nature vs nurture criminology essay

• Subject List
• Take a Tour
• For Authors
• Subscriber Services
• Publications
• African American Studies
• African Studies
• American Literature
• Anthropology
• Architecture Planning and Preservation
• Art History
• Atlantic History
• Biblical Studies
• British and Irish Literature
• Childhood Studies
• Chinese Studies
• Cinema and Media Studies
• Communication

Criminology

• Environmental Science
• Evolutionary Biology
• International Law
• International Relations
• Islamic Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Latino Studies
• Linguistics
• Literary and Critical Theory
• Medieval Studies
• Military History
• Political Science
• Public Health
• Renaissance and Reformation
• Social Work
• Urban Studies
• Victorian Literature
• Browse All Subjects

How to Subscribe

• Free Trials

In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section Nature Versus Nurture

Introduction.

• Genes and Personality
• Genes and Development
• Brain Structure
• Brain Function
• Criticisms of Nature Theories
• Social Learning
• Parental Attachment
• Child Rearing
• Family Structure
• Family Environment
• Criticism of Nurture Theories
• Development

Related Articles Expand or collapse the "related articles" section about

About related articles close popup.

Lorem Ipsum Sit Dolor Amet

Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Aliquam ligula odio, euismod ut aliquam et, vestibulum nec risus. Nulla viverra, arcu et iaculis consequat, justo diam ornare tellus, semper ultrices tellus nunc eu tellus.

• Biosocial Criminology
• Developmental and Life-Course Criminology
• Genetics, Environment, and Crime
• James Q. Wilson
• Social Learning Theory
• The General Theory: Self-Control

Other Subject Areas

Forthcoming articles expand or collapse the "forthcoming articles" section.

• Education Programs in Prison
• Juvenile Justice Professionals' Perceptions of Youth
• Juvenile Waiver
• Find more forthcoming articles...
• Export Citations
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Nature Versus Nurture by Michelle Coyne , John Paul Wright LAST REVIEWED: 30 September 2013 LAST MODIFIED: 30 September 2013 DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780195396607-0163

The nature/nurture debate has raged for decades, both within and outside of criminology. Early biological theories of crime were strongly influenced by Darwinian views of inheritance and natural selection and tended to ignore or downplay environmental influences. Beginning with the early work of Lombroso’s Criminal Man , biological influences were dominant for much of the 19th and early 20th centuries. The advent of sociology, however, challenged these dominant explanations. Durkheim, Weber, and Marx, for example, each located the causes of crime not in individual pathologies but in the way societies were organized. Various sociological views of crime became widely accepted among scholars as biological theories fell out of favor. This happened in criminology as well. Sutherland, for example, argued that crime was the result of differential socialization and was not caused by individual, heritable factors. Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck, however, argued that the causes of crime were varied and multifaceted—and included biological factors. Sutherland’s view became broadly accepted, which led to the virtual elimination of biological theorizing in criminology from the 1940s until today. Nonetheless, recent advances in the biological sciences have again challenged dominant social views of crime. Unlike early biological theories of crime, the new “biosocial” criminology seeks to understand the various ways biological and environmental variables work together to cause problem behavior. Moreover, much contemporary biological theorizing examines the development of individuals across the life-course as well as issues within the life-course, such as the stability of behavior. Because many scholars now view criminal behavior as the product of nature and nurture, many studies now exist that attempt to account for both processes. Nonetheless, tension between those who view crime as the product of “nature” and those who favor “nurture” remains.

Nature and Development Theories

Nature theories assert that the etiology of criminal behavior is biologically based in genetic inheritance and the structure and functions of people’s brains and other psychological responses. Wilson and Herrnstein 1985 presents the early beginnings and approaches of biosocial theory. Moffitt 1993 presents the author’s classic developmental theory, which is based on a biosocial approach. Modern biosocial approaches of life-course theory and the development of deviant behavior can be found in Wright, et al. 2008 and DeLisi and Beaver 2011 . Fishbein 2004 provides a summation of not only the science but also treatment and prevention practices grounded in nature theories. Anderson 2007 and Walsh and Ellis 2007 present overviews and integrated biosocial approaches in criminology. Pinker 2011 is a controversial text that outlines nature theories and uses them as evidence for declining rates of violence in modern times. See also Lombroso-Ferrero 1972 .

Anderson, Gail. 2007. Biological influences on criminal behavior . Boca Raton, FL: Simon Fraser Univ.

A useful overview of the biosocial perspective of the etiology of criminal behavior focusing on genetic factors as well as the structure and functioning of the brain.

DeLisi, M., and Kevin M. Beaver, eds. 2011. Criminological theory: A life-course approach . Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett.

An integrated presentation of several perspectives of criminological theories focusing on the development of antisocial behavior from a biosocial life-course perspective.

Fishbein, Diana, ed. 2004. The science, treatment, and prevention of antisocial behavior: Evidence-based practice . 2 vols. Kingston, NJ: Civic Research Institute.

This text presents the origins of antisocial behavior as well as effective theory-based interventions for prevention and treatment of individuals who display them. First published in 2000 ( The science, treatment, and prevention of antisocial behaviors: Application to the criminal justice system ).

