The great nature
versus nurture debate has recently shifted from, whether our genetics or the
environment influences our psychological processes, to how much both, biology
or the environment has an impact. Both nature and nurture have been researched
thoroughly with evidence to support both sides of the debate. The nature side
or the genetic side argues that intelligence is inherited in the way that a
person is born with their maximum mental ability. To say that a person’s
genetics solely established their mentality is to say that the environment has
no influence at all. On the other hand the nurture side or environmental side
argues that the environment plays a significant role in a person’s mental
ability. This discussion will look at the research and compare the evidence
that supports both sides of the debate.
It has been a well known fact for some time now
that traits such as hair, eye and skin colour, are all determined by specific
genes passed down from our parents. The nature theory takes it further to say
that traits such as intelligence, personality, aggression and sexual
orientation are also in our genetics. This can be tested thanks to the birth of
monozygotic or identical twins born from the same cell. Most data
suggests that the genetic effect is more powerful. For example, identical twins
reared apart show an average IQ correlation of about .75, which is even larger
than DZ twins reared together (Burton, Weston, Kowalski, 2012). Although this
correlation is not likely to be as strong in low socioeconomic groups as this
is the group that has the greatest amount of risk factors. The greater amount
of risk factors, the greater chance that a person will not reach their full
potential (Hackman, Farah, Meaney, 2010).
Francis Galton was the first to use twin studies
to collect evidence for this hypothesis to explain intelligence and many other
researchers continuing to use this same technique. These studies involved sets
of twins, both identical and fraternal twins, which are used to correlate IQ. They
are conducted so that the results can compare the influence of heritability and
the environment. As monozygotic twins share 100 percent of their genes, and
dizygotic twins share 50 percent it gives us the ability to compare variables. If
genetic factors are important in IQ, monozygotic twins should be more alike
than dizygotic twins, siblings, and parents and their off-spring (Sternberg,
Grigorenko, 1997). Biological relatives should also be more alike than adopted
children and their adoptive parents or siblings. (Burton, Weston, Kowalski,
2012) These studies also involve comparing the results to the family, comparing
IQ to parents and other siblings.
Research on adoption is
also used for both sides of the debate, comparing variables between siblings or
twins reared apart in order to examine the relative influence of genes and the
environment. Adoption is highly beneficial for nature as it shows the effects
of children brought up in the same family compared with those of different
genetics in the family (Sternberg, Grigorenko, 1997). An example in favour of
nature would be, if a set of monozygotic twins were to show similar
intelligence even after being raised in different environments. It has been
seen that monozygotic twins reared apart still have a higher correlation of IQ
than dizygotic twins reared together(Burton, Weston, Kowalski, 2012). If
genetics did not play a part in intelligence then dizygotic twins reared
together would resemble each other strikingly close regardless of their only 50
percent in genetic relatedness. The interesting evidence is that dizygotic
twins show a higher correlation than their other siblings even when reared
apart supporting the theory once again that genetics does have a major
influence on human intelligence. By using monozygotic twins as the control
group any differences would have to be explained by environmental factors
(Sternberg, Grigorenko, 1997). Studies have also shown that adopted children
compared to the family’s biological children have no correlation although they
have been brought up in the same family, school, and economic environment
(Sternberg, Grigorenko, 1997). These studies have all found that it is the
genetics that have a stronger influence on intelligence of a person rather than
the environment.
On the other side of the debate we
have the nurture theory that believes that intelligence is caused by a person’s
environment. This means that environmental factors may include education,
socioeconomic status, nutrition, parents behaviour, alcohol, criminal
behaviour, emotional adaptation, down to the amount of time spent reading or
even watching television amongst many others (Flynn, 1992). Research has
focused much on infants and children, nutrition, twin and adoption just like
supporters of the nature theory. It has also been noticed that IQ has been
rising about 3 IQ points per decade across all industrialised countries, this
means that since WWII the average IQ has risen over 1 standard deviation
(Flynn, 1992). This suggests that social and environmental conditions lead to
changes in IQ (Burton, Weston, Kowalski, 2012). Although studies have shown
that nutrition plays a large role in development, the increase in IQ cannot be
explained by diet alone. Another explanation is that children have experienced a
wide variety of new technological creations stimulating them, helping with
visual puzzles like those on IQ tests (Neisser, 1998). Many researchers have
attempted to explain the theory, yet it is still unknown to what causes this
increase in IQ. Many environmental factors have shown to have only slight
contributions and are often unrelated to one another.
