiplied by the number of trait-associated alleles (0, 1, or 2) the person carries. These values are summed across all SNPs to arrive at the individual’s PGS. Right panel: The resulting PGSs across individuals in that sample are normally distributed. If the trait of interest is a disorder, like ADHD, the individuals in the right tail have the highest genetic risk for developing ADHD. PGSs are not yet strong enough for predictions at the individual level, but see the main text for examples of how PGSs advance science at the group level. Figure adapted from ref. 69 . Figure by ref. 66 available at https://bit.ly/2BPcCXP under a CC BY 4.0 license.

As we speak, novel methods are being designed to disentangle nature and nurture that draw on PGS. Below, we list some examples of recent developments. First, Dolan et al. 38 bring PGS into the classical twin design. By doing so, one can estimate the gene–environment correlation, rather than assume it is absent. Second, Lee et al. 35 and Selzam et al. 29 found that for cognitive traits, the predictive power of a PGS within a family was about 50% lower than across unrelated individuals. The attenuation of the PGS’ predictive power within families suggests that passive gene–environment correlations (as captured by the PGS) contribute to children’s cognitive development. As a third example, both Kong et al. 39 and Bates et al. 40 separately proposed the same design incorporating parental and offspring PGS to disentangle environmental transmission from genetic transmission (i.e., account for the genetic confound between the home environment and child outcomes). In both cases, the researchers split the genetic variants of the parents in half—those that the parent had and had not transmitted to the offspring—and calculated for each half the PGS for educational attainment (Fig. 7 ). The researchers do this because of the biological fact that a parent only transmits a random half of their genes to their child. And for this design to work, both parents and their child must be included (but see ref. 41 for a work around). Amazingly, what the researchers found was both sets of parent PGS predicted adult offspring’s educational attainment. The predictive value of the transmitted PGS was unsurprising, as this captures directly transmitted genetic effects. But the predictive value of the non-transmitted PGS was not certain. If non-transmitted PGS influence children’s traits, this effect must be environmental, likely acting through rearing behaviors that affect the child’s development. Kong et al. 39 aptly coined this genetic effect through the rearing environment “genetic nurturing”. Belsky et al. 42 did a similar analysis but with an updated PGS score. Interestingly, when this design is expanded to include grandparents, there is little evidence for genetic nurturing from the grandparent generation 43 . Fourth, Wertz et al. 44 incorporated both PGS of mothers and children, as well as direct measures of parenting. They showed that mothers’ cognitive stimulation explained the relation of the maternal non-transmitted PGS to child educational attainment. This indicated that there is a direct environmental transmission of parenting on children’s outcomes, unconfounded by correlated genetic transmission. Finally, de Zeeuw et al. 45 and Willoughby et al. 46 both used the full genetic-nurturing design (employing DNA of children and both parents) and found (thereby replicated) genetic-nurturing effects on adults’ educational attainment. Crucially, for outcomes in childhood, academic achievement and ADHD-symptoms, Zeeuw et al. 45 only found direct genetic effects; no genetic nurturing. They concluded that a large contributor to why the rearing environment predicts child outcomes may well be intergenerational transmission of genetic effects.

In this design, one needs genotypes of parents and offspring, and a measured trait in the offspring generation only. The trait in the parents, for example educational attainment, is unobserved and indexed by a polygenic score of, in this example, educational attainment. The child receives half of the genotypes of father (top left) and mother (top right) and these transmitted alleles influence the child trait directly. The parental alleles that the child does not receive can still influence the child trait indirectly, via genetically influenced behaviors in the parents (denoted by the dotted genetic-nurturing paths). Genetic nurturing is present if the polygenic score of the untransmitted alleles explains a significant proportion of the variance in the child trait. The proportion of variance explained by the polygenic score of the transmitted alleles include both genetic nurturing and direct effects. Note that ‘child’ can refer to child or adult offspring. T = transmitted, NT = non-transmitted. Figure adapted from ref. 39 . Figure by ref. 66 available at https://bit.ly/2PjpkRu under a CC BY 4.0 license.

At the moment, measured genetic variants only explain small proportions of variance and the papers mentioned above may be seen by behavioral researchers as only a proof-of-principle. Nevertheless, these exciting developments will gain in strength when increasingly larger GWASs of all sorts of traits yield more refined PGS. By this we mean that PGSs will begin to explain more and more portions of the variance in outcomes we are interested in, with the hope that eventually they will reach the theoretical upper limit of SNP heritability. Even then, using them as a genetic control (i.e., as a covariate) will continue to underestimate the total genetic effects we are looking to control. PGSs account for only one type of genetic effect, namely common variants. There is increasing evidence that traits such as educational attainment are influenced by not only common variants, but also rare variants 47 , 48 . Another concern is that new work is indicting that a PGS is not a measure of only genetic variance. Instead, it likely represents not only causal genetic effects, but genetic ancestry, assortative mating, gene x environment interactions, direct environmental influences (i.e., genetic nurture), and environmental confounds from, for example, SES 49 , 50 . Therefore, a measure of genes (i.e., a PGS) can predict trait variance via environmental routes. This parallels our earlier notion that a measure of the environment can predict trait variance via genetic routes.

In summary, at the moment the PGS is not a perfect “genetic control”, as it does not account for all of the genetic effects and also accounts for other effects, including the very environment we are interested in. But, we believe that next to no control, using a PGS as a statistical control is still better. Costs of genotyping are falling and the number of cohorts with genotype data is growing 51 . We predict that in the not-so-far future, using simply and cheaply collected genotypic information will become a regular part of the behavioral researchers’ data collection protocol, especially as the predictive validity of the PGSs increases. This means that PGSs will allow researchers to partly control for genetic confounds in their models. We foresee that it will be easier to use PGSs than rely on genetically sensitive designs.

Genetic-proxy control designs: the Familial Control Method

The designs discussed above are the current gold-standards. However, as these types of samples discussed above are not currently easy to collect and analyze, we propose here a useful work around 52 , 53 . Our colleagues can measure the same trait in both the parents as the child, and use the paternal and maternal traits as covariates. We advise to assess the traits in both parents (but acknowledge the challenge that brings), because the child shares only 50% of their genes with one parent, but all of their genes with both parents. Hence, both parents are needed to best tag the child’s genetic liability. The parental traits, included as two covariates, then serve as a proxy for the familial transmission, including genetic transmission. In doing so, you have a proxy control for the familial effect. Hence, we term this method the Familial Control Method.

The Familial Control Method is designed for traits that are mostly transmitted from parent to child through genes rather than the environment, like reading ability 54 , 55 (see Footnote 4 in the Supplementary Notes ). Van Bergen et al. 53 capitalized on this in studying whether children’s reading ability is influenced by the home literacy environment, like reading habits of the parents and the number of books in the home. Analyses consisted of straight-forward step-wise regression analyses, illustrated in Fig. 8 . The home literacy environment correlated with children’s reading ability, but for most home-literacy indicators the effect was no longer significant after accounting for the reading ability of the parents. This suggests genetic confound rather than a genuine environmental effect. The one exception was the number of books children grow up with, which did explain variance over and beyond parents’ reading skills (Fig. 8 ). This suggests a genuine environmental effect on children’s reading by the number of books itself, or something related, like the value that the family places on reading 45 .

The findings that are depicted here come from van Bergen et al. 53 . The key question is whether the environmental measure explains variance beyond the familial effect, as this indicates a genuine environmental effect. In the example given, this was 5% and significant. This was negligible and non-significant for the other environmental measures reported in ref. 53 . Figure by ref. 66 available at https://bit.ly/2Pfjelh under a CC BY 4.0 license.

A similar approach was taken by Hart et al. 52 in studying the effect of the home numeracy environment on children’s math ability. When a parent’s math ability was included in the model, some effects of aspects of the home numeracy environment on children’s math ability were attenuated, but most held up. A note of caution is that the skills of only one parent could be obtained and controlled for, so the study lacked a proxy for the genetic liability passed on by the other parent. The authors concluded that doing more math-related activities with your children does seem to directly boost their math.

We advise researchers who are interested in applying the Familial Control Method to search first in the literature for adoption and twin-family studies. Such studies with the outcome trait of interest (e.g., reading ability) assessed in both the parent and the offspring generation, test whether parent to offspring transmission is mainly genetic or environmental in nature 54 , 55 . However, such studies are scarce. If such studies for the trait of interest do not exist, a good starting point are classical twin studies. Traits with no or a small influence of the shared environment (referred to as C), like neurological traits, are more likely to be transmitted just genetically compared to traits with large shared-environment influences, like social values. Results of meta-analyses of twin studies on a very large number of traits can be found in Polderman et al. 2 and the accompanying webtool ( http://match.ctglab.nl/ ).

The Familial Control Method, using a parental trait as genetic proxy, is not watertight, and certain assumptions must be made for it to be effective for your research question (see Footnote 5 in the Supplementary Notes ). First, if, for a certain trait, parent–child resemblance is not only due to genetic transmission but also environmental transmission, the Familial Control Method can be too conservative, as it also takes away some of the variance due to true environmental effects. However, one could argue that for many situations, being slightly too cautious in causal claims about environmental influences is less harmful than being too lax. However, this might not be the case for all researchers, and we encourage behavioral researchers to consider if being too conservative is actual harmful (e.g., for the effect of an unsafe home environment on child psychopathology) Second, as mentioned earlier, the trait measured in the parents should be the same or highly similar as the trait measured in the child. This means that traits which are not at least reasonably the same in childhood as adulthood (i.e., across birth cohorts and across the lifespan) would not work in this design. So the trait should be at least reasonably measurement invariant and relatedly, show reasonable genetic stability. Fortunately, for many phenotypes, children’s phenotypes are simply developmental precursors to the adult phenotypes (e.g., for reading ability 56 , and for ADHD 57 ). A researcher must decide if the mentioned assumptions are appropriate for their trait of interest, but fortunately we do believe that these assumptions are reasonable for most to make. Third, correlations among the parent and child trait and the environmental measure of interest will be attenuated by measurement error. To reduce measurement error, one can do regressions according to the Familial Control Method in a structural equation modeling framework, with multiple indicators per construct. One can fit a model with as the outcome the latent child trait of interest, and as (correlated) predictors, the latent traits of both parents and the environmental measure of interest. If dropping the regression path ‘environmental measure → child outcome’ leads to a significantly worse model fit, this implies that the environmental measure is associated with the outcome above and beyond the familial effect. If the trait of interest is genetically transmitted, this equates to above and beyond genetic confounding, so suggests a direct environmental influence. The effect size here is given by the difference in explained variance in the child outcome of the models with and without the ‘environmental measure → child outcome’ path. Adopting a structural equation modeling framework with latent variables is especially advisable for constructs that are notoriously hard to measure reliably. Another advantage of this framework, compared to stepwise regressions, is that families with missing data can be retained.