Lombroso-Ferrero, Gina. 1972. Criminal man, according to the classification of Cesare Lombroso . Montclair, NJ: Patterson Smith.

A reprinted version of Cesare Lombroso’s original work, Criminal Man , written by his daughter Gina. This work chronicles Lombroso’s positivistic approach and study of criminality that laid the groundwork for subsequent biological theories of crime.

Moffitt, Terrie E. 1993. Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review 100.4: 674–701.

DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.100.4.674

A classic theoretical piece classifying offenders into adolescence-limited offenders and life-course-persistent offenders. This suggests that most offenders are delinquent during adolescence and then desist upon entering adulthood, while only a small percentage become lifelong criminals.

Pinker, Steven. 2011. The better angels of our nature: Why violence has declined . New York: Viking.

A controversial work that argues violence is declining in society due to advanced genes and evolutionary inheritance. The author capitalizes on human nature and its development over time.

Walsh, Anthony, and Lee Ellis. 2007. Criminology: An interdisciplinary approach . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

This text presents a compilation of modern criminological theories integrated with biological and psychological explanations of the development of criminality.

Wilson, James Q., and Richard Herrnstein. 1985. Crime & human nature: The definitive study of the causes of crime . New York: Free Press.

An early text on the beginnings of the biosocial theory and approach to causes of criminal behavior. The authors explore patterns of offending, namely who commits crimes and why, focusing on characteristics such as age, gender, race, intelligence, impulsivity, and other constitutional factors.

Wright, John P., Stephen G. Tibbetts, and Leah E. Daigle. 2008. Criminals in the making: Criminality across the life course . Los Angeles: SAGE.

A biosocial approach detailing the structure and genetic makeup of the criminal mind and causes of criminal behavior throughout the life-course.

back to top

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content on this page. Please subscribe or login .

Oxford Bibliographies Online is available by subscription and perpetual access to institutions. For more information or to contact an Oxford Sales Representative click here .