Psychological experiments of
conditioning are an example of ways of controlling a person’s environment and
show how important a person’s environment is in effecting how they think and
therefore their intelligence. It has been demonstrated through experiments on
children that fear can be learned. If it were not learned from the environment
then it would likely never develop to show how important the environment is for
the development of humans in many aspects. Burrhus Frederic Skinner’s
experiments on pigeons is an example of how much is possible with conditioning
(Burton, Weston, Kowalski, 2012). He was able to produce pigeons that could do
figure eights, play tennis, dance and do certain actions in order to receive
food. Although this is not an example of humans it shows a distinct connection
between the environment and potential if just given the chance a person or
animal is highly capable. This is an example of both nature and nurture working
together, with the necessary genetics available and the environmental stimulus.
The study of twins for the nurture
side is done by looking at identical twins and the fact that they are not 100%
the same with different characteristics, behaviour and intellectual ability is
proof enough that the environment must have had an impact on them. Just as
adoption studies have also shown that a person’s environment plays a part in
their assisting with intelligence (Sternberg, Grigorenko, 1997). Studies on
interracial adoption in particular have shown that black children adopted by
white middle class families who are tested before and later down the track have
had a significant improvement of average IQ 83 to IQ 103, a 15 point increase
and 20 point increase than their biological mother (Williams, 1997). This could
be due to a numerous amount of factors whether it is schooling, opportunity,
family or social environment. Schooling has been proven to improve a child’s IQ
and with other environmental factors such as change of post code and resources
combines can make significant changes to help with developing a person’s
intelligence.
Looking at all the research covered
although much has not been discussed, there is significant evidence that would
prove that both sides have a great influence on our intelligence. There are
high correlations for monozygotic twins even when raised apart are an extremely
strong point in favour for nature. (Sternberg, Grigorenko, 1997). Although most
studies are done on middle class white families where environmental risk
factors are significantly lower than in lower class families. It does not show
how influential the environment can be, if it were to be done on lower class
monozygotic twins it would likely show a lower correlation and from their other
siblings as well (Hackman, Farah, Meaney, 2010). Both sides work together
complementing each other contributing and influencing a person’s intelligence.
As this has been a topical debate for some time now, it isn’t surprising that
an interactionist perspective has come about on explaining intelligence (Sternberg,
Wagney, 1994). This perspective argues that both nature and nurture interact
and work together, that neither nature nor nurture are capable of explaining
intelligence entirely. ‘The person and the situation each contribute components
to be integrated in successful performance’ (Sternberg, Vagner, 1994). A person
is born with their genetic component and as they grow and experience life, the
environment shapes and teaches that person assisting with intelligence.
According to this theory it would be unlikely for a person to reach their full
potential as the environment is filled with positive but also negative risk
factors that would affect a person’s abilities. A person’s environment must
require certain interactions and possibilities to learn in order to reach their
biological potential already built in from birth.
Reference
Burton, L., Westen, D., Kowalski, R.
(2012). Psychology (3rd ed).
John Wiley and sons inc.
Flynn, J. R. (1992). Cultural
distance and the limitations of IQ. In J. Lynch, C. Modgil, & S. Modgil
(Eds.), Education for cultural diversity:
Convergence and divergence (pp. 343-360). London: Palmer Press.
Hackman, D. A., Farah, M. J.,
Meaney, M. J. (2010). Socioeconomic
status and the brain: mechanistic insights from human and animal research.
Macmillian Publishers Limited
Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. (1997).
Intelligence, Hereditary, and Environment.
Cambridge University Press
Sternberg, R. J., Wagney, R. K.
(1994). Mind in context: Interactionist
Perspectives on Human Intelligence. Cambridge University Press
Neisser, U. (1998). The rising curve: Long-term gains in IQ and
related measures. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.
Williams, W. M., Ceci, S. J.
(1997). Are Americans Becoming More or
Less Alike? Trends in Race, Class, and Ability Differences in Intelligence.
American Psychological Association