It is likely the case that for most behavioral researchers interested in the direct role of the rearing environment, the Familial Control Method is currently the most feasible proxy genetic control. It does not require data of twin or adoption families, nor collecting DNA samples. In terms of prediction, parental traits capture more of the variance in children’s outcome than polygenic scores, so likely also capture more of the genetic confound. For the example of reading ability, it has been found that the abilities of both of the parents explain 21% of the ability of children 58 . In comparison, polygenic scores (based on the educational-attainment GWAS) have been found to explain only 2–5% of reading ability in children 59 , and more recently 5–14% of “educational achievement” (including reading, writing, speaking, listening, and mathematics) in ages 7 to 16 years 60 . Certainly this proportion of variance explained from simple polygenic scores is not trivial, and the predictive ability of polygenic scores is anticipated to increase in the coming years. However, for most behavioral scientists the trait in the parents is not only easier to measure, but currently also a better predictor. On a related note, the value of parental traits as predictors of child outcomes has been used for decades in studying precursors of developmental disorders. In such family-risk studies, children with a family history of say dyslexia, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder or autism are followed from an early age, before the disorder manifests itself. These children have an increased risk to develop the disorder 61 , 62 .

Other proxy control designs

Other proxy controls such as sociodemographic factors (e.g., SES) have been used ubiquitously, but these statistical adjustments are not capable of accounting for genetic confounding as adequately as the Familial Control Method, for several reasons. First, although sociodemographic factors such as educational attainment have been significantly associated with genetic factors through twin studies (40% 36 ) and GWAS (~14% 35 ), the estimates are less than unity which indicates that genetic influences are not entirely responsible for individual differences in SES. Indeed, work examining the intergenerational transmission of SES has suggested that both genetic and environmental transmission occurs 63 . In this scenario where SES is transmitted through genetic and environmental pathways, when controlling for SES in data analyses, a proportion of variance attributable to other background or environmental factors is also being controlled for in the model, unintentionally leading to reduced associations between potentially important family-level predictors and child outcomes. In other words, you’d be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

On the other hand, controlling for SES does not actually control for all of the genetic confounding. Say a researcher is interested in controlling for genetic confounding when examining the direct influence of books in the home on children’s reading. Parental SES is a proxy for parental reading skill, but not a perfect correlate (average correlation is 0.26 64 ). Controlling for parental SES would not control for all of the potential genetic confounds on the association between books in the home and children’s reading ability. In conclusion, when controlling for SES, other potential sources of environmental variance are also being removed from the prospective models, and at the same time would not capture the extent of genetic confounding. We believe this would happen with other proxy control measures as well, outside of the Familial Control Method described above.

Here we have laid out numerous ways that genetic confounding can be controlled for when examining the rearing environment, summarized in a decision flowchart (Fig. 9 ). We can certainly foresee times that none of these options are possible. Therefore, we conclude that in those instances, our colleagues need to clearly mention the possible genetic confounding as a limitation, and to be cautious with any environmental causal statements which could lead to unnecessary parent blaming or to interventions that are a waste of time and resources. To return to our first example, expecting all homes to have plenty of books is an idealistic goal, as it would surround all children with the opportunity to read if they wished. But unfortunately, having the opportunity to read as one wishes does not unlock the code of reading for all children. Reading is a skill that requires direct instruction and practice, and children with a family history of dyslexia themselves have a 45% chance of dyslexia despite adequate instruction and practice 61 . Simply having books around the home is not enough 65 , yet the message that parents are getting is that it is. The take home messages from that are that either parents who do not have the resources for a home library are hurting their children, or parents with children struggling to read are at blame because they did not have quite enough books in the home. This is unfair and inaccurate. In the end, we believe that it is important to discover true environmental effects as well as how genes and environments interplay, especially when malleable, because then we can focus as a field on creating and testing interventions that have a greater chance of directly improving children’s outcomes.

DK = don’t know. Figure by ref. 66 available at https://bit.ly/3gkM6Et under a CC BY 4.0 license.

Reporting summary

Further information on experimental design is available in the Nature Research Reporting Summary linked to this paper.

Data availability

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

Code availability

Code sharing not applicable to this article as no codes were generated during the current study.

Sikora, J., Evans, M. & Kelley, J. Scholarly culture: how books in adolescence enhance adult literacy, numeracy and technology skills in 31 societies. Soc. Sci. Res. 77 , 1–15 (2019).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Polderman, T. J. et al. Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies. Nat. Genet. 47 , 702 (2015).

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Turkheimer, E. Three laws of behavior genetics and what they mean. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 9 , 160–164 (2000).

Article Google Scholar

Kendler, K. S. & Baker, J. H. Genetic influences on measures of the environment: a systematic review. Psychol. Med. 37 , 615 (2007).

Klahr, A. M. & Burt, S. A. Elucidating the etiology of individual differences in parenting: a meta-analysis of behavioral genetic research. Psychol. Bull. 140 , 544 (2014).

Plomin, R., DeFries, J. C. & Loehlin, J. C. Genotype-environment interaction and correlation in the analysis of human behavior. Psychol. Bull. 84 , 309–322 (1977).

Prinzie, P., Stams, G. J. J., Deković, M., Reijntjes, A. H. & Belsky, J. The relations between parents’ Big Five personality factors and parenting: a meta-analytic review. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 97 , 351 (2009).

Magnusson, D., & Stattin, H. In Handbook of Child Psychology: Theoretical Models of Human Development (eds Damon, W. & Lerner, R. M.) 685–759 (John Wiley & Sons Inc., 1998).

Baltes, P. B. & Baltes, M. M. In Successful Aging: Perspectives From the Behavioral Sciences (eds Baltes, P. B. & Baltes, M. M.) (Cambridge University Press, 1990).

Lemery-Chalfant, K., Kao, K., Swann, G. & Goldsmith, H. H. Childhood temperament: passive gene-environment correlation, gene-environment interaction, and the hidden importance of the family environment. Dev. Psychopathol. 25 , 51 (2013).

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Burt, S. A. Genes and popularity: evidence of an evocative gene-environment correlation. Psychol. Sci. 19 , 112–113 (2008).

Hicks, B. M. et al. Gene-environment correlation in the development of adolescent substance abuse: selection effects of child personality and mediation via contextual risk factors. Dev. Psychopathol. 25 , 119 (2013).

Scarr, S. & McCartney, K. How people make their own environments: a theory of genotype → environment effects. Child Dev. 54 , 424–435 (1983).

CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Maloney, E. A., Ramirez, G., Gunderson, E. A., Levine, S. C. & Beilock, S. L. Intergenerational effects of parents’ math anxiety on children’s math achievement and anxiety. Psychol. Sci. 26 , 1480–1488 (2015).

Wang, Z. et al. Who is afraid of math? Two sources of genetic variance for mathematical anxiety. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 55 , 1056–1064 (2014).

Gilman, S. E. et al. Parental smoking and adolescent smoking initiation: an intergenerational perspective on tobacco control. Pediatrics 123 , e274–e281 (2009).

Vink, J. M., Willemsen, G. & Boomsma, D. I. Heritability of smoking initiation and nicotine dependence. Behav. Genet. 35 , 397–406 (2005).

Thomas, M. S., Kovas, Y., Meaburn, E. & Tolmie, A. What can the study of genetics offer to educators? Mind Brain Educ. 9 , 1–9 (2015).

Article CAS Google Scholar

Plomin, R. & Bergeman, C. S. The nature of nurture: genetic influence on “environmental” measures. Behav. Brain Sci. 14 , 373–386 (1991).

D’Onofrio, B. M., Turkheimer, E. N., Eaves, L. J. & Corey, L. A. The role of Children of Twins design in elucidating causal relationships between parent characteristics and child outcomes. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 44 , 1130–1144 (2003).

McAdams, T. A. et al. Accounting for genetic and environmental confounds in associations between parent and child characteristics: a systematic review of children-of-twins studies. Psychol. Bull. 140 , 1138 (2014).

Sherlock, J. M. & Zietsch, B. P. Longitudinal relationships between parents’ and children’s behavior need not implicate the influence of parental behavior and may reflect genetics: comment on Waldinger and Schulz (2016). Psychol. Sci. 29 , 154–157 (2018).

Knopik, V. S., Neiderhiser, J. M., DeFries, J. C. & Plomin, R. Behavioral Genetics (Macmillan Higher Education, 2017).

Hanscombe, K. B., Haworth, C., Davis, O. S. P., Jaffee, S. R. & Plomin, R. Chaotic homes and school achievement: a twin study. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 52 , 1212–1220 (2011).

D’Onofrio, B. M., Lahey, B. B., Turkheimer, E. & Lichtenstein, P. Critical need for family-based, quasi-experimental designs in integrating genetic and social science research. Am. J. Public Health 103 , S46–S55 (2013).

Petersen, A. H. & Lange, T. What is the causal interpretation of sibling comparison designs? Epidemiology 31 , 75–81 (2020).

Rowe, D. C. & Herstand, S. E. Familial influences on television viewing and aggression: a sibling study. Aggress. Behav. 12 , 111–120 (1986).

Brumpton, B. et al. Avoiding dynastic, assortative mating, and population stratification biases in Mendelian randomization through within-family analyses. Nat. Commun. 11 , 1–13 (2020).

Selzam, S. et al. Comparing within-and between-family polygenic score prediction. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 105 , 351–363 (2019).

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Keller, M. C., Medland, S. E. & Duncan, L. E. Are extended twin family designs worth the trouble? A comparison of the bias, precision, and accuracy of parameters estimated in four twin family models. Behav. Genet. 40 , 377–393 (2010).

McAdams, T. A. et al. Revisiting the children-of-twins design: improving existing models for the exploration of intergenerational associations. Behav. Genet. 48 , 397–412 (2018).

Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D. & Campbell, D. T. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Influence (Houghton Mifflin Company, 2002).

Plomin, R., Shakeshaft, N. G., McMillan, A. & Trzaskowski, M. Nature, nurture, and expertise. Intelligence 45 , 46–59 (2014).

van Bergen, E. et al. Why do children read more? The influence of reading ability on voluntary reading practices. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 59 , 1205–1214 (2018).