• About Criminology »
• Meet the Editorial Board »
• Active Offender Research
• Adler, Freda
• Adversarial System of Justice
• Adverse Childhood Experiences
• Aging Prison Population, The
• Airport and Airline Security
• Alcohol and Drug Prohibition
• Alcohol Use, Policy and Crime
• Alt-Right Gangs and White Power Youth Groups
• Animals, Crimes Against
• Back-End Sentencing and Parole Revocation
• Bail and Pretrial Detention
• Batterer Intervention Programs
• Bentham, Jeremy
• Big Data and Communities and Crime
• Black's Theory of Law and Social Control
• Blumstein, Alfred
• Boot Camps and Shock Incarceration Programs
• Burglary, Residential
• Bystander Intervention
• Capital Punishment
• Chambliss, William
• Chicago School of Criminology, The
• Child Maltreatment
• Chinese Triad Society
• Civil Protection Orders
• Collateral Consequences of Felony Conviction and Imprisonm...
• Collective Efficacy
• Commercial and Bank Robbery
• Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children
• Communicating Scientific Findings in the Courtroom
• Community Change and Crime
• Community Corrections
• Community Disadvantage and Crime
• Community-Based Justice Systems
• Community-Based Substance Use Prevention
• Comparative Criminal Justice Systems
• CompStat Models of Police Performance Management
• Confessions, False and Coerced
• Conservation Criminology
• Consumer Fraud
• Contextual Analysis of Crime
• Control Balance Theory
• Convict Criminology
• Co-Offending and the Role of Accomplices
• Corporate Crime
• Costs of Crime and Justice
• Courts, Drug
• Courts, Juvenile
• Courts, Mental Health
• Courts, Problem-Solving
• Crime and Justice in Latin America
• Crime, Campus
• Crime Control Policy
• Crime Control, Politics of
• Crime, (In)Security, and Islam
• Crime Prevention, Delinquency and
• Crime Prevention, Situational
• Crime Prevention, Voluntary Organizations and
• Crime Trends
• Crime Victims' Rights Movement
• Criminal Career Research
• Criminal Decision Making, Emotions in
• Criminal Justice Data Sources
• Criminal Justice Ethics
• Criminal Justice Fines and Fees
• Criminal Justice Reform, Politics of
• Criminal Justice System, Discretion in the
• Criminal Records
• Criminal Retaliation
• Criminal Talk
• Criminology and Political Science
• Criminology of Genocide, The
• Critical Criminology
• Cross-National Crime
• Cross-Sectional Research Designs in Criminology and Crimin...
• Cultural Criminology
• Cultural Theories
• Cybercrime Investigations and Prosecutions
• Cycle of Violence
• Deadly Force
• Defense Counsel
• Defining "Success" in Corrections and Reentry
• Digital Piracy
• Driving and Traffic Offenses
• Drug Control
• Drug Trafficking, International
• Drugs and Crime
• Elder Abuse
• Electronically Monitored Home Confinement
• Employee Theft
• Environmental Crime and Justice
• Experimental Criminology
• Family Violence
• Fear of Crime and Perceived Risk
• Felon Disenfranchisement
• Feminist Theories
• Feminist Victimization Theories
• Fencing and Stolen Goods Markets
• Firearms and Violence
• Forensic Science
• For-Profit Private Prisons and the Criminal Justice–Indust...
• Gangs, Peers, and Co-offending
• Gender and Crime
• Gendered Crime Pathways
• General Opportunity Victimization Theories
• Green Criminology
• Halfway Houses
• Harm Reduction and Risky Behaviors
• Hate Crime Legislation
• Healthcare Fraud
• Hirschi, Travis
• History of Crime in the United Kingdom
• History of Criminology
• Homelessness and Crime
• Homicide Victimization
• Honor Cultures and Violence
• Hot Spots Policing
• Human Rights
• Human Trafficking
• Identity Theft
• Immigration, Crime, and Justice
• Incarceration, Mass
• Incarceration, Public Health Effects of
• Income Tax Evasion
• Indigenous Criminology
• Institutional Anomie Theory
• Integrated Theory
• Intermediate Sanctions
• Interpersonal Violence, Historical Patterns of
• Interrogation
• Intimate Partner Violence, Criminological Perspectives on
• Intimate Partner Violence, Police Responses to
• Investigation, Criminal
• Juvenile Delinquency
• Juvenile Justice System, The
• Kornhauser, Ruth Rosner
• Labeling Theory
• Labor Markets and Crime
• Land Use and Crime
• Lead and Crime
• LGBTQ Intimate Partner Violence
• LGBTQ People in Prison
• Life Without Parole Sentencing
• Local Institutions and Neighborhood Crime
• Lombroso, Cesare
• Longitudinal Research in Criminology
• Mandatory Minimum Sentencing
• Mapping and Spatial Analysis of Crime, The
• Mass Media, Crime, and Justice
• Measuring Crime
• Mediation and Dispute Resolution Programs
• Mental Health and Crime
• Merton, Robert K.
• Meta-analysis in Criminology
• Middle-Class Crime and Criminality
• Migrant Detention and Incarceration
• Mixed Methods Research in Criminology
• Money Laundering
• Motor Vehicle Theft
• Multi-Level Marketing Scams
• Murder, Serial
• Narrative Criminology
• National Deviancy Symposia, The
• Nature Versus Nurture
• Neighborhood Disorder
• Neutralization Theory
• New Penology, The
• Offender Decision-Making and Motivation
• Offense Specialization/Expertise
• Organized Crime
• Outlaw Motorcycle Clubs
• Panel Methods in Criminology
• Peacemaking Criminology
• Peer Networks and Delinquency
• Performance Measurement and Accountability Systems
• Personality and Trait Theories of Crime
• Persons with a Mental Illness, Police Encounters with
• Phenomenological Theories of Crime
• Plea Bargaining
• Police Administration
• Police Cooperation, International
• Police Discretion
• Police Effectiveness
• Police History
• Police Militarization
• Police Misconduct
• Police, Race and the
• Police Use of Force
• Police, Violence against the
• Policing and Law Enforcement
• Policing, Body-Worn Cameras and
• Policing, Broken Windows
• Policing, Community and Problem-Oriented
• Policing Cybercrime
• Policing, Evidence-Based
• Policing, Intelligence-Led
• Policing, Privatization of
• Policing, Proactive
• Policing, School
• Policing, Stop-and-Frisk
• Policing, Third Party
• Polyvictimization
• Positivist Criminology
• Pretrial Detention, Alternatives to
• Pretrial Diversion
• Prison Administration
• Prison Classification
• Prison, Disciplinary Segregation in
• Prison Education Exchange Programs
• Prison Gangs and Subculture
• Prison History
• Prison Labor
• Prison Visitation
• Prisoner Reentry
• Prisons and Jails
• Prisons, HIV in
• Private Security
• Probation Revocation
• Procedural Justice
• Property Crime
• Prosecution and Courts
• Prostitution
• Psychiatry, Psychology, and Crime: Historical and Current ...
• Psychology and Crime
• Public Criminology
• Public Opinion, Crime and Justice
• Public Order Crimes
• Public Social Control and Neighborhood Crime
• Punishment Justification and Goals
• Qualitative Methods in Criminology
• Queer Criminology
• Race and Sentencing Research Advancements
• Race, Ethnicity, Crime, and Justice
• Racial Threat Hypothesis
• Racial Profiling
• Rape and Sexual Assault
• Rape, Fear of
• Rational Choice Theories
• Rehabilitation
• Religion and Crime
• Restorative Justice
• Risk Assessment
• Routine Activity Theories
• School Bullying
• School Crime and Violence
• School Safety, Security, and Discipline
• Search Warrants
• Seasonality and Crime
• Self-Control, The General Theory:
• Self-Report Crime Surveys
• Sentencing Enhancements
• Sentencing, Evidence-Based
• Sentencing Guidelines
• Sentencing Policy
• Sex Offender Policies and Legislation
• Sex Trafficking
• Sexual Revictimization
• Situational Action Theory
• Snitching and Use of Criminal Informants
• Social and Intellectual Context of Criminology, The
• Social Construction of Crime, The
• Social Control of Tobacco Use
• Social Control Theory
• Social Disorganization
• Social Ecology of Crime
• Social Networks
• Social Threat and Social Control
• Solitary Confinement
• South Africa, Crime and Justice in
• Sport Mega-Events Security
• Stalking and Harassment
• State Crime
• State Dependence and Population Heterogeneity in Theories ...
• Strain Theories
• Street Code
• Street Robbery
• Substance Use and Abuse
• Surveillance, Public and Private
• Sutherland, Edwin H.
• Technology and the Criminal Justice System
• Technology, Criminal Use of
• Terrorism and Hate Crime
• Terrorism, Criminological Explanations for
• Testimony, Eyewitness
• Therapeutic Jurisprudence
• Trajectory Methods in Criminology
• Transnational Crime
• Truth-In-Sentencing
• Urban Politics and Crime
• US War on Terrorism, Legal Perspectives on the
• Victim Impact Statements
• Victimization, Adolescent
• Victimization, Biosocial Theories of
• Victimization Patterns and Trends
• Victimization, Repeat
• Victimization, Vicarious and Related Forms of Secondary Tr...
• Victimless Crime
• Victim-Offender Overlap, The
• Violence Against Women
• Violence, Youth
• Violent Crime
• White-Collar Crime
• White-Collar Crime, The Global Financial Crisis and
• White-Collar Crime, Women and
• Wilson, James Q.
• Wolfgang, Marvin
• Women, Girls, and Reentry
• Wrongful Conviction
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility

Powered by:

• [66.249.64.20|185.66.14.236]
• 185.66.14.236

5.5 Nature versus Nurture: Are We Born Bad?

Crime policy is based on the common belief that humans have free will and “choose” to break the laws; and because of this free will, they should be punished accordingly. But, what if we are born with a propensity to offend? What policy could be created for offenders who were born criminals?

5.5.1 Psychodynamic Theory

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

9 Nature versus Nurture: Biosocial Theories of Crime

Antoinette L. Smith and Tracy Meehan

Learning Objectives

• Understand the fundamental concepts and principles of biosocial criminology and investigate how biological and social factors interact to influence aggression and antisocial behaviour.
• Identify and compare three major areas of biosocial criminological research: nutrition; genetics; and traumatic brain injury.
• Be able to address historical and current criticisms of biosocial criminology and understand the role of ethics and morality in this type of criminological approach.

Before You Begin

• How does your environment affect you? Do you cranky when you are hungry? Anxious or annoyed when you are cold? Take a moment to think about how your body reacts to your environment. Does that affect your behaviour?
• Have you ever read or heard about instances where medical or scientific professionals have acted in an unethical or immoral manner? What types of situations? How did this make you feel?
• It’s easy to understand where we inherit our physical traits. But what about our personality traits? Do you share personality traits with the people you grew up with or the people you are related to? If you had to make a bet, would you bet that you inherited those similar traits or learned them?

INTRODUCTION

It’s no surprise that we inherit traits from our families. It may be our height or our hair colour or any number of other physical traits. But of long interest in criminology is whether personality traits are inherited, particularly those relating to crime and aggression. The long-standing nurture vs. nature debate in social sciences has advocates on both sides but these days, we can sum it up by saying “it depends.” The research into the overlap between biological and social explanations of crime is known as biosocial criminology (Barnes et al., 2015). The body of work exploring criminal behaviours within this discipline is a broad framework borrowing theories and concepts from at least five other disciplines, including: evolution, biology, genetics, neurology and sociology.

Biosocial theory helps us understand the interplay between internal behavioural influences, such as the ways our brains, bodies and genes work, and external behavioural influences, including who we spend time with, the societies we live in, and the cultures we experience. Biosociology offers a more comprehensive explanation for criminal behaviours, rather than traditional or standalone theories have provided. If you have watched any historical detective movies, you may have heard about the study of ‘phrenology,’ when people thought that bumps and divots in our skull could help determine criminals from non-criminals [1] (Bedoya & Portnoy, 2023; Larregue & Rollins, 2019). While we now know this was a silly idea, the study of phrenology helped usher in a period of increased data collection and evidence based scientific endeavors, known as positivism . This early form of biological research has changed dramatically over the decades into what we now know as biosocial criminology.

We have come a long way since criminals were catalogued by their head bumps and limb lengths. And what we have learned is that biology is not destiny. But it does serve a purpose is helping us understand the relationships between our physical, psychological, social and inherited experiences.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

Biosocial criminology developed over time by combining research from a range of complementary disciplines, like evolution, genetics, sociology, and environmental theories. During the 19th century, thanks to the work of people like Charles Darwin and Sir Francis Galton, research focused on evolution-based explanations of behaviour. After all, if evolution helped plants and animals change over time, surely it could explain behavioural traits as well (Berryessa & Cho, 2013; Green, 1997).  Biosocial theory was first introduced in the 1950s by the German-British psychologist Hans Eysenck, although it did not initially gain much traction in the research community. While recognising the importance of biology in understanding crime, Eysenck also emphasised the importance of social influences like friends and family (Brennan & Raine, 1997).

But one reason that the idea did not gain traction early on was related to the fact that in the 1950s and 1960s, most of the world was still recovering from learning about the atrocities committed during the Holocaust in World War II. During this time, governments and universities began creating new ethics review processes and were more critical about the best ways to study people. Biological research like twin studies where no longer in favour.

