Nurture and Nature

The classic debated topic of nurture versus nature has been, and always will be an argumentative subject in the scientific world. Some psychologists and scientists share the view that our behavioral aspects originate only from the environmental factors of our upbringing. While other opposing specialists argue the outlook in science that agrees with the naturalist idea. This concept of naturalistic ideas supports the hereditary genetic framework, inherited from our parents, is the sole determining factor in our behavioral characteristics. These two opposing viewpoints have produced a multitude of ideas, theories, and arguments in the history of psychology.

John Broadus Watson, the father of American behaviorism, greatly reinforced the source of nurture by studying learned and adaptive behavior patterns in our environmental surroundings (Rathus p.13). During this same time of revolutionary ideas in psychology, American psychologist, Arnold Gesell supported the opposite views of Watson. Gesell theorized that "physical and motor growth and development is monitored and regulated by an automatic natural process"(Rathus p.13). Each of these ideas has persisted strongly in the world of psychology from the nineteenth century on into the twentieth, but now a new and united psychology world acknowledges both theories equally. It is imagined, today, that the explanation of our behavioral characteristics originates from both our heredity, and the environment in which we were raised.

This report supports the theory that both aspects of nurture, with the

addition of nature are involved in and explain our complete behaviors. Many studies and experiments have been conducted in recent years of psychology to give this combined idea its appealing thesis. A great deal of research and experimentation has been conducted in order to solve the puzzling results that derive from situational differences in being raised. The different causes and effects of various situations, focus on the actual importance, and necessity of proper nurturing in childhood development (Turecki). Studies on the early developing years in children show how effects of various environmental situations can cause mixed attitudes, personalities, beliefs, sexual preference, and other behavioral patterns in children (Turecki & Adams).

For example, studies have been conducted on whether children that have been raised by single parents are going to develop differently than if both natural parenting members were present through a child's infancy and adolescents. There are also cases being studied about step parenting, or entirely different parenting with the process of adoption. With a shocking change of one or both parents in any stage of life, attitudes, and reactions are apt to become altered with a new lifestyle. Also with step or adopted parents, entirely different siblings could possibly become added to the family structure, altering the environments of all affected children. Psychologists have found that, although various situational differences can be traumatic in a child's life, the influence of the upbringing environment doesn't overshadow the hereditary source of behavior (Rathus p.112).

Extreme concern has also risen about the effects of such traumatic childhood events and genetical characteristics on sexual orientation. The subject of gay or lesbian parenting is also a major concern not only in psychology, but for many people around the world. Psychologists wonder if the affects of this erratic situational difference will result in a inner-conflict between a child's hereditary instincts and environmental behavior. Although the factors of genetics may have a small deciding component to sexual orientation, psychologist John Money, concluded that "sexual orientation is not under the direct governance of chromosomes and genes" (Rathus p.367-368). Children from these conditions have usually been found to acquire a more admissible attitude towards homosexuals through this altered environmental upbringing. However, children raised in these same conditions may, or may not display homosexual tendencies determined by both genetic factors and environmental experiences.

In other exceptions, children often develop problems even though their environment seems to be entirely common. Psychologists have come to question the quality of the relationship between parent and sibling, and also the raising and discipline methods. Take the example of a naughty or extremely hyperactive young boy raising hell, and throwing tantrums out in public. When we witness children in this category, we often automatically think, "Why doesn't his mother control him?" We assume that the cause of his behavior problems can be found in his environment, possibly poor parenting techniques. This false assumption, however, may be an unfair judgment upon actual quality parenting. Recent researchers have shown that children may be born with a variety of personality characteristics which can lead to behavioral problems, and are not related to

poor parenting techniques (Turecki).

Psychologist and twin researcher David Rowe stated that "Parents should be blamed less for kids who have problems and take less credit for kids who turn out well" (Turecki). In the circumstance of rowdy children, psychologists often question both sides of genetic and environmental factoring. Are mischievous children born that way, or raised that way? The answer may be both. With pioneering studies on temperamental children, Stella Chess, M.D., and Alexander Thomas, M.D., concluded that children were initially born a certain way, and then because of the way they interacted with their environment, they continued to grow this way. Chess and Alexander also concluded through their "difficult child" research in the late 1950's, that ten percent of normal children were difficult children from birth (Tuecki). Expanding on the research of Chess and Alexander, Stanley Turecki, M.D., reestimated that twenty percent of normal children were temperamentally difficult from the time of birth. Turecki, a confused parent himself, recommended that "parents of difficult children make an important distinction between willful misbehavior which is under the control of the child, and expressions of innate temperament, which are really beyond a child's control" (Turecki). Thus it is crucial for parents to recognize which misbehaviors are related to genetic aspects and which are associated with behavioral decisions when discipline is necessary.