Lee, J. J. et al. Gene discovery and polygenic prediction from a genome-wide association study of educational attainment in 1.1 million individuals. Nat. Genet. 50 , 1112–1121 (2018).

Branigan, A. R., McCallum, K. J. & Freese, J. Variation in the heritability of educational attainment: an international meta-analysis. Soc. Forces 92 , 109–140 (2013).

Maher, B. The case of the missing heritability. Nature 465 , 18–21 (2008).

Dolan, C. V., Huijskens, R. C., Minica, C. C., Neale, M. C. & Boomsma, D. I. Incorporating polygenic scores in the twin model to estimate genotype-environment covariance: exploration of statistical power. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.1101/702738 (2019).

Kong, A. et al. The nature of nurture: effects of parental genotypes. Science 359 , 424–428 (2018).

Bates, T. C. et al. The nature of nurture: using a virtual-parent design to test parenting effects on children’s educational attainment in genotyped families. Twin Res. Hum. Genet. 21 , 73–83 (2018).

Young, A. I. et al. Mendelian imputation of parental genotypes for genome-wide estimation of direct and indirect genetic effects. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.02.185199 (2020).

Belsky, D. W. et al. Genetic analysis of social-class mobility in five longitudinal studies. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115 , E7275–E7284 (2018).

Liu, H. Social and genetic pathways in multigenerational transmission of educational attainment. Am. Sociol. Rev. 83 , 278–304 (2018).

Wertz, J. et al. Using DNA from mothers and children to study parental investment in children’s educational attainment. Child Dev. 91 , 1745–1761 (2020).

de Zeeuw, E. L. et al. Intergenerational transmission of education and ADHD: effects of parental genotypes. Behav. Genet. 50 , 221–232 (2020).

Willoughby, E. A., McGue, M., Iacono, W. G., Rustichini, A. & Lee, J. J. The role of parental genotype in predicting offspring years of education: evidence for genetic nurture. Mol. Psychiatry 1–9, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-019-0494-1 (2019).

Cesarini, D. & Visscher, P. M. Genetics and educational attainment. npj Sci. Learn. 2 , 1–7 (2017).

Kendall, K. M. et al. Cognitive performance and functional outcomes of carriers of pathogenic copy number variants: analysis of the UK Biobank. Br. J. Psychiatry 214 , 297–304 (2019).

Trejo, S. & Domingue, B. W. Genetic nature or genetic nurture? Introducing social genetic parameters to quantify bias in polygenic score analyses. Biodemography Soc. Biol. 64 , 187–215 (2018).

Mostafavi, H. et al. Variable prediction accuracy of polygenic scores within an ancestry group. Elife 9 , e48376 (2020).

Evans, D. M., Moen, G.-H., Hwang, L.-D., Lawlor, D. A. & Warrington, N. M. Elucidating the role of maternal environmental exposures on offspring health and disease using two-sample Mendelian randomization. Int. J. Epidemiol. 48 , 861–875 (2019).

Hart, S. A., Ganley, C. M. & Purpura, D. J. Understanding the home math environment and its role in predicting parent report of children’s math skills. PLoS ONE 11 , e0168227 (2016).

Article PubMed PubMed Central CAS Google Scholar

van Bergen, E., van Zuijen, T., Bishop, D. & de Jong, P. F. Why are home literacy environment and children’s reading skills associated? What parental skills reveal. Read. Res. Q. 52 , 147–160 (2017).

Swagerman, S. C. et al. Genetic transmission of reading ability. Brain Lang. 172 , 3–8 (2017).

Wadsworth, S. J., Corley, R. P., Hewitt, J. K., Plomin, R. & DeFries, J. C. Parent-offspring resemblance for reading performance at 7, 12 and 16 years of age in the Colorado Adoption Project. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 43 , 769–774 (2002).

Wadsworth, S. J., Corley, R. P., Hewitt, J. K. & DeFries, J. C. Stability of genetic and environmental influences on reading performance at 7, 12, and 16 years of age in the Colorado Adoption Project. Behav. Genet. 31 , 353–359 (2001).

Kan, K.-J. et al. Genetic and environmental stability in attention problems across the lifespan: evidence from the Netherlands twin register. J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 52 , 12–25 (2013).

van Bergen, E., Bishop, D., van Zuijen, T. & de Jong, P. F. How does parental reading influence children’s reading? A study of cognitive mediation. Sci. Stud. Read. 19 , 325–339 (2015).

Selzam, S. et al. Genome-wide polygenic scores predict reading performance throughout the school years. Sci. Stud. Read. 21 , 334–349 (2017).

von Stumm, S. et al. Predicting educational achievement from genomic measures and socioeconomic status. Dev. Sci. 23 , e12925 (2020).

Snowling, M. J. & Melby-Lervåg, M. Oral language deficits in familial dyslexia: a meta-analysis and review. Psychol. Bull. 142 , 498 (2016).

Musser, E. D. et al. Shared familial transmission of autism spectrum and attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorders. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 55 , 819–827 (2014).

Björklund, A., Jäntti, M. & Solon, G. Nature and nurture in the intergenerational transmission of socioeconomic status: evidence from Swedish children and their biological and rearing parents. B.E. J. Econ. Anal. Policy 7 , https://www.nber.org/papers/w12985 (2007).

Sirin, S. R. Socioeconomic Status and Academic Achievement: A Meta-Analytic Review of Research. Rev. Educ. Res. 75 , 417–453 (2016).

Kim, J. S. The effects of a voluntary summer reading intervention on reading activities and reading achievement. J. Educ. Psychol. 99 , 505 (2007).

Hart, S. A., Little, C. & van Bergen. Genetic confounding figures. Figshare . https://figshare.com/account/home#/collections/5080187 (2020).

Falconer, D. S. Introduction to Quantitative Genetics (Ronald Press, NY, New York, 1960).

Rayner, C. P is for polygenic risk scores. EDITLab Blog, KCL. https://blogs.kcl.ac.uk/editlab/2018/07/31/p-is-for-polygenic-risk-scores/ (2018).

Belsky, D. W. & Harden, K. P. Phenotypic annotation: using polygenic scores to translate discoveries from genome-wide association studies from the top down. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 28 , 82–90 (2019).

Download references

Acknowledgements

S.A.H. is supported by Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development Grants HD052120 and HD095193. Views expressed herein are those of the authors and have neither been reviewed nor approved by the granting agencies. E.vB. is supported by NWO VENI fellowship 451-15-017 (“Decoding the gene-environment interplay of reading ability”) and ZonMw grant 531003014 (“Genetics as a research tool: A natural experiment to elucidate the causal effects of social mobility on health”). She is a member of the Consortium on Individual Development (CID; NWO Gravitation grant 024.001.003) and of Research Institute LEARN!.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Psychology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA

Sara A. Hart

Florida Center for Reading Research, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA

Sara A. Hart & Callie Little

Department of Psychology, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, Australia

Callie Little

Department of Biological Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Elsje van Bergen

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

The first and last author contributed equally to this work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sara A. Hart .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Related manuscript file, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Hart, S.A., Little, C. & van Bergen, E. Nurture might be nature: cautionary tales and proposed solutions. npj Sci. Learn. 6 , 2 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-020-00079-z

Download citation

Received : 25 November 2019

Accepted : 12 November 2020

Published : 08 January 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-020-00079-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Theoretical and empirical advances in understanding musical rhythm, beat and metre.

Joel S. Snyder
Reyna L. Gordon
Erin E. Hannon

Nature Reviews Psychology (2024)

Gene-environment interaction analysis of school quality and educational inequality

Kim Stienstra
Antonie Knigge

npj Science of Learning (2024)

Impacts of home literacy environment on children’s English language learning as a second language

Catrina Cuina Liu
Kevin Kien Hoa Chung

European Journal of Psychology of Education (2024)

Maximizing the value of twin studies in health and behaviour

Fiona A. Hagenbeek
Jana S. Hirzinger
Dorret I. Boomsma

Nature Human Behaviour (2023)

Genetic associations with parental investment from conception to wealth inheritance in six cohorts

Jasmin Wertz
Terrie E. Moffitt
Avshalom Caspi

Quick links

Explore articles by subject
Guide to authors
Editorial policies

Type 2 Diabetes
Heart Disease
Digestive Health
Multiple Sclerosis
Diet & Nutrition
Health Insurance
Public Health
Patient Rights
Caregivers & Loved Ones
End of Life Concerns
Health News
Thyroid Test Analyzer
Doctor Discussion Guides
Hemoglobin A1c Test Analyzer
Lipid Test Analyzer
Complete Blood Count (CBC) Analyzer
What to Buy
Editorial Process
Meet Our Medical Expert Board

What Are Nature vs. Nurture Examples?

How is nature defined, how is nurture defined, the nature vs. nurture debate, nature vs. nurture examples, what is empiricism (extreme nurture position), contemporary views of nature vs. nurture.

Nature vs. nurture is an age-old debate about whether genetics (nature) plays a bigger role in determining a person's characteristics than lived experience and environmental factors (nurture). The term "nature vs. nature" was coined by English naturalist Charles Darwin's younger half-cousin, anthropologist Francis Galton, around 1875.

In psychology, the extreme nature position (nativism) proposes that intelligence and personality traits are inherited and determined only by genetics.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, the extreme nurture position (empiricism) asserts that the mind is a blank slate at birth; external factors like education and upbringing determine who someone becomes in adulthood and how their mind works. Both of these extreme positions have shortcomings and are antiquated.

This article explores the difference between nature and nurture. It gives nature vs. nurture examples and explains why outdated views of nativism and empiricism don't jibe with contemporary views.

Thanasis Zovoilis / Getty Images

In the context of nature vs. nurture, "nature" refers to genetics and heritable factors that are passed down to children from their biological parents.

Genes and hereditary factors determine many aspects of someone’s physical appearance and other individual characteristics, such as a genetically inherited predisposition for certain personality traits.

Scientists estimate that 20% to 60% percent of temperament is determined by genetics and that many (possibly thousands) of common gene variations combine to influence individual characteristics of temperament.

However, the impact of gene-environment (or nature-nurture) interactions on someone's traits is interwoven. Environmental factors also play a role in temperament by influencing gene activity. For example, in children raised in an adverse environment (such as child abuse or violence), genes that increase the risk of impulsive temperamental characteristics may be activated (turned on).

Trying to measure "nature vs. nurture" scientifically is challenging. It's impossible to know precisely where the influence of genes and environment begin or end.

