Nature vs. Nurture Shown in Family Addiction

Psychology is a developing science which studies the mental functions, processes, and behaviors of an individual. In the science of psychology, many debates arise; nature vs. nurture is one of the most popular ones. These psychological debates are followed by research, backing up either nature or nurture or both. Nature suggest heredity impacts human psychological development; nurture suggests the environment impacts our psychological development. Addiction plays a large role in nature vs. nurture. Addiction is defined as a person being attached to a certain activity or item; an addict is one who has a dependency on particular substances or activity. There are many debates on whether addiction is caused by genes or the environment. Many researchers believe if they had the answer of addiction being a genetic condition or an environmental factor, they would be able to resolve the problem of addicts, or so they believe.

If we look at epigenetics it tells us how nature vs nurture interacts cohesively. In chapter three of Discovering Psychology, the Science of The Mind it states that “Epigenetics refers to the field of reversible development of traits by facts that determines how the genes perform.” (John T. Cacioppo and Laura A. Freberg, 2014 p. 73). With that being said, we know that our genes play a role

The Nature versus Nurture debate has been ongoing for centuries. People have tried to gain power through knowledge in determining what causes the human “mind to tick.” For centuries leaders and scientists have performed unethical and immoral studies to determine why two people with similar genetic composition can come from similar backgrounds and turn out so differently. I have witnessed a person raised in a poor home by parents with drug addictions become a thriving contributable member of society. Unfortunately, I have also witnessed a person raised in a Christian home with a Father as a minister who ended up in prison. As we learn about the psychological and biological composition of human beings and the affecting environment, I am

Both normative and nonnormative influences and nature and nurture influences both shed light on human development over childhood and adolescence. The nature and nurture debate refers to whether particular aspects of development are a result of inherited characteristics (nature) or obtained characteristics (nurture). The answer to what characteristics were obtained by which source is a difficult task as there is still much to learn about the way genetic markers work and how their patterning influence organisms. Instead nature and nurture should be looked at as a intricate ecology (Claiborne, Drewery, Paki, & Peters, 2014). This is where characteristics are not considered to have only a single source but can linked to a contribution of our genetic

For example, across most of the country 60 per cent of the variation in children's behaviour at school - whether they were unruly or not - was down to their genes”(Collins). People cannot see if this article was pro-nature or pro-nurture, they can only infer, but they basically had supported both sides, not equally tough and if they tried to it was a failure to attempt to say one was more important than the other because there will be always

“The statistical associations between genetic factors and alcohol abuse are very strong” (McNeece & DiNitto, 2012). However, there is still much debate over the validity of genetics as a definite cause for addiction. Perhaps, the reason for this is because the number of children of alcoholics that go on to become alcoholics is still small. Additionally, genetic predisposition cannot explain the number of cases of alcoholics that did not come from alcoholic parents or families. In fact, addiction can be so prominent, that it remains even after the drug use has ended (McNeece & DiNitto, 2012). Therefore, the biological theory should not be ruled as it is based on what takes place in the body. There is no other theory that can explain how a person could still have addiction symptoms when the substance is absent from their system. Predisposition implies that there is a mutation or malfunction in the body that appears to cause a craving or susceptibility to becoming addicted to a substance.

The classic debated topic of Nature versus Nurture has been and will always be a quarrelsome subject in the scientific world. Meaning, the issue of the level to which environment and heredity sway behavior and development in a person. Nature can be defined as, behaviors due to heredity. This means the behaviors is based on the inherited makeup of an individual and is an influence of the growth and development of that individuals’ all through life. On the other hand nurture is causes of behaviors that are environmental. This Intel’s the influence is from the individual’s parents, siblings, family, friends and all other experiences that individual exposed to during life. However, these concept of ideas supports the inborn genetic framework,

The question of nature vs. nurture has been the focus of many debates, especially within the discipline of psychological sciences. This paper will examine the views that exist regarding the importance of contributions to the risk of addiction, specifically, genetic (nature) vs. environmental (nurture) contributions through a review of the existing literature.

Biology and genetics influence substance abuse and addiction. According to Prescott, Madden, and Stallings, (2006), a number of obstacles confront researchers considering genetic influences on substance-related behavior. Preliminary there is a significant discrepancy across civilizations and archival periods in the prevalence and classifications of substance use (i.e., cocaine, alcohol, tobacco, cocaine, or heroin). A person’s biology is a determination in the addiction of risk. For example, Prescott, Madden, and Stallings (2006) assert many studies indicate increased rates of alcoholism among adopted males; although he is not influenced by his own biological parents (p. 475; see Cadoret et al. 1985; see Cloninger et al. 1981). It has been suggested that twins (e.g., adults) are most likely to inherit smoking dependence. Various studies throughout countries study variables (e.g., age and gender) according to Prescott, Madden, and Stallings (2006).

The article located, discussed how offsprings of amphetamines can learn to not become addicts themselves. They explained this by describing a process known as epigenetic. Epigenetic is a process where chemical signals can turn on and off genes (2013). Moreover, the article explained that epigenetic controls long term memories (2013). Therefore, the argument is that children of addicted parents may be less likely to become addicted themselves to amphetamines because of the genetic tendencies (2013). For example, the study used male rats and their offsprings, to examine how the father’s cocaine use affected his children. Additionally, the hypothesis tried to convince the reader of the possibility that addiction may not all be genetically

It has been argued that if genes influence behaviour and character, and we cannot choose our genes, then our behaviour is outside our control and we are not responsible. However, we take the view that genes are not deterministic, and that there is scope for an

Controversy arises when nature (inheritance) is combated against nurture (environment). This controversy began with the development of the behavioristic point of view. “Behaviorism arose as a protest against all form of “introspective psychology,” which was concerned with mental states such as consciousness and will”(Plomin 3). It led to an environmentalism that rejected the possibility of genetics influences on behavior. The burden of explaining individual differences fell completely to environmental factors. Genetics involve genes, which are chemical structures that control the production of proteins, thereby indirectly affecting

The increasing understanding of the human genome has made it clear that both parties of the controversy have merit. Nature gives us inborn abilities and traits and it takes these genetic propensities and molds them as we learn and develop . The "nature vs environment” argument is still on, as scientists debate over how much of who we are is shaped by genes and how much by the environment.

Nature vs nurture is, understandably, one of the longest on-going debates in psychology history. Though many different views on the matter, I believe they both play off the other. That the impact of genetics is greatly based on their environment. With the many possible environments, determining the actual impact of genetics is near impossible. But genetics can still overcome environment, despite what it is. Seen in family lines with long history of certain mental

There is an age-old adage that nature and nurture combine to control all aspects of an individual’s functioning, including risk for disease. Research over the past decade, in a still relatively new field called epigenetics, has provided a sophisticated understanding of how this occurs. A person’s “nature” is his or her genetic code, comprised of ~3 billion nucleotides (building block molecules) of DNA packaged within every cell in the body, including nerve cells or neurons. Nurture—representing all of one’s life exposures and experiences starting from a fertilized egg in utero through advanced aging—influences a person’s genetic potential by regulating the degree to which individual genes are expressed.