Psychologists such as Turecki, Rowe, Alexander, Chess and numerous others have all added contributing ideas and research to the point of nature

plus nurture, but one man's revolutionary research and ideas could not be ignored on this subject. Thomas J. Bouchard's famous studies on twins at the University of Minnesota allowed the comparison between exact human genetic copies ("John Bouchard" Encarta Encyclopedia). These unique experiments modified the scientific views of genetic similarities and the influence of environmental surroundings. This research conducted by Bouchard and other twin researchers also presented accurate information on the importance of heredity and environment (Turecki). Similarities between identical and even fraternal twins supports the superior importance of a genetical impact on behavior. In the opposite view, however, differences intervening between behaviors of identical or fraternal twins defends the importance of the upbringing environment (Rathus p.112).

Research in this subject, originating from Bouchard and others, has revealed an extensive range of similarities between identical twins raised together and separately. It is evident that two children sharing all one hundred percent of their genetic makeup (identical) will present several similarities, compared to children that only share fifty percent of similar genes. The physical appearance of identical twins will obviously be more alike in resemblance, height, weight, and even have more closely related blood cholesterol levels, than fraternal twins, or other siblings altogether (Rathus p.112). By studying identical twins that had grown up separate from each other, Bouchard was appalled by the similarities that endured just as though they had been reared in the exact environment. Some of these strong behavioral traits included shyness, activity levels, risk aversion, achievement, optimism,

irritability, sociability, cognitive development, physical gestures, patterns of speech, and even similar hair-styles and brands of toothpaste (Turecki & Rathus p.112).

Being a twin involves sharing almost everything together in life from toys, rooms, or clothing to appearance and psychological characteristics. Unfortunately, sharing psychological characteristics through hereditary can possibly lead to sharing psychological disorders as well. It is clear that the closer the genetic similarities are between twins (identical or fraternal), family members, or perhaps distant cousins, the more likely similar disorders are receptive to people in the same gene pool. Studies have proven that identical twins have a higher fate, than fraternal twins, to share psychological disorders such as autism, anxiety, substance abuse, and schizophrenia (Rathus p.112). Hypoglycemia, diabetes, alcoholism, lactose intolerance, and other biological disorders in the metabolism can also become mutual problems between identical twins, and also, with a less chance, in fraternal twins as well (Masters). Determining from the evidence presented by research and studies on twins, it may appear that the genetic heredity of nature has a prevailing edge over the environmental factors of behavior. Following his extensive research on twins, Thomas Bouchard concluded that 1) "Genetic factors exert a pronounced and pervasive influence on behavioral variability, and 2) the effect of being reared in the same home is negligible for many psychological traits"(Turecki). Following his various research on twins it is indisputable that Bouchard heavily supported the genetical factors involved in behavioral characteristics.

Although Bouchard presented quality evidence behind his statements supporting the general roles in behavior, the various effects of extreme environmental situations was overlooked in his findings. This contradicting evidence later resurfaced through research by Adler, Plomin, Rende, and others (Rathus p.345). Bouchard also expressed his optimism in genetics, stating that seventy percent of the variations for intelligence quotient (IQ) is linked to heredity (Turecki). The topic over the influence of genetics on intelligence has also become a common disputed topic. These new experts have balanced the importance of heredity plus environment on intelligence despite Bouchard's original speculations through his related studies. Similar twin studies, identical to Bouchard's, have resulted in concluding that closely related kindred do, infact, share similar IQs than compared to distant family members or non-related people. These studies also revealed supporting evidence that the influences of environmental factors can equally contribute to IQ. scores as well. Identical twins, fraternal twins, siblings, and cousins raised in diverse situations from one another, resulted in dissimilar intelligence levels( Rathus p.344-345).

Dr. William Greeno, a neuroscientist at the University of Illinois, has experimented with situational differences and the effects on intelligence. Greeno exposed laboratory rodents to several types of laboratory environments ranging from ordinary and plain mesh cages to complex and stimulating surroundings. The results that Dr. Greeno found, were that rodents placed in excelling and stimulating circumstances appear to be smarter than normal

laboratory rats having more connections per nerve cell in different brain regions (Adams). Psychologist Craig Ramey created applicable research comparable to William Greeno's with the placement of disadvantaged children into enriched environment. With his early intervention in a child's life, Ramey's idea was to "cultivate their soil, so that an enriched environment would act like a fertilizer to the developing brains of these children" (Adams). With alike results to William Greeno's lab rats, Craig Ramey also concluded that factors such as socioeconomic status, educational and cognitive resources, and resource environments, can have major effects on the outcome of intelligence.