How Are Inherited Traits Measured?

“Heritability” describes the influence that genes have on human characteristics and traits. It's measured on a scale of 0.0 to 1.0. Very strong heritable traits like someone's eye color are ranked a 1.0.

Traits that have nothing to do with genetics, like speaking with a regional accent ranks a zero. Most human characteristics score between a 0.30 and 0.60 on the heritability scale, which reflects a blend of genetics (nature) and environmental (nurture) factors.

Thousands of years ago, ancient Greek philosophers like Plato believed that "innate knowledge" is present in our minds at birth. Every parent knows that babies are born with innate characteristics. Anecdotally, it may seem like a kid's "Big 5" personality traits (agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, neuroticism, and openness) were predetermined before birth.

What is the "Big 5" personality traits

The Big 5 personality traits is a theory that describes the five basic dimensions of personality. It was developed in 1949 by D. W. Fiske and later expanded upon by other researchers and is used as a framework to study people's behavior.

From a "nature" perspective, the fact that every child has innate traits at birth supports Plato's philosophical ideas about innatism. However, personality isn't set in stone. Environmental "nurture" factors can change someone's predominant personality traits over time. For example, exposure to the chemical lead during childhood may alter personality.

In 2014, a meta-analysis of genetic and environmental influences on personality development across the human lifespan found that people change with age. Personality traits are relatively stable during early childhood but often change dramatically during adolescence and young adulthood.

It's impossible to know exactly how much "nurture" changes personality as people get older. In 2019, a study of how stable personality traits are from age 16 to 66 found that people's Big 5 traits are both stable and malleable (able to be molded). During the 50-year span from high school to retirement, some traits like agreeableness and conscientiousness tend to increase, while others appear to be set in stone.

Nurture refers to all of the external or environmental factors that affect human development such as how someone is raised, socioeconomic status, early childhood experiences, education, and daily habits.

Although the word "nurture" may conjure up images of babies and young children being cared for by loving parents, environmental factors and life experiences have an impact on our psychological and physical well-being across the human life span. In adulthood, "nurturing" oneself by making healthy lifestyle choices can offset certain genetic predispositions.

For example, a May 2022 study found that people with a high genetic risk of developing the brain disorder Alzheimer's disease can lower their odds of developing dementia (a group of symptoms that affect memory, thinking, and social abilities enough to affect daily life) by adopting these seven healthy habits in midlife:

Staying active
Healthy eating
Losing weight
Not smoking
Reducing blood sugar
Controlling cholesterol
Maintaining healthy blood pressure

The nature vs. nurture debate centers around whether individual differences in behavioral traits and personality are caused primarily by nature or nurture. Early philosophers believed the genetic traits passed from parents to their children influence individual differences and traits. Other well-known philosophers believed the mind begins as a blank slate and that everything we are is determined by our experiences.

While early theories favored one factor over the other, experts today recognize there is a complex interaction between genetics and the environment and that both nature and nurture play a critical role in shaping who we are.

Eye color and skin pigmentation are examples of "nature" because they are present at birth and determined by inherited genes. Developmental delays due to toxins (such as exposure to lead as a child or exposure to drugs in utero) are examples of "nurture" because the environment can negatively impact learning and intelligence.

In Child Development

The nature vs. nurture debate in child development is apparent when studying language development. Nature theorists believe genetics plays a significant role in language development and that children are born with an instinctive ability that allows them to both learn and produce language.

Nurture theorists would argue that language develops by listening and imitating adults and other children.

In addition, nurture theorists believe people learn by observing the behavior of others. For example, contemporary psychologist Albert Bandura's social learning theory suggests that aggression is learned through observation and imitation.

In Psychology

In psychology, the nature vs. nurture beliefs vary depending on the branch of psychology.

Biopsychology: Researchers analyze how the brain, neurotransmitters, and other aspects of our biology influence our behaviors, thoughts, and feelings. emphasizing the role of nature.
Social psychology: Researchers study how external factors such as peer pressure and social media influence behaviors, emphasizing the importance of nurture.
Behaviorism: This theory of learning is based on the idea that our actions are shaped by our interactions with our environment.

In Personality Development

Whether nature or nurture plays a bigger role in personality development depends on different personality development theories.

Behavioral theories: Our personality is a result of the interactions we have with our environment, such as parenting styles, cultural influences, and life experiences.
Biological theories: Personality is mostly inherited which is demonstrated by a study in the 1990s that concluded identical twins reared apart tend to have more similar personalities than fraternal twins.
Psychodynamic theories: Personality development involves both genetic predispositions and environmental factors and their interaction is complex.

In Mental Illness

Both nature and nurture can contribute to mental illness development.

For example, at least five mental health disorders are associated with some type of genetic component ( autism , attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) , bipolar disorder , major depression, and schizophrenia ).

Other explanations for mental illness are environmental, such as:

Being exposed to drugs or alcohol in utero
Witnessing a traumatic event, leading to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)
Adverse life events and chronic stress during childhood

In Mental Health Therapy

Mental health treatment can involve both nature and nurture. For example, a therapist may explore life experiences that may have contributed to mental illness development (nurture) as well as family history of mental illness (nature).

At the same time, research indicates that a person's genetic makeup may impact how their body responds to antidepressants. Taking this into consideration is important for finding the right treatment for each individual.

What Is Nativism (Extreme Nature Position)?

Innatism emphasizes nature's role in shaping our minds and personality traits before birth. Nativism takes this one step further and proposes that all of people's mental and physical characteristics are inherited and predetermined at birth.

In its extreme form, concepts of nativism gave way to the early 20th century's racially-biased eugenics movement. Thankfully, "selective breeding," which is the idea that only certain people should reproduce in order to create chosen characteristics in offspring, and eugenics, arranged breeding, lost momentum during World War II. At that time, the Nazis' ethnic cleansing (killing people based on their ethnic or religious associations) atrocities were exposed.

Philosopher John Locke's tabula rasa theory from 1689 directly opposes the idea that we are born with innate knowledge. "Tabula rasa" means "blank slate" and implies that our minds do not have innate knowledge at birth.

Locke was an empiricist who believed that all the knowledge we gain in life comes from sensory experiences (using their senses to understand the world), education, and day-to-day encounters after being born.

Today, looking at nature vs. nature in black-and-white terms is considered a misguided dichotomy (two-part system). There are so many shades of gray where nature and nurture overlap. It's impossible to tease out how inherited traits and learned behaviors shape someone's unique characteristics or influence how their mind works.

The influences of nature and nurture in psychology are impossible to unravel. For example, imagine someone growing up in a household with an alcoholic parent who has frequent rage attacks. If that child goes on to develop a substance use disorder and has trouble with emotion regulation in adulthood, it's impossible to know precisely how much genetics (nature) or adverse childhood experiences (nurture) affected that individual's personality traits or issues with alcoholism.

Epigenetics Blurs the Line Between Nature and Nurture

"Epigenetics " means "on top of" genetics. It refers to external factors and experiences that turn genes "on" or "off." Epigenetic mechanisms alter DNA's physical structure in utero (in the womb) and across the human lifespan.

Epigenetics blurs the line between nature and nurture because it says that even after birth, our genetic material isn't set in stone; environmental factors can modify genes during one's lifetime. For example, cannabis exposure during critical windows of development can increase someone's risk of neuropsychiatric disease via epigenetic mechanisms.

Nature vs. nurture is a framework used to examine how genetics (nature) and environmental factors (nurture) influence human development and personality traits.

However, nature vs. nurture isn't a black-and-white issue; there are many shades of gray where the influence of nature and nurture overlap. It's impossible to disentangle how nature and nurture overlap; they are inextricably intertwined. In most cases, nature and nurture combine to make us who we are.

Waller JC. Commentary: the birth of the twin study--a commentary on francis galton’s “the history of twins.” International Journal of Epidemiology . 2012;41(4):913-917. doi:10.1093/ije/dys100

The New York Times. " Major Personality Study Finds That Traits Are Mostly Inherited ."

Medline Plus. Is temperament determined by genetics?

Feldman MW, Ramachandran S. Missing compared to what? Revisiting heritability, genes and culture . Phil Trans R Soc B . 2018;373(1743):20170064. doi:10.1098/rstb.2017.0064

Winch C. Innatism, concept formation, concept mastery and formal education: innatism, concept formation and formal education . Journal of Philosophy of Education . 2015;49(4):539-556. doi:10.1111/1467-9752.12121

Briley DA, Tucker-Drob EM. Genetic and environmental continuity in personality development: A meta-analysis . Psychological Bulletin . 2014;140(5):1303-1331. doi:10.1037/a0037091

Damian RI, Spengler M, Sutu A, Roberts BW. Sixteen going on sixty-six: A longitudinal study of personality stability and change across 50 years . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology . 2019;117(3):674-695. doi:10.1037/pspp0000210

Tin A, Bressler J, Simino J, et al. Genetic risk, midlife life’s simple 7, and incident dementia in the atherosclerosis risk in communities study . Neurology . Published online May 25, 2022. doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000200520

Levitt M. Perceptions of nature, nurture and behaviour . Life Sci Soc Policy . 2013;9(1):13. doi:10.1186/2195-7819-9-13

Ross EJ, Graham DL, Money KM, Stanwood GD. Developmental consequences of fetal exposure to drugs: what we know and what we still must learn . Neuropsychopharmacology. 2015 Jan;40(1):61-87. doi: 10.1038/npp.2014.14

World Health Organization. Lead poisoning .

Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models . The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1961; 63 (3), 575–582 doi:10.1037/h0045925

Krapfl JE. Behaviorism and society . Behav Anal. 2016;39(1):123-9. doi:10.1007/s40614-016-0063-8

Bouchard TJ Jr, Lykken DT, McGue M, Segal NL, Tellegen A. Sources of human psychological differences: the Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart . Science. 1990 Oct 12;250(4978):223-8. doi: 10.1126/science.2218526

National Institutes of Health. Common genetic factors found in 5 mental disorders .

Franke HA. Toxic Stress: Effects, Prevention and Treatment . Children (Basel). 2014 Nov 3;1(3):390-402. doi: 10.3390/children1030390

Pain O, Hodgson K, Trubetskoy V, et al. Identifying the common genetic basis of antidepressant response . Biol Psychiatry Global Open Sci . 2022;2(2):115-126. doi:10.1016/j.bpsgos.2021.07.008

National Human Genome Research Institute. Eugenics and Scientific Racism .

OLL. The Works of John Locke in Nine Volumes .