As all types of science adopted more ethical and moral principles of research in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, researchers moved increasingly back towards a focus on biosocial explanations of criminality (Rocque et al., 2012). Improved technologies as well as worldwide efforts that made up the Human Genome Project (which began in 1990) sparked more interest in the role that biology could play in helping us understand aggressive behaviour. It is then when we now think of as biosocial criminology re-emerged (Barkow et al., 1995; Tremblay et al., 2005). Over time, other disciplines have been drawn into the conversation, including epigenetics, environment-interactions, and life-course psychology (Fraga et al., 2005; Wortley, 2011).

Table 11.1 Biosocial Theory – Timeline   

What is biosocial criminology.

There is not one kind of biosocial criminology. In fact, there are several biosocial theories to explain crime and aggression. What they all have in common is an assumption that one’s biology interacts with the environment in which they live, and this interaction affects behaviour. Some biosocial theories focus on the inherited nature of biological traits, such as how hormones can influence aggression. Other biosocial theories focus on how our bodies interact with the world around us, such as understanding the effects of brain injuries or nutritional deficiencies on later life outcomes. What they all have in common is that they investigate how the complex interaction between us and our environments.

The contribution of biology has traditionally been about making connections between biological factors, such as hormones, genetic markers, and biochemical factors, and our behaviour (Raine, 2002). For instance, males are more likely to have higher testosterone levels than females, which has led some to come to the conclusion that men are more prone to aggressive crimes, like assault or intimate partner violence (Burgess & Draper, 1989). Other researchers have examined the structure and function of the brain in trying to understand criminal behaviour, finding connections between the overstimulation or under stimulation certain regions of the brain and aggressive behaviour (Raine et al, 1997; Raine, 2002). Recent research has turned to the role of health, particularly nutrition, on individual behaviour and connections to aggression (Jackson, 2016).

For the remainder of the chapter, we will focus on three major research areas that fall under the umbrella of biosocial criminology: the role of nutrition; genetics; and brain injury.

THEORY APPLICATION

Nutrition and crime.

Have you ever been so hungry that you couldn’t think straight? Or maybe you’ve been uncharacteristically mean to a friend when you were ‘hangry.’ We may joke and make memes about how we act when we are hungry, but it’s been in a verifiable truth: you are, in fact, what you eat. The food we consume what food does to our bodies impacts our behaviour. Criminologists in particular have been interested in the role that malnutrition has on childhood behaviour.

Two major patterns stand out. The first is the role that omega-3 fatty acids have on reducing behaviour. Omega-3 fatty acids are known as the “healthy fat” and are typically found in seafood, seeds and nuts. In a study where children were randomly assigned to receive omega-3 supplementation versus not supplements, caretakers reported that children who received the reduced disruptive behaviours 6 months later (Raine et al., 2015). A large-scale meta-analysis [2] showed that omega-3 fatty acid consumption is associated with reduced aggression (Gajos & Beaver, 2016). So eat your mackerel!

But the relationship between nutrition and aggression isn’t limited to omega-3 fatty acids. Malnutrition in general has been found to be associated with increased antisocial behaviour in preschoolers (Jackson, 2016) and adolescents (Galler et al., 2012). An important factor in this connection is to look more closely into why young people are malnourished to begin with. Food insecurity is a real problem in many parts of the world, including Australia. Families experiencing food insecurity are more likely to experience malnutrition, which is then linked to childhood misconduct and delinquency (Jackson & Vaughn, 2017). As you can see, this is the interplay between biology (nutrition) and sociology (access to quality food).

Genetics and Crime

No chapter on biosocial criminology would be complete with a discussion of the role of genetics in understanding aggression and criminality. First and foremost, there is no crime gene. As we have seen in Chapter 2, crime is inherently a social construct. Therefore, most research into genetics and crime focuses on aggressive behaviour. And studies of genetic relationships to aggression remain controversial, due to the historical connections with the study of eugenics and unethical research of the early and mid-twentieth century.

Genetic research has studied twins or siblings in an attempt to understand the role of heredity on behaviour. The most famous studies of genetics and crime are twin studies. The most controversial were adoption studies, where twins were separated into different homes in order to determine the role of nature versus nurture. But many other studies looked for similarity in behaviours between family members. The most common finding is that self-control appears to be, in part, inherited (see Chapter 9 for more discussion on self-control control) (Schwartz et al., 2017).

There have also been advancements in how we have studied the contribution of genetic influences to behaviour. Much of this improved understanding comes from the field of epigenetics. Epigenetics is the study of how genes change expression, depending on our environment. Changes to people’s diet or exposure to different group membership may influence when genes are ‘switched on’ or left untouched (Wortley, 2011). For example, a person maybe prone to addiction but without exposure to drug use, the potential to become addicted is never realised. Conversely, the influence of drug users in friendship groups may cause a person with addictive personality traits to become easily addicted. The long and short of it is that nature and nurture interact to influence our development (Moffitt, 2005).

Mental Health and The Criminal Justice System

The link between mental health and the criminal justice system is an important connection that draws significant attention from researchers. In this text, three research papers conducted within Australia will be discussed. These studies examine how mental health affects reoffending risks, incarceration rate and the overrepresentation of Indigenous Peoples in the criminal justice system. These findings are significant as they emphasise the need for further research, practical interventions and additional support systems that address mental health disorders for vulnerable individuals.