This application of importance between circumstantial raising environments and the origin of intelligence directs to the necessity of nurture as well as nature in the formation of behavioral characteristics. Therefore, Thomas Bouchard's one-sided views on hereditary importance, can be countered with supporting evidence of environmental importance as well. It remains clear by the excessive amounts of research and examinations on how this engaging argument could provoke many disputes in the scientific world. Thomas Bouchard's research heavily favored the effects of heredity on behavior. While Craig Ramey and Dr. William Greeno presented opposing evidence for the importance of environmental influences. Other theories were presented by Stella Chess, Alexander Thomas, Stanley Turecki, and others supporting that children born difficult can be changed with corrective parenting. Yet David Rowe's research related the opposite view that children were affected slightly by their raising environment. Today with the excess of research and theories supporting each view

equally, perhaps Arnold Gesell and John B. Watson would agree that a combination of nurture plus nature is the origin of our behavioral characteristics.

environmental factors Environmental Factors When a person is trying to place his or her seating, you have to acknowledge the four task situations (conversation, cooperation, coaction, and competition). When conversing with another person, you are most likely to sit directly across from each other. An example of conversation is when my roommate and I go eat. We do not sit side by side, unless somebody else is coming to eat with us. The opposite sitting arrangement to conversation is cooperation. During cooperation you are most likely to sit side by side because you are helping and showing each other useful information. Here on campus in the library, student union, lobbies of different departments were you could see cooperation at its best. I will use myself as an example because when I was a freshman and sophomore here at Appalachian State I had to go to study hall and get a tutor because of football. When I was getting tutored my tutor would not sit across the table from me she would sit beside of me because it felt like I was getting more out of the conversation. However, the Intimacy Level between two people helps depend on were you sit. If a couple is very intimate then they are likely to sit side by side. But if a couple is not intimate but friends they will sit across from one another. When my girlfriend and I go out on a date we will sit across from each other. But, when I am at work I see older couples in there forties, sitting next to each other. But a place were Intimacy is not involved is the clubs, because alcohol is involved. Alcohol can increase the intimacy level between two not intimate people. Another reason that makes people decisions are their seating arrangement is Personal and Personality differences. One example that I have seen is leadership. Leadership is seen everyday in our society. The leadership shows who is in charge of the situation at hand. You will see leadership in conferences, groups, meetings, classrooms when decision is involved, and at home at the dinner table. Also another example that I have is people who are extroverts. Extroverts tend to be outgoing, loud, talkable people. I am one of those people. So I see Extroversion everyday, an example is, I went to pick up my car from south parking lot. I saw this girl that was so fine. I sat down beside of her instead of sitting in all of the empty seats around her. I felt I needed to do this to get her attention and to see if she would ask me to move. But, she did not ask me to move and she gave me her phone number. Table shapes have an important affect on peoples conversations. Some people fell intimidated a round tables and more powerful at square tables. Also at a square table you can always see both eyes. Unlike at a round table you can only see one eye if their head is turned. Plus at a round table people will not pay full attention to other peoples conversations, because of the distractions of other people. I have been to many offices that were either neat or clutter. I feel that if an office is cluttered it means that you are a very messy person or you have a lot of stuff and nowhere to put it. But if your office is neat then you have too much time on your hands, and you are a neat freak, or you have very good hygiene. An example of an office I have seen is Professor De Harts. Her office is so cluttered. It makes me scared to go inside it because I am afraid to touch anything because it might gall. Other Environmental Factors are attractive mess, color, lighting, and temperature. Many times attractiveness says lots about a situation because most old houses that unattractive usually are cold and scary looking. Color probably pays the biggest role in the environment with communication. Colors illustrate mood that people are in. For example, I wear black a lot. Black usually

means death, cold, or dark. But, I am not a cold, dark, gloomy person. If you have the lights in a dim when a girl comes over, she is going to suspect one thing is on your mind. With the lights being dim makes it a mellower mood and easier to communicate with. The classrooms in the business building are always cold and below room temperature. The reason why is because students are most likely to pay more attention when it is cold rather than hot. In a hot room student are going to get comfortable and go to sleep.

Other Environmental Factors Environmental Key Factors The firm I chose was Lids, Lids is a store that is known for selling hats. There product consists of hats from some of the major sports in the US today such as football baseball, soccer, basketball etc. The three environmental key factors that are most important to my firm would be geographic, demographic, and cultural. Geographic is considered a major environmental key to lids because this tell them where exactly to sell there product. Lids stores are usually found in urban areas because thats where most of the major sporting events take place. Big cities is a good place for Lids because there are more people interested in there product, and more people for your product equals more hats being bought from Lids. Demographic is important because Lids need to know who to target with their products. A good way or targeting with demographics is to figure out either the age or gender of customers that purchase Lids product. If the younger age is buying most of the products of Lids, then they would target younger people instead of the older ones. And if more males are buying the product, then Lids would target more males than females. Demographic is important to Lids because this will determine who will be shopping in the store. Cultural is considered important to Lids for a few reasons. For example, baseball is considered as Americas favorite past time so it would only be smart to sell baseball hats in America. Since baseball is a big event in American culture Lids sells a lot of baseball hats. Baseball is also a favorite sport for the Latin culture as well, so a lot of Lids baseball hats are being bought by Latinos in America. Cultural is important because it narrows down what product to sell to a particular culture. Geographic, Cultural, and Demographic are important to Lids because these particular environmental keys give Lids an idea on who will buy there products and where to put these products. By knowing who and where Lids gets a better advantage on being a successful business.