Toraño EG, García MG, Fernández-Morera JL, Niño-García P, Fernández AF. The impact of external factors on the epigenome: in utero and over lifetime . BioMed Research International . 2016;2016:1-17. doi:10.1155/2016/2568635

Smith A, Kaufman F, Sandy MS, Cardenas A. Cannabis exposure during critical windows of development: epigenetic and molecular pathways implicated in neuropsychiatric disease . Curr Envir Health Rpt . 2020;7(3):325-342. doi:10.1007/s40572-020-00275-4

By Christopher Bergland Bergland is a retired ultra-endurance athlete turned medical writer and science reporter. He is based in Massachusetts.

Nature vs. Nurture Debate In Psychology

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

The nature vs. nurture debate in psychology concerns the relative importance of an individual’s innate qualities (nature) versus personal experiences (nurture) in determining or causing individual differences in physical and behavioral traits. While early theories favored one factor over the other, contemporary views recognize a complex interplay between genes and environment in shaping behavior and development.

Key Takeaways

Nature is what we think of as pre-wiring and is influenced by genetic inheritance and other biological factors.
Nurture is generally taken as the influence of external factors after conception, e.g., the product of exposure, life experiences, and learning on an individual.
Behavioral genetics has enabled psychology to quantify the relative contribution of nature and nurture concerning specific psychological traits.
Instead of defending extreme nativist or nurturist views, most psychological researchers are now interested in investigating how nature and nurture interact in a host of qualitatively different ways.
For example, epigenetics is an emerging area of research that shows how environmental influences affect the expression of genes.

The nature-nurture debate is concerned with the relative contribution that both influences make to human behavior, such as personality, cognitive traits, temperament and psychopathology.

Examples of Nature vs. Nurture

Nature vs. nurture in child development.

In child development, the nature vs. nurture debate is evident in the study of language acquisition . Researchers like Chomsky (1957) argue that humans are born with an innate capacity for language (nature), known as universal grammar, suggesting that genetics play a significant role in language development.

Conversely, the behaviorist perspective, exemplified by Skinner (1957), emphasizes the role of environmental reinforcement and learning (nurture) in language acquisition.

Twin studies have provided valuable insights into this debate, demonstrating that identical twins raised apart may share linguistic similarities despite different environments, suggesting a strong genetic influence (Bouchard, 1979)

However, environmental factors, such as exposure to language-rich environments, also play a crucial role in language development, highlighting the intricate interplay between nature and nurture in child development.

Nature vs. Nurture in Personality Development

The nature vs. nurture debate in personality psychology centers on the origins of personality traits. Twin studies have shown that identical twins reared apart tend to have more similar personalities than fraternal twins, indicating a genetic component to personality (Bouchard, 1994).

However, environmental factors, such as parenting styles, cultural influences, and life experiences, also shape personality.

For example, research by Caspi et al. (2003) demonstrated that a particular gene (MAOA) can interact with childhood maltreatment to increase the risk of aggressive behavior in adulthood.

This highlights that genetic predispositions and environmental factors contribute to personality development, and their interaction is complex and multifaceted.

Nature vs. Nurture in Mental Illness Development

The nature vs. nurture debate in mental health explores the etiology of depression. Genetic studies have identified specific genes associated with an increased vulnerability to depression, indicating a genetic component (Sullivan et al., 2000).

However, environmental factors, such as adverse life events and chronic stress during childhood, also play a significant role in the development of depressive disorders (Dube et al.., 2002; Keller et al., 2007)

The diathesis-stress model posits that individuals inherit a genetic predisposition (diathesis) to a disorder, which is then activated or exacerbated by environmental stressors (Monroe & Simons, 1991).

This model illustrates how nature and nurture interact to influence mental health outcomes.

Nature vs. Nurture of Intelligence

The nature vs. nurture debate in intelligence examines the relative contributions of genetic and environmental factors to cognitive abilities.

Intelligence is highly heritable, with about 50% of variance in IQ attributed to genetic factors, based on studies of twins, adoptees, and families (Plomin & Spinath, 2004).

Heritability of intelligence increases with age, from about 20% in infancy to as high as 80% in adulthood, suggesting amplifying effects of genes over time.

However, environmental influences, such as access to quality education and stimulating environments, also significantly impact intelligence.

Shared environmental influences like family background are more influential in childhood, whereas non-shared experiences are more important later in life.

Research by Flynn (1987) showed that average IQ scores have increased over generations, suggesting that environmental improvements, known as the Flynn effect , can lead to substantial gains in cognitive abilities.

Molecular genetics provides tools to identify specific genes and understand their pathways and interactions. However, progress has been slow for complex traits like intelligence. Identified genes have small effect sizes (Plomin & Spinath, 2004).

Overall, intelligence results from complex interplay between genes and environment over development. Molecular genetics offers promise to clarify these mechanisms. The nature vs nurture debate is outdated – both play key roles.

Nativism (Extreme Nature Position)

It has long been known that certain physical characteristics are biologically determined by genetic inheritance.

Color of eyes, straight or curly hair, pigmentation of the skin, and certain diseases (such as Huntingdon’s chorea) are all a function of the genes we inherit.

These facts have led many to speculate as to whether psychological characteristics such as behavioral tendencies, personality attributes, and mental abilities are also “wired in” before we are even born.

Those who adopt an extreme hereditary position are known as nativists. Their basic assumption is that the characteristics of the human species as a whole are a product of evolution and that individual differences are due to each person’s unique genetic code.

In general, the earlier a particular ability appears, the more likely it is to be under the influence of genetic factors. Estimates of genetic influence are called heritability.

Examples of extreme nature positions in psychology include Chomsky (1965), who proposed language is gained through the use of an innate language acquisition device. Another example of nature is Freud’s theory of aggression as being an innate drive (called Thanatos).

Characteristics and differences that are not observable at birth, but which emerge later in life, are regarded as the product of maturation. That is to say, we all have an inner “biological clock” which switches on (or off) types of behavior in a pre-programmed way.

The classic example of the way this affects our physical development are the bodily changes that occur in early adolescence at puberty.

However, nativists also argue that maturation governs the emergence of attachment in infancy , language acquisition , and even cognitive development .

Empiricism (Extreme Nurture Position)

At the other end of the spectrum are the environmentalists – also known as empiricists (not to be confused with the other empirical/scientific approach ).

Their basic assumption is that at birth, the human mind is a tabula rasa (a blank slate) and that this is gradually “filled” as a result of experience (e.g., behaviorism ).

From this point of view, psychological characteristics and behavioral differences that emerge through infancy and childhood are the results of learning. It is how you are brought up (nurture) that governs the psychologically significant aspects of child development and the concept of maturation applies only to the biological.

For example, Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory states that aggression is learned from the environment through observation and imitation. This is seen in his famous bobo doll experiment (Bandura, 1961).

Also, Skinner (1957) believed that language is learned from other people via behavior-shaping techniques.

Evidence for Nature

Biological Approach
Biology of Gender
Medical Model

Freud (1905) stated that events in our childhood have a great influence on our adult lives, shaping our personality.

He thought that parenting is of primary importance to a child’s development , and the family as the most important feature of nurture was a common theme throughout twentieth-century psychology (which was dominated by environmentalists’ theories).

Behavioral Genetics

Researchers in the field of behavioral genetics study variation in behavior as it is affected by genes, which are the units of heredity passed down from parents to offspring.

“We now know that DNA differences are the major systematic source of psychological differences between us. Environmental effects are important but what we have learned in recent years is that they are mostly random – unsystematic and unstable – which means that we cannot do much about them.” Plomin (2018, xii)

Behavioral genetics has enabled psychology to quantify the relative contribution of nature and nurture with regard to specific psychological traits. One way to do this is to study relatives who share the same genes (nature) but a different environment (nurture). Adoption acts as a natural experiment which allows researchers to do this.

Empirical studies have consistently shown that adoptive children show greater resemblance to their biological parents, rather than their adoptive, or environmental parents (Plomin & DeFries, 1983; 1985).

Another way of studying heredity is by comparing the behavior of twins, who can either be identical (sharing the same genes) or non-identical (sharing 50% of genes). Like adoption studies, twin studies support the first rule of behavior genetics; that psychological traits are extremely heritable, about 50% on average.

The Twins in Early Development Study (TEDS) revealed correlations between twins on a range of behavioral traits, such as personality (empathy and hyperactivity) and components of reading such as phonetics (Haworth, Davis, Plomin, 2013; Oliver & Plomin, 2007; Trouton, Spinath, & Plomin, 2002).

Implications

Jenson (1969) found that the average I.Q. scores of black Americans were significantly lower than whites he went on to argue that genetic factors were mainly responsible – even going so far as to suggest that intelligence is 80% inherited.

The storm of controversy that developed around Jenson’s claims was not mainly due to logical and empirical weaknesses in his argument. It was more to do with the social and political implications that are often drawn from research that claims to demonstrate natural inequalities between social groups.

For many environmentalists, there is a barely disguised right-wing agenda behind the work of the behavioral geneticists. In their view, part of the difference in the I.Q. scores of different ethnic groups are due to inbuilt biases in the methods of testing.

More fundamentally, they believe that differences in intellectual ability are a product of social inequalities in access to material resources and opportunities. To put it simply children brought up in the ghetto tend to score lower on tests because they are denied the same life chances as more privileged members of society.

Now we can see why the nature-nurture debate has become such a hotly contested issue. What begins as an attempt to understand the causes of behavioral differences often develops into a politically motivated dispute about distributive justice and power in society.

What’s more, this doesn’t only apply to the debate over I.Q. It is equally relevant to the psychology of sex and gender , where the question of how much of the (alleged) differences in male and female behavior is due to biology and how much to culture is just as controversial.

Polygenic Inheritance

Rather than the presence or absence of single genes being the determining factor that accounts for psychological traits, behavioral genetics has demonstrated that multiple genes – often thousands, collectively contribute to specific behaviors.

Thus, psychological traits follow a polygenic mode of inheritance (as opposed to being determined by a single gene). Depression is a good example of a polygenic trait, which is thought to be influenced by around 1000 genes (Plomin, 2018).

This means a person with a lower number of these genes (under 500) would have a lower risk of experiencing depression than someone with a higher number.

While still limited in predictive power, polygenic risk scores provide a way to quantify innate genetic risk, allowing researchers to study how this interacts with environmental factors to influence outcomes.