The research article titled Psychiatric illness and the risk of reoffending: recurrent event analysis for an Australian birth cohort  by Ogilvie et al. (2021) is the first focus of this discussion. This paper was sampled from the 1983 to 1984 Queensland birth cohort, consisting of 83,362 individuals (48.5% female, 51.5% male) and 4,821 Indigenous Peoples (5.8%). The findings revealed that individuals with psychiatric illnesses were more susceptible to engaging in repeated criminal behaviour. Individuals with a psychiatric diagnosis reoffended 73.1% of the time, compared to 56% for individuals without a condition. Reappearances of people with a psychiatric diagnosis in court occurred in violent (20.5 vs. 8.5%), nonviolent (60.3 vs. 40.3%) and other minor (61.7 vs. 44.1%) offences compared to those without a psychiatric diagnosis. This study shows that more frequent criminal contact could exacerbate psychiatric illnesses, potentially creating further offending risks, demonstrating the critical necessity of addressing mental health concerns within the criminal justice system to break the reoffending cycle and foster better outcomes for those involved.

The second paper is titled Lifetime prevalence of mental illness and incarceration: An analysis by gender and Indigenous status by Stewart et al. (2020). This study sampled individuals with a 1990 birthdate and found a concerning overrepresentation of individuals with mental health issues among the incarcerated population, with a notably disproportionate impact on Indigenous Peoples and women. Among the individuals sentenced to custody, one-third had a mental health diagnosis, in contrast to only 6.1% of the total birth cohort population. Indigenous Peoples with a mental health diagnosis were 6.14 times more prone to receiving a custodial sentence than non-Indigenous individuals with a mental health diagnosis. Similarly, females with a mental health diagnosis were 5.49 times more likely to receive a custodial sentence than males with a mental health diagnosis. Identifying these vulnerable groups has revealed an urgent need for targeted interventions and culturally sensitive mental health support within the criminal justice system.

The last journal article that will be discussed is titled Psychiatric disorders and offending in an Australian birth cohort: Overrepresentation in the health and criminal justice systems for Indigenous Australians by Ogilvie et al. (2021). This study explored the overlap between mental health and offending, focusing on Indigenous Peoples. Similarly, this study examined a population-based birth cohort of individuals born in Queensland in 1990. Of the individuals with a psychiatric illness diagnosis, 53.0% also had a proven offence; this being much higher for Indigenous Peoples, with the statistic being 80.5% compared to 47.0% for non-Indigenous Peoples. By 23/24, 16.2% of Indigenous Peoples with a proven offence had also received a substance use disorder diagnosis, compared with 7.8% of non-Indigenous Peoples. Indigenous Peoples with a diagnosed disorder were also most likely to have more than five proven offences (39.2% vs. 3.3%). These statistics show the extreme over-representation of Indigenous Peoples with mental health diagnoses who have had contact with the criminal justice system. It demonstrates that a psychiatric diagnosis could increase the risk of earlier and more frequent criminal justice contact, emphasising that Indigenous Peoples with a psychiatric disorder are a highly vulnerable group.

Overall, these findings highlight the significant overlap between mental health issues and the criminal justice system. The research advocates for expanding culturally appropriate mental health interventions, particularly within substance use disorders. Additionally, it supports the idea that early diversion and intervention during initial contact with the criminal justice system could be an effective strategy to prevent future reoffending into adulthood for vulnerable people. This research and understanding of how mental health and the criminal justice system intersect are vital to paving the way for more compassionate and successful approaches to supporting vulnerable individuals and reducing the cycle of reoffending.

A summary by Chole Veerman

Traumatic Brain Injury

A traumatic brain injury (TBI) is an injury of the brain that occurs as the result of a physical impact to the head or body. Causes are diverse but can include falls, car accidents and assaults. Even sports can lead to TBI. It is estimated that up to 200,000 TBI occur in Australia each year, but many are unreported or undiagnosed. In recent years, criminologists have realised that TBI can affect behaviour and may increase violence and aggression, as well as have other negative life consequences. One research study collected information from a group of high risk justice involved young people in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (USA) and Phoenix, Arizona (USA). Youth who experienced a TBI had higher levels of delinquency, bullying, and impulsivity (a trait commonly associated with low self-control) (Silver et al., 2020).

Because individuals can obtain a TBI in ways that are not related to criminal activity, like sports, there is still a lot we do not know about TBI in justice involved populations. Certainly, the type of brain injury will affect the types of behavioural outcomes that could happen. We are learning more about the functions of the brain through advancements in technology that allows us to view the structure of the brain. Using technology such as fMRIs (Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging), researchers have identified the parts of the brain that may be related to antisocial behaviour. The amygdala is a region of interest (Kaya et al, 2020). The amygdalae are small almond shaped brain structures on either side of the brain hemisphere that help regulate emotion, including fear. Research suggests that individuals with smaller amygdalae are more likely to engage in antisocial behaviour (Kleine Deters et al., 2022). Whether due to biology or injury, brain structure appears to matter. This is an area where we can continue to expect major contributions to our understanding of criminality in the near future.

