Personality Theories: Should Individuals Have Their Identity?

Nature or Nurture, which of these are the most important in shaping who we are? “Are genetics or environmental factors more important?” (Berk, 2014, p. 5) Researchers have been arguing whether nature or nurture is the most influential force in shaping human beings for a long time. The answer seems to be a complex combination of both nature and nurture. One thing that everybody can agree on is that human beings are more than the sum of our parts

Nature versus nurture is a complicated subject to speak about. If one’s abilities or lack of are due to their environment or their genes. For example, a child is behaving negatively in class. Many individuals are quick to jump to the conclusion that “Oh, that kid’s parents don’t care, or just don’t know how to raise their child.” That could very well be a possibility, but most people never think that maybe they have a hereditary problem, such as ADHD, that was passed on to the child. This cannot be helped by the child, it is out of their control, but can be just as easily overcame than to just using their disorder or disability as a crutch. It is a very controversial topic in terms of which one is more important. Does the disorder or disability completely ruin the person’s life or can they overcome it? Which has the most effect on one’s life? The answer is, yes.

There are many different ways that behavior can be explained, especially on the terms of nature vs. nurture. Aggression is a behavior that has been extensively analyzed in a complex manner and the causes of it can be explained many different ways. Aggression can be defined as hostile or destructive behavior that can cause injury or destructive outlook especially when caused by frustration. Nature can be defined as aspects of behavior that have been inherited or are genetic, while nurture is all aspects that are influenced by environmental characteristics and experience. Many factors, both biological and environmental, influence and promote aggressive behaviors, such as hormones and neurotransmitters, genetics, family life, past experiences, and hobbies.

When we learn something new, we begin to forget rapidly before what we retain levels off. Reasons for why this may be happening is because we never encoded the memory, decaying of stored memory, or because the physical memory trace is gradually fading (Myers & DeWall, 2016, p.303).

Nightly on the news, you see stories about multiple instances of violence: killings, shootings, murders and such. In the school settings, kids get bullied on the playground or even in the classroom. All of these are forms of aggression, but does anyone stop and think why we are that way? The answer is found in the classic debate in Psychology, Nature vs. Nurture. Aggression is caused by learned behavior, not through genetics.

In developmental psychology, attachment describes an affectional bond between an infant and its caregiver. An infant who is attached to its caregiver will want to maintain proximity to him/her, will experience distress upon separation and will use the caregiver as a secure base. This paper will discuss two theories in developmental psychology: The nurture theory and the nature theory. The nurture theory, known as the behaviourism theory, tells us that babies learn all of their behaviours and that attachment is a result of conditioning. We will look at two types of learning and evaluate the nurture theory using research. In contrast, the nature theory is an evolutionary theory of Bowlby (1988) which states that babies are born with a survival instinct to use social releases to ensure adults care for them (Eysenck, 2012). Certain concepts of Bowlby’s (1988) research will be outlined in this paper and and research will be used to evaluate the nature theory.

Through history, the idea of nature vs. nurture has been a hotly debated issue. Nature, or genetics is often believed to be the most important aspect of a persons’ upbringing, as nature is something intrinsic to any one person. However, many debate that nurture, or the care and encouragement of any human life, trumps nature. The earliest evidence and rebuttals of these theories have been honed and developed over time by specific psychologists and educational theorists – all who hoped to prove their own ideas as fact at one time in history.

In society, not one person is alike. By saying this, many people believe that they strongly take after their parents. Meaning they think Nature is a big part in their life and why they are who they are. The genes in each cell in us humans determine the different traits that we have, more dominantly on the physical connections like eye color, hair color, ear size, height, and other traits. However, it is still not known whether the more abstract attributes like personality, intelligence, sexual orientation, likes and dislikes are gene-coded in our DNA. The nurture theory has experiments showing a child’s behavior with the environment as to adult behavior. In the Nature Vs Nurture debate, everyone has their own thoughts and ideas on each

Nature v. Nurture is the long lasting debate about whether people inherit their personality traits from their parents or if they are developed through their environment. Neither position has been proven because it is hard to find solid, irrefutable, scientific evidence to support either one. Nature v. Nurture can deal with many aspects of a person’s personality, such as intelligence and how a person was able to be as smart as they are. Intelligence is something that can be inherited, just as people inherited their physical characteristics. However, some feel that children are raised to be intelligent, and that kids cannot inherit something that is not visible or tangible. Maternal twins are a good study of Nature v. Nurture, because

The fact that he has learned this skills when he was older can impact him on how he learns because base on the theories there is a certain age that has to have done all of these things, although genes can also be a cause that made him learned slower, having to learn all of these skills is the most important thing. Many children learn to walk crawl and do other things at different ages, the most important thing is that they learn them, it doesn’t matter if they run instead of standing up first, even though some people think that they should do them in order.

The study on Solomon is indicative of the nature verses nurture theory as described by Broderick and Blewlitt(2015). Broderick and Blewlitt (2015) expound on the impact of one’s genetic make-up as well as one’s environment on behavior; indicating both nature and nurture provide integral components to an individual’s development (Broederick & Blewlitt, 2015). Solomon exhibits this theory in his developmental delays, as noted by his inability to recite the alphabet, count or interact appropriately with peers his age as a result of being raised by parents who are addicted to drugs and are incapable of providing for or nurturing his educational needs. Furthermore, behavior of staying up late and sleeping all day is learned behavior as he watches

For many years, there has been on the ongoing debate that is referred to as nature vs. nurture. It poses a question that many theorists have contested. Do human personalities and behaviors relate to our genetic makeup, or are we directly influenced by the environment and people that we are subjected to? What is more important, genes or environment? While some theorists take either one side over the other, some believe that both nature and nurture play an active role in human development.

Nature vs. Nurture is one of the most prevalent theories in psychology and biology; scientists previously believed that personality traits were derived from either genetics or environmental elements, but more recently have concluded that both factors play a role in the expression of genes. However, the influences of genetics and environmental factors on sexual orientation is still a controversial topic which is currently being discussed in both psychological and biological debates. While many researchers agree that both factors have pivotal influences on the determination of sexual orientation, there are others who feel that either environment, or genetics play a role but not both. Personally, I feel that both genetics and environmental cues affect sexuality. While genetics may make a person more inclined towards a certain sexual identity, ultimately social factors and experiences also play a role in the determination of sexual orientation.

In this document I wish to inform the reader of the merits of both theories, rather than choosing a side. I wish to express that both have their merits, and their flaws. The nature theory place importance on the biological characteristics of one, whereas the nurture theory place its point on the importance of how one is acted towards and treated. I wish to inform the reader beforehand that I will base the paper off of my own experiences. The theories will be in order. (Nature, Nurture, Nature, Nurture, etc…)

For more than a century, researchers and psychologists, such as Sir Francis Galton, Charles Darwin, Sigmund Freud and many others, have been trying to understand how people are transformed by their environment. Researchers have mainly argued whether it is in fact our environment or rather genetics, our biological pre-wiring, which has influenced human behavior. This concept ultimately facilitated what is now known as the Nature versus Nurture debate. The Nature aspect states that human behavior is predetermined by our inherited genes or is the product of our innate behavior. The Nurture side of the disagreement postulates that human behavior stems from acquired attributes through individual learning and experiences. Correspondingly, the Object Relations Theory in psychoanalytic psychology supports the position that a person’s natural environment (i.e. family, peers, acquaintances, society) forms human development. The Object Relations theory stresses that it is the relationships between people, more specially family, often between mother and child, that crafts the human psyche.