The high polygenicity of psychiatric disorders (many genes each contributing small effects) revealed by genetic architecture studies shows that there isn’t a simple genetic determinism for most psychiatric conditions.

This complexity is further increased when you consider how these genes might interact with each other (epistasis) and with environmental factors. The same genetic profile might lead to different outcomes in different environments.

The Nature of Nurture

Nurture assumes that correlations between environmental factors and psychological outcomes are caused environmentally. For example, how much parents read with their children and how well children learn to read appear to be related. Other examples include environmental stress and its effect on depression.

However, behavioral genetics argues that what look like environmental effects are to a large extent really a reflection of genetic differences (Plomin & Bergeman, 1991).

People select, modify and create environments correlated with their genetic disposition. This means that what sometimes appears to be an environmental influence (nurture) is a genetic influence (nature).

So, children that are genetically predisposed to be competent readers, will be happy to listen to their parents read them stories, and be more likely to encourage this interaction.

Interaction Effects

However, in recent years there has been a growing realization that the question of “how much” behavior is due to heredity and “how much” to the environment may itself be the wrong question.

Take intelligence as an example. Like almost all types of human behavior, it is a complex, many-sided phenomenon which reveals itself (or not!) in a great variety of ways.

The “how much” question assumes that psychological traits can all be expressed numerically and that the issue can be resolved in a quantitative manner.

Heritability statistics revealed by behavioral genetic studies have been criticized as meaningless, mainly because biologists have established that genes cannot influence development independently of environmental factors; genetic and nongenetic factors always cooperate to build traits. The reality is that nature and culture interact in a host of qualitatively different ways (Gottlieb, 2007; Johnston & Edwards, 2002).

Instead of defending extreme nativist or nurturist views, most psychological researchers are now interested in investigating how nature and nurture interact.

For example, in psychopathology , this means that both a genetic predisposition and an appropriate environmental trigger are required for a mental disorder to develop. For example, epigenetics state that environmental influences affect the expression of genes.

What is Epigenetics?

Epigenetics is the term used to describe inheritance by mechanisms other than through the DNA sequence of genes. For example, features of a person’s physical and social environment can effect which genes are switched-on, or “expressed”, rather than the DNA sequence of the genes themselves.

Epigenetics refers to changes in gene expression that don’t involve alterations to the DNA sequence itself. Instead, these changes affect how genes are read and translated into proteins.

Mechanisms of Epigenetic Modification

Epigenetic modifications provide a direct biological mechanism by which environmental experiences (nurture) can alter how our genes (nature) function. This challenges the idea of genes as a fixed, unchangeable blueprint.

Epigenetic changes can occur throughout life, but certain periods (like early development or adolescence) may be particularly sensitive to these modifications.

There are several ways epigenetic changes can occur:

DNA methylation : Adding methyl groups to DNA, typically suppressing gene expression.
Histone modification : Changes to the proteins that DNA wraps around, affecting how tightly or loosely genes are packaged.
Non-coding RNA : RNA molecules that can regulate gene expression.

Environmental Stressors

Environmental stressors have been shown to induce epigenetic changes, with substantial evidence from both animal and human studies (Klengel et al., 2016).

These stressors can include malnutrition, exposure to toxins, extreme stress, or trauma, leading to alterations in DNA methylation patterns, histone modifications, and changes in non-coding RNA expression (Bale, 2015).

Transgenerational Epigenetic Inheritance

Some epigenetic modifications may be passed down to future generations, suggesting that environmental influences on one generation could affect the genetic expression of subsequent generations.

One such example is what is known as the Dutch Hunger Winter, during last year of the Second World War. What they found was that children who were in the womb during the famine experienced a life-long increase in their chances of developing various health problems compared to children conceived after the famine.

Epigenetic effects can sometimes be passed from one generation to the next, although the effects only seem to last for a few generations. There is some evidence that the effects of the Dutch Hunger Winter affected grandchildren of women who were pregnant during the famine.

Therefore, it makes more sense to say that the difference between two people’s behavior is mostly due to hereditary factors or mostly due to environmental factors.

This realization is especially important given the recent advances in genetics, such as polygenic testing. The Human Genome Project, for example, has stimulated enormous interest in tracing types of behavior to particular strands of DNA located on specific chromosomes.

If these advances are not to be abused, then there will need to be a more general understanding of the fact that biology interacts with both the cultural context and the personal choices that people make about how they want to live their lives.

There is no neat and simple way of unraveling these qualitatively different and reciprocal influences on human behavior.

The Concept of “Memories” Being Passed Down

While there’s evidence that environmental stressors can induce epigenetic changes that might affect future generations, the concept of specific “memories” being passed down is not supported by current scientific evidence.

This concept often stems from misinterpretation of studies showing behavioral or physiological changes in offspring related to parental experiences.

Some animal studies have demonstrated that offspring of stressed parents exhibit altered stress responses or behavioral changes.

For example, Dias and Ressler (2014) showed in mice that fear responses to specific odors can be passed down to subsequent generations. However, these are not “memories” in the conventional sense, but rather alterations in stress response systems or sensory sensitivities.

Human studies in this area are much more complex and limited. Research has examined children of trauma survivors (e.g., Holocaust survivors, 9/11 survivors) and found differences in stress hormone levels or risk for PTSD (Yehuda et al., 2016).

However, these studies face significant challenges in separating genetic, epigenetic, and social/cultural factors.

The challenges in interpreting human studies are substantial. Humans have complex social structures and cultural transmission of information, making it often impossible to separate the effects of biological inheritance from social learning and shared environments (Heard & Martienssen, 2014).

The longer lifespan and generation time in humans also make it challenging to study transgenerational effects. What’s often observed is not the transmission of specific memories, but rather altered predispositions or sensitivities.

For example, children of trauma survivors might have an altered stress response system, making them more sensitive to stress, but they don’t inherit specific memories of the trauma (Bowers & Yehuda, 2016).

While specific memories aren’t passed down, changes in gene expression related to stress response systems could potentially be inherited. These could affect how future generations respond to stress or process sensory information (Zannas et al., 2015).

Epigenetics: Licking Rat Pups

Michael Meaney and his colleagues at McGill University in Montreal, Canada conducted the landmark epigenetic study on mother rats licking and grooming their pups.

This research found that the amount of licking and grooming received by rat pups during their early life could alter their epigenetic marks and influence their stress responses in adulthood.

Pups that received high levels of maternal care (i.e., more licking and grooming) had a reduced stress response compared to those that received low levels of maternal care.

Meaney’s work with rat maternal behavior and its epigenetic effects has provided significant insights into the understanding of early-life experiences, gene expression, and adult behavior.

It underscores the importance of the early-life environment and its long-term impacts on an individual’s mental health and stress resilience.

Epigenetics: The Agouti Mouse Study

Waterland and Jirtle’s 2003 study on the Agouti mouse is another foundational work in the field of epigenetics that demonstrated how nutritional factors during early development can result in epigenetic changes that have long-lasting effects on phenotype.

In this study, they focused on a specific gene in mice called the Agouti viable yellow (A^vy) gene. Mice with this gene can express a range of coat colors, from yellow to mottled to brown.

This variation in coat color is related to the methylation status of the A^vy gene: higher methylation is associated with the brown coat, and lower methylation with the yellow coat.

Importantly, the coat color is also associated with health outcomes, with yellow mice being more prone to obesity, diabetes, and tumorigenesis compared to brown mice.

Waterland and Jirtle set out to investigate whether maternal diet, specifically supplementation with methyl donors like folic acid, choline, betaine, and vitamin B12, during pregnancy could influence the methylation status of the A^vy gene in offspring.

Key findings from the study include:

Dietary Influence : When pregnant mice were fed a diet supplemented with methyl donors, their offspring had an increased likelihood of having the brown coat color. This indicated that the supplemented diet led to an increased methylation of the A^vy gene.

Health Outcomes : Along with the coat color change, these mice also had reduced risks of obesity and other health issues associated with the yellow phenotype.

Transgenerational Effects : The study showed that nutritional interventions could have effects that extend beyond the individual, affecting the phenotype of the offspring.

The implications of this research are profound. It highlights how maternal nutrition during critical developmental periods can have lasting effects on offspring through epigenetic modifications, potentially affecting health outcomes much later in life.

The study also offers insights into how dietary and environmental factors might contribute to disease susceptibility in humans.

Challenges in Epigenetic Research:

Epigenetic changes can be tissue-specific, making it challenging to study in the living human brain
The causal direction (whether epigenetic changes cause disorders or result from them) is often unclear
The complexity of interactions between multiple epigenetic mechanisms and genetic variants

Bale, T. L. (2015). Epigenetic and transgenerational reprogramming of brain development. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 16 (6), 332-344.

Bandura, A. Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1961). Transmission of aggression through the imitation of aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 63, 575-582

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bouchard, T. J. (1994). Genes, Environment, and Personality. Science, 264 (5166), 1700-1701.

Bowers, M. E., & Yehuda, R. (2016). Intergenerational transmission of stress in humans. Neuropsychopharmacology, 41 (1), 232-244.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment. Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Loss . New York: Basic Books.

Caspi, A., Sugden, K., Moffitt, T. E., Taylor, A., Craig, I. W., Harrington, H., … & Poulton, R. (2003). Influence of life stress on depression: moderation by a polymorphism in the 5-HTT gene. Science , 301 (5631), 386-389.

Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. Mouton de Gruyter.

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax . MIT Press.

Dias, B. G., & Ressler, K. J. (2014). Parental olfactory experience influences behavior and neural structure in subsequent generations. Nature neuroscience, 17( 1), 89-96.

Dube, S. R., Anda, R. F., Felitti, V. J., Edwards, V. J., & Croft, J. B. (2002). Adverse childhood experiences and personal alcohol abuse as an adult. Addictive Behaviors , 27 (5), 713-725.

Flynn, J. R. (1987). Massive IQ gains in 14 nations: What IQ tests really measure. Psychological Bulletin , 101 (2), 171.

Freud, S. (1905). Three essays on the theory of sexuality . Se, 7.

Galton, F. (1883). Inquiries into human faculty and its development . London: J.M. Dent & Co.

Gottlieb, G. (2007). Probabilistic epigenesis. Developmental Science, 10 , 1–11.

Haworth, C. M., Davis, O. S., & Plomin, R. (2013). Twins Early Development Study (TEDS): a genetically sensitive investigation of cognitive and behavioral development from childhood to young adulthood . Twin Research and Human Genetics, 16(1) , 117-125.