THEORY CRITICISMS

In addition to the criticisms already raised in relation to the application of biosocial theory on race and the previously poor ethical practices, many criminologists object to ideological elements that underpin this theoretical approach (Walsh & Wright, 2015). These criticisms relate to determinism, reductionism, and the nature of socially constructed crime. Many argue that a biosocial approach to understanding crime is too deterministic and does not give enough credit to individual decision making. When genes or brain functions are linked to criminality, how do we separate out those who exhibit the trait but do not engage in criminal behaviour?

Similarly, critics of biosocial approaches argue that they are reductive, or overly simplify diverse human behaviour rather than recognising the intense interplay of the environment and social influences (Heylen et al., 2015). For instance, aggressive behaviour may be linked to genes, whereas in reality, the potential for aggression may not be realised unless certain environmental or situational factors are present, such as peer pressure or the presence of an antagonist.

Finally, crime is, and always has been, social (Walsh & Wright, 2015). For instance, consuming alcohol in Dubai is illegal without a permit, whereas it is unregulated for people over the age of 17 in Australia. Similarly, using cannabis is illegal in 25 of the 50 American states, with another 14 legalising medicinal cannabis (Tyko, 2023), and Australia looks like it is headed in that direction. The social construction of crime means that anything considered legal is ignored in research analyses, leaving some important political, social, or environmental factors unconsidered.

THE FUTURE OF THE THEORY

The findings from multifactorial studies with a biosocial focus have helped shape our responses within the criminal justice system and provided new ways to envision prevention and rehabilitations. A better understanding of the diverse causes of criminality brings with it the opportunity to improve outdated systems and incorporate innovative new approaches. Newsome and Cullen (2017) provide an example of this improvement when they updated the ‘risks, needs and responsivity model’ used within criminal rehabilitation. By incorporating biosocial factors like genetics, neurobiology, physiology and nutrition into the existing model of understanding behaviour, neurological and physiological assessments can improve current risk assessments. By continuing to focus on biosocial research elements relating to crime, further improvements to criminal justice system responses will continue to emerge.

The application of biosocial desistance models has moved from understanding young people to better supporting adults, especially with what we have learned about brain structure and function (Boisvert, 2021). Through neuropsychological functioning studies, we have learned that incarcerating low-risk individuals is more likely to induce stress system responses which will impact future brain development, indicating imprisonment should be used as a last resort only. Other research on brain development also shows that high-risk individuals who are incarcerated may benefit from programs to minimise diminished cognitive functioning, such as increased sleep time and limited time in solitary confinement. These changes involve identifying genetic risk factors, understanding the impact of exposure to criminogenic environments within dynamic and static needs assessments, and including a range of cognitive-based treatments in criminal justice responses (Boisvert, 2012).

A Note about Biosocial Criminology and Race

Biosocial theory has previously been used to explain the social and biological ways we understand racial groups (Larregue & Rollins, 2019). However, critics are cautious when applying biosociology to race because of the tendency of some researchers to link criminality to minority populations, such as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Doing so actively ignores the fact that race is a social construct and reducing people to their race ignores important structural, community, intergenerational and social differences in how people experience their identify.  Larregue & Rollins (2019) argue it is impossible to control for race in research as it does not capture the complexities of social relationships and practices. Any attempts to do so are likely to led to racist outcomes such as colour-blind interpretation, or researchers erring towards blaming races for an increased risk in criminality. This is principally problematic considering the social construction of race and diversity within cultures.

The same is true for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. With more than 500 communities living in Australia and surrounding islands, they are not a homogenous group ( Evolve Communities ). Trying to account for the differences in traditions and practices between these communities is unrealistic in single studies comparing differences between non-Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. For example, there are differences in languages, laws, belief systems and relationships within these 500 communities. Failure to recognise these differences has led to criticisms of Pan-Aboriginalism in Australia; the failure to recognise the uniqueness of hundreds of communities and the tendency to attribute similar characteristics to all communities broadly.

Research conducted by Larregue & Rollins (2019) shows the problematic nature of applying race within biosociology. They reviewed 107 studies exploring biosocial criminality and found race was comprehensively studied in only three of the 107 studies . However, even in these few cases, researchers failed to look at the ‘effects of race’ and criminality, for instance the social mechanisms contributing to and influencing racial populations in set societies. Therefore, it is not possible to truly apply biosocial theory to the many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. However, the theory does have other application uses mainly relating to the criminal justice system.

For more information about how people understand race and racial identify, the National Human Genome Institute at the US National Institutes of Health is a good place to start. Australia is more likely to use the terms ethnicity and indigeneity to describe individuals who are part of distinct cultures within our communities (Kowal & Watt, 2018). To many, biological constructions of ‘race’ ignore the realities of shared culture and social status as being an important part of identifying with a community. While new discoveries come every day, the field of genomics is still quite new and it requires us to be critical of findings that separate people into categories that are not supported by science or sociology.

Biosocial theory is an interdisciplinary framework for evaluating human behaviours, including aggression and criminality. The intersection between biological and environmental influences remains an important part of contemporary criminological research. While the theory has not always been favoured in the scientific community, the application of more ethical practices, combined with more advanced technology, has increased interest and improved our knowledge about how to adapt prevention, intervention, and rehabilitation efforts.