Heard, E., & Martienssen, R. A. (2014). Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance: myths and mechanisms. Cell, 157 (1), 95-109.

Horsthemke, B. (2018). A critical view on transgenerational epigenetic inheritance in humans. Nature communications, 9 (1), 1-4.

Jensen, A. R. (1969). How much can we boost I.Q. and scholastic achievement? Harvard Educational Review, 33 , 1-123.

Johnston, T. D., & Edwards, L. (2002). Genes, interactions, and the development of behavior . Psychological Review , 109, 26–34.

Keller, M. C., Neale, M. C., & Kendler, K. S. (2007). Association of different adverse life events with distinct patterns of depressive symptoms. American Journal of Psychiatry , 164 (10), 1521-1529.

Klengel, T., Dias, B. G., & Ressler, K. J. (2016). Models of intergenerational and transgenerational transmission of risk for psychopathology in mice. Neuropsychopharmacology, 41 (1), 219-231.

Meaney, M. J. (2010). Epigenetics and the biological definition of gene× environment interactions. Child development, 81 (1), 41-79.

Monroe, S. M., & Simons, A. D. (1991). Diathesis-stress theories in the context of life stress research: implications for the depressive disorders. Psychological Bulletin , 110 (3), 406.

Oliver, B. R., & Plomin, R. (2007). Twins” Early Development Study (TEDS): A multivariate, longitudinal genetic investigation of language, cognition and behavior problems from childhood through adolescence . Twin Research and Human Genetics, 10(1) , 96-105.

Petrill, S. A., Plomin, R., Berg, S., Johansson, B., Pedersen, N. L., Ahern, F., & McClearn, G. E. (1998). The genetic and environmental relationship between general and specific cognitive abilities in twins age 80 and older. Psychological Science , 9 (3), 183-189.

Plomin, R., & Petrill, S. A. (1997). Genetics and intelligence: What’s new?. Intelligence , 24 (1), 53-77.

Plomin, R. (2018). Blueprint: How DNA makes us who we are . MIT Press.

Plomin, R., & Bergeman, C. S. (1991). The nature of nurture: Genetic influence on “environmental” measures. behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14(3) , 373-386.

Plomin, R., & DeFries, J. C. (1983). The Colorado adoption project. Child Development , 276-289.

Plomin, R., & DeFries, J. C. (1985). The origins of individual differences in infancy; the Colorado adoption project. Science, 230 , 1369-1371.

Plomin, R., & Spinath, F. M. (2004). Intelligence: genetics, genes, and genomics. Journal of personality and social psychology , 86 (1), 112.

Plomin, R., & Von Stumm, S. (2018). The new genetics of intelligence. Nature Reviews Genetics , 19 (3), 148-159.

Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior . Acton, MA: Copley Publishing Group.

Sullivan, P. F., Neale, M. C., & Kendler, K. S. (2000). Genetic epidemiology of major depression: review and meta-analysis. American Journal of Psychiatry , 157 (10), 1552-1562.

Szyf, M., Weaver, I. C., Champagne, F. A., Diorio, J., & Meaney, M. J. (2005). Maternal programming of steroid receptor expression and phenotype through DNA methylation in the rat . Frontiers in neuroendocrinology , 26 (3-4), 139-162.

Trouton, A., Spinath, F. M., & Plomin, R. (2002). Twins early development study (TEDS): a multivariate, longitudinal genetic investigation of language, cognition and behavior problems in childhood . Twin Research and Human Genetics, 5(5) , 444-448.

Yehuda, R., Daskalakis, N. P., Bierer, L. M., Bader, H. N., Klengel, T., Holsboer, F., & Binder, E. B. (2016). Holocaust exposure induced intergenerational effects on FKBP5 methylation. Biological psychiatry, 80 (5), 372-380.

Waterland, R. A., & Jirtle, R. L. (2003). Transposable elements: targets for early nutritional effects on epigenetic gene regulation . Molecular and cellular biology, 23 (15), 5293-5300.

Zannas, A. S., Wiechmann, T., Gassen, N. C., & Binder, E. B. (2016). Gene–stress–epigenetic regulation of FKBP5: clinical and translational implications. Neuropsychopharmacology, 41 (1), 261-274.

Further Information

Genetic & Environmental Influences on Human Psychological Differences

Evidence for Nurture

Classical Conditioning
Little Albert Experiment
Operant Conditioning
Behaviorism
Social Learning Theory
Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory
Social Roles
Attachment Styles
The Hidden Links Between Mental Disorders
Visual Cliff Experiment
Behavioral Genetics, Genetics, and Epigenetics
Epigenetics
Is Epigenetics Inherited?
Physiological Psychology
Bowlby’s Maternal Deprivation Hypothesis
So is it nature not nurture after all?

Evidence for an Interaction

Genes, Interactions, and the Development of Behavior
Agouti Mouse Study
Biological Psychology

What does nature refer to in the nature vs. nurture debate?

In the nature vs. nurture debate, “nature” refers to the influence of genetics, innate qualities, and biological factors on human development, behavior, and traits. It emphasizes the role of hereditary factors in shaping who we are.

What does nurture refer to in the nature vs. nurture debate?

In the nature vs. nurture debate, “nurture” refers to the influence of the environment, upbringing, experiences, and social factors on human development, behavior, and traits. It emphasizes the role of external factors in shaping who we are.

Why is it important to determine the contribution of heredity (nature) and environment (nurture) in human development?

Determining the contribution of heredity and environment in human development is crucial for understanding the complex interplay between genetic factors and environmental influences. It helps identify the relative significance of each factor, informing interventions, policies, and strategies to optimize human potential and address developmental challenges.

Nature Versus Nurture and Learning Among Children Essay

To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
As a template for you assignment

The debate on the impact of heredity and environment on the growth and development of human beings has been going on for a long period of time now. Researchers have traced this ageless debate to as long a time ago as the 13 th century. This implies that human beings, particularly researchers are yet to reach a consensus on the significance of nature and nurture on human development.

Those who support the role of nature in human development argue that all behaviour is dictated by genetic or hereditary predispositions that are encoded from the time of conception (Plomin, Corley & Defries, 2007 443). The proponents of the role of nurture in the development of human behaviour emphasise the role of environment in which they are brought up in (Gopnik, 2004 1).

The essay seeks to explore the nature versus nurture debate in relation to the provision of appropriate learning experiences for children. It will then conclude that much of a child’s learning is influenced by both environmental as well as heredity factors.

Psychological researchers have been engaged in an unending debate on whether a child’s development is directly influenced by heredity and other biological factors or it is by the environment in which the child is born and raised. Both sides have advanced undisputable evidence to support their respective sides.

Of much concern among modern researchers is the determination of the degree of influence of nature and nurture on the development of a child and the provision of learning experiences (Gopnik, 2004 3). We shall focus on the impact of both sides of the debate on the child’s learning.

The advocates of the nature theory of human behaviour argue that a child is born with inherent genetic traits that play a central role when it comes to the general development of the child.

They propose that nature provides the child with the necessary capabilities and capacities required for meaningful learning (Plomin et al., 2007 444). According to Gopnik, a renowned professor of psychology, it is by nature that a child is able to learn and influence the environment and interact with it as well (2004).

She argues strongly against the proposal by John Locke who said that a child is born with a blank mind known as “tabula rasa” on which experiences write on it (Plomin et al., 2007 449). Some of the qualities that have been identified as hereditary include; a persons height, behaviour, and intelligence quotient (IQ), among others.

Investigations conducted by nature theorists on twins who were raised in different environments revealed that they could still exhibit notable similarities. The findings further indicated that measures of personality as well as that of temperament, leisure-time and occupational preferences, and attitudes towards social life were much similar among the twins (Plomin et al., 2007 451).This study, therefore, supports the argument that nature plays a great role in child development.

To contrast, another study was conducted on adopted children who shared the same family environment but no genetic relationship. The findings revealed very minimal similarities among the children, but significant similarities with their actual parents (Gopnik, 2004 23). This emphasises the role of genetic factors in the growth and development of human persons.

With the revelation of the key role that nature plays in child development, educators are enlightened on the appropriate learning experiences that they should provide to individual children (Plomin et al., 2007 453). Understanding the child’s background is therefore crucial in ensuring that the child is exposed to the proper experiences as well as detecting any disabilities that may hinder learning. This knowledge helps teachers and parents in designing appropriate learning experiences for each child early enough (Gopnik, 2004 437).

On the other hand, the role of the environment in shaping human behaviour has received as much support as that of heredity. Scientists have established that the way a child is nurtured can help in determining the child’s general personality/capabilities and behaviour (Plomin et al., 2007 454). They have concluded that most behaviours and habits can be learned from the surrounding in which one is brought up.

The diet that a child is given, for instance, has been demonstrated as influencing the development of some capabilities. A study conducted by psychological researchers where some children were given food enriched with vitamins and minerals revealed significant impact of nutrition on intellectual development (Gopnik, 2004 56). The children scored higher on the same nature of intelligence tests that had been given before.

A group of children who had been put on diet which had not been enriched recorded no meaningful improvements on the same intelligence tests (Plomin et al., 2007 455). Apart from enhancing intellectual capabilities, the researchers noted that it was logically correct to conclude that nutrition impacts on the physical capabilities as well.

Nurture theorists further illustrate that if a child is brought up among wild animals, the child would never develop normally when eventually brought back to live among human beings (Plomin et al., 2007 457).

This argument points to the fact that social behaviour is learned from interaction with other people. For educators, the knowledge of the role of environment in shaping behaviour helps them in developing an environment that is conducive for learning in order to facilitate meaningful development (Plomin et al., 2007 458). John Locke, a renowned advocate of the nurture theory regarded a child’s brain as a blank slate where experiences were to be written upon.

This theory also notes that skills like listening, attentiveness, and following instructions are learned from the environment and determines success in school. Hence, educators have realise that a child must be provided with proper experiences that will facilitate the acquisition of crucial qualities that will in turn enhance learning (Gopnik, 2004 87).

The essay has focused on the two sides of the nature/nurture debate and how each plays a role in the development of human behaviour. It is clear that some qualities are inherent in an individual and are independent of environmental influence. On the other hand, some qualities can be enhanced by the exposure of a child to an appropriate environment.

With these considerations in mind, educators must appreciate the role of both genetic as well as environmental factors in child development. Appropriate learning experiences that enhance both of these need to be provided right from childhood.

Reference List

Gopnik, Alison (2004) Understanding nature vs. nurture. University of California Press, 1-91

Plomin, Richard P., Corley, David R. & Defries, John C. (2007) Nature vs. nurture: cognitive development. [Peer Reviewed Article]. Journal of Psychological Sciences , 8 (3), 443-458

Organization of the educational process
University of Minnesota (Minneapolis, MN) Off-Campus Housing
Genes, Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA), and Heredity
Heredity and the Different Types of Inheritance
Nature vs. Nurture
Lev Vygotsky: Educational Implications of Sociocultural Theory
The Concept and Role of Continuing Education
Children and exposure to the real world
The Reggio Emilia Approach
Teaching in Schools and Creativity of Students
Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, June 26). Nature Versus Nurture and Learning Among Children. https://ivypanda.com/essays/nature-versus-nurture-and-learning-among-children/

"Nature Versus Nurture and Learning Among Children." IvyPanda , 26 June 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/nature-versus-nurture-and-learning-among-children/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'Nature Versus Nurture and Learning Among Children'. 26 June.

IvyPanda . 2018. "Nature Versus Nurture and Learning Among Children." June 26, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/nature-versus-nurture-and-learning-among-children/.

1. IvyPanda . "Nature Versus Nurture and Learning Among Children." June 26, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/nature-versus-nurture-and-learning-among-children/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Nature Versus Nurture and Learning Among Children." June 26, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/nature-versus-nurture-and-learning-among-children/.

IMAGES

The Nature and Nurture of Child Development
PPT
What Is Epigenetics The Answer To The Nature Vs Nurture
Nature or Nurture for children's language development
(DOC) Nature vs Nurture essay
Does Nature or Nurture Have a Greater Impact on Development Essay

COMMENTS

The Role of Interaction with Nature in Childhood Development: An Under
While the impact of nature on childhood development is understood by most child developmental psychologists, this impact is under-appreciated by non-social scientists studying the contributions of ecosystem services in society.
Nature vs. Nurture: Genetic and Environmental Influences
Nature vs. nurture is an age-old psychology debate. Learn the role of genetics and environment in personality and child development, examples, and how they interact.
What is Epigenetics? The Answer to the Nature vs. Nurture Debate
Full Text of the Graphic. "Epigenetics" is an emerging area of scientific research that shows how environmental influences—children's experiences—actually affect the expression of their genes. This means the old idea that genes are "set in stone" has been disproven. Nature vs. Nurture is no longer a debate.
PDF crop.pdf
Early childhood development is the critical focus of this book, because many of the important nature-nurture interactions occur then, with significant influences on lifelong developmental trajectories.
Rethinking Nature and Nurture
2. Rethinking Nature and Nurture. As developmental psychologists stand at the threshold of a new era in understanding the biological bases for human growth and continue to address fundamental questions about parenting influences, it is time for a new appreciation of the coactivity of nature and nurture in development.
The Nature and Nurture of Child Development
Abstract Although the reduction of child morbidity and the pro-motion of physical growth are important and necessary aspects of child development, these criteria by themselves do not define the adequacy of children's development. There are also behavioural-developmental criteria that emphasize the promotion of competence. The competent individual is one who can effectively adapt to and ...
How do nature and nurture affect my child's development?
Nature and nurture both play a role. How we act as parents as well as our child's genes are strongly intertwined. Each child responds to parenting in different ways. We know that children bring out different responses from their caregivers, partly as a result of their genetic makeup. This is called evocative gene-environment correlation.
The Nature and Nurture of Child Development
This means that interventions designed to facilitate development must be multifocal in nature, integrating influences from different domains. Second, influences upon children's development tend to be specific in nature. This emphasizes the importance of targeting specific interventions to specific outcomes.
Impact of nature and nurture on child development
The development of a child does not completely depend on physical capability, with that said it is necessary that we look at this topic with a psychological viewpoint. Nurture is defined as environment and outside causes that may affect development.
Nature vs. Nurture in Child Development: Roles of Genes & Environment
The Nature vs. Nurture Debate The nature vs. nurture debate has been a topic of discussion for decades, and while both factors play a role in child development, experts have long debated which one has a more significant impact. Some argue that nature plays a more critical role because genes determine physical traits, personality, and intelligence. Others argue that nurture plays a more ...
Nature And Nurture Influence On Child Development Essay
Nature is often defined in this debate as genetic or hormone-based behaviors. Our genes determine the different traits that we have, such as eye color, hair, ear size, height and other traits. While nurture is most commonly defined as environment and experiences that we have. Although, nature and nurture plays a big role in child development ...
PDF Nature and nurture in child development
Nature and nurture in child development The Nature/Nurture debate is a continuing phenomenon in developmental sciences, resulting from emerging theoretical perspectives and research findings in neuroscience, psychology, sociology and education fields. It can be interpreted as a conflicting yet complementary dialogue which underpins a greater understanding of an extremely complex and dynamic ...
"Nature" Versus "Nurture": Effects on Child Development Essay (Critical
However, nature and nurture theorems have been the center of focus by many studies which major in the field of human psychology. The following essay will focus on the controversy of "nature" versus "nurture" and how it affects our understanding of child development.
Nature vs Nurture in Child Development Essay
This essay will explore the nature vs nurture debate in regards to child development. It will consider how both nature and nurture can influence a child's development, and will provide a free essay example for you to refer to.
Nature, Nurture, and Their Interactions in Child Development and
Nature and nurture have long been regarded as rival influences on child development and behavior. One school of thought has contended that a child's behaviors and developmental outcome are determined by nature—that is, by innate biology—while a rival school has argued that nurture—a child's environment and experiences—is dominant in determining the child's developmental outcome ...
Nature and Nurture as an Enduring Tension in the History of Psychology
Rather than treat nature and nurture as separable causal factors operating on development, they treat nature-nurture as a distinction between product (nature) versus process (nurture). Thus there has been a longstanding tension about how to define, separate, and balance the effects of nature and nurture.
Nature vs. Nurture Child Development
Whether a child's personality traits and behavioral tendencies are the sole result of heredity or a consequence of their upbringing is an age-old debate. Much of the controversy in nature vs. nurture child development is the result of a misunderstanding about genetics: the mistaken belief that fate and genetics are synonymous.
Human development, nature and nurture: Working beyond the divide
In this essay, I explore what social science might contribute to building a better understanding of relations between 'nature' and 'nurture' in human development. I first outline changing scientific perspectives on the role of the environment in the developmental and behavioural sciences, beginning with a general historical view of the developmental science of human potentials in the ...
Nurture might be nature: cautionary tales and proposed solutions
The nature of nurture: using a virtual-parent design to test parenting effects on children's educational attainment in genotyped families. Twin Res. Hum. Genet. 21, 73-83 (2018).
Nature vs. Nurture: Meaning, Examples, and Debate
The nature vs. nurture debate in child development is apparent when studying language development. Nature theorists believe genetics plays a significant role in language development and that children are born with an instinctive ability that allows them to both learn and produce language.
Nature vs. Nurture in Psychology
The nature vs. nurture debate in psychology concerns the relative importance of an individual's innate qualities (nature) versus personal experiences (nurture) in determining or causing individual differences in physical and behavioral traits. While early theories favored one factor over the other, contemporary views recognize a complex interplay between genes and environment in shaping ...
Nature Versus Nurture and Learning Among Children Essay
The essay has focused on the two sides of the nature/nurture debate and how each plays a role in the development of human behaviour.

The Nature vs. Nurture Debate

Nature and Nurture Defined

The Debate of Nature vs. Nurture

Examples of Nature vs. Nurture

Nature vs. Nurture in Psychology

Nature vs. Nurture in Child Development

Nature vs. Nurture in Personality Development

Nature vs. Nurture in Mental Illness Development

Nature vs. Nurture in Mental Health Therapy

Interaction Between Nature and Nurture

Contemporary Views of Nature vs. Nurture

Epigenetics and Child Development: How Children’s Experiences Affect Their Genes

Correcting Popular Misrepresentations of Science

Full Text of the Graphic

Epigenetics explains how early experiences can have lifelong impacts.

Young brains are particularly sensitive to epigenetic changes.

Related Topics: brain architecture , lifelong health , mental health

From Neurons to Neighborhoods: The Science of Early Childhood Development.

2 Rethinking Nature and Nurture

Heritability

Shared and Nonshared Environmental Effects

In this Page

How do nature and nurture affect my child’s development?

Blank slate or all in the genes?

Both nature and nurture

Why does it matter?

The difference between siblings

If genes play a role, can I still help my child?

Further information

Information you can trust from NCT

Related articles

Courses & workshops

In-person NCT New Baby course

NCT Introducing Solid Foods workshop

Baby & Child First Aid

Impact of nature and nurture on child development

Nature vs. Nurture in Child Development: Examining the Roles of Genetics and Environment

The Nature vs. Nurture Debate

Epigenetics: Bridging Nature and Nurture

Why Does It Matter?

The Takeaway for Parents

The Role of Nature in Child Development

The Role of Nurture in Child Development

Nature vs. Nurture in Early Childhood Behavior

Siblings and Twins: A Quick Dive into Nature vs. Nurture

Nature: It’s in the Genes!

Nurture: The Role of Environment

Twins: A Special Case

Twin Study Illuminates Nature vs. Nurture

Insights into Brain Function from Twin Research

The Interaction Between Nature and Nurture

The Role of Nature and Nurture in Child Growth

The Role of Interventions

Nature vs. Nurture in Child Development Examples with Infographics

What is The Impact of Nature and Nurture on Child Development

FAQ: Nature Vs. Nurture

2. How does nature shape cognitive growth?

3. Which has a greater impact, Nature or Nurture?

4. Can nurture overcome nature?

5. Can I support my child despite genetics?

6. Is personality nature or nurture?

7. Is autism genetic or environmental?

8. What are the similarities between nature and nurture?

9. What is the most crucial aspect of nurture?

10. Is Down syndrome a result of nature or nurture?

Nefise: Clinical Psychologist & Content Creator

Comment (1)

Urmi Makwana

Nature And Nurture Influence On Child Development Essay

The 57 Bus Quotes

Response To Hi Sandrea

Truman Capote Nature Vs Nurture

Nature Vs. Nurture Argument, Questions And Answers

Level 2 Health And Social Care Level 3 Unit 2 P1

The Influence Of Nature Vs. Nurture In Frankenstein

Nature Vs. Nurture In Serial Killers

The Views Of Sigmund Freud's Nature-Nurture

Nature And Nurture: Physical And Motor Development

Persuasive Essay On Nature Vs Nurture

Child Development Theories Essay