Check Your Knowledge

Discussion questions.

• Define biosocial theory in the context of criminality and discuss how it integrates biological and social factors to explain criminal behaviour. Provide examples to illustrate the key concepts of biosocial theory and its application to understanding crime.
• Consider the practical applications of biosocial theory in the development of interventions and prevention strategies. Reflect on how a better understanding of the biological and social factors contributing to criminal behaviour can inform targeted interventions. How might this knowledge be used to identify at-risk individuals early on and implement effective preventative measures?
• Explore the ethical considerations associated with applying biosocial theories to criminality research. Discuss potential implications for stigmatization, discrimination, and the broader societal impact. How can researchers ensure cultural sensitivity and ethical conduct when studying the biosocial aspects of criminal behaviour.

Barkow, J. H., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (Eds.). (1995). The adapted mind: evolutionary psychology   and the generation of culture . Oxford University Press.

Barnes, J. C., Boutwell, B. B., & Beaver, K. M. (2015). Contemporary biosocial criminology: A systematic review of the literature, 2000–2012. The handbook of criminological theory , 75-99.

Bedoya, A., & Portnoy, J. (2023). Biosocial criminology: History, theory, research evidence, and policy. Victims & Offenders , 18 (8), 1599-1629.

Berryessa, C. M., & Cho, M. K. (2013). Ethical, legal, social, and policy implications of behavioral genetics. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics , 14 , 515-534.

Boisvert, D. L. (2021). Biosocial factors and their influence on desistance. NCJ 301499, in Desistance From crime: Implications for research, policy, and practice (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 2021), NCJ 301497. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/301499.pdf

Brennan, P. A., & Raine, A. (1997). Biosocial bases of antisocial behavior: Psychophysiological, neurological, and cognitive factors. Clinical psychology review , 17 (6), 589-604.

Burgess, R. L., & Draper, P. (1989). The explanation of family violence: The role of biological, behavioral, and cultural selection. Crime and Justice , 11 , 59-116.

Fraga, M. F., Ballestar, E., Paz, M. F., Ropero, S., Setien, F., Ballestar, M. L., … & Esteller, M. (2005). Epigenetic differences arise during the lifetime of monozygotic twins. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 102 (30), 10604-10609.

Gajos, J. M., & Beaver, K. M. (2016). The effect of fatty acids on aggression: A meta-analysis.  Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews , 69, 147–158. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.07.017

Galler, J. R., Bryce, C. P., Waber, D. P., Hock, R. S., Harrison, R., Eaglesfield, G. D., & Fitzmaurice, G. (2012). Infant malnutrition predicts conduct problems in adolescents.  Nutritional Neuroscience , 15(4), 186–192. https://doi.org/10.1179/1476830512Y.0000000012

Green, C. D. (1997). The principles of psychology William James (1890). Classics in the history of   psychology .

Heylen, B., Pauwels, L. J., Beaver, K. M., & Ruffinengo, M. (2015). Defending biosocial criminology: On the discursive style of our critics, the separation of ideology and science, and a biologically informed defense of fundamental values. Journal of Theoretical & Philosophical Criminology , 7 (1), 83.

Jackson, D. B. (2016). The link between poor quality nutrition and childhood antisocial behavior: A genetically informative analysis.  Journal of Criminal Justice , 44, 13–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2015.11.007J

Kaya, S., Yildirim, H., & Atmaca, M. (2020). Reduced hippocampus and amygdala volumes in antisocial personality disorder.  Journal of Clinical Neuroscience , 75, 199–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2020.01.048

Kleine Deters, R., Ruisch, I. H., Faraone, S. V., Hartman, C. A., Luman, M., Franke, B., Oosterlaan, J., Buitelaar, J. K., Naaijen, J., Dietrich, A., & Hoekstra, P. J. (2022). Polygenic risk scores for antisocial behavior in relation to amygdala morphology across an attention deficit hyperactivity disorder case-control sample with and without disruptive behavior.  European Neuropsychopharmacolog y , 62, 63–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroneuro.2022.07.182

Kowal, E., & Watt, K. (2018) What is race in Australia? Journal of Anthropological Studies, 96 , 229-237. https://www.isita-org.com/jass/Contents/2018vol96/Kowal/30640719.pdf

Larregue, J., & Rollins, O. (2019). Biosocial criminology and the mismeasure of race. Ethnic and Racial Studies , 42 (12), 1990-2007.

Moffitt, T. E. (2005). The new look of behavioral genetics in developmental psychopathology: Gene-environment interplay in antisocial behaviors.  Psychological Bulletin , 131(4), 533–554. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.4.533

Newsome, J., & Cullen, F. T. (2017). The risk-need-responsivity model revisited: Using biosocial criminology to enhance offender rehabilitation. Criminal Justice and Behavior , 44 (8), 1030-  1049.

Raine, A. (2002). The biological basis of crime. Crime: Public policies for crime control , 43 , 74.

Raine, A., Portnoy, J., Liu, J., Mahoomed, T., & Hibbeln, J. (2015). Reduction in behavior problems with omega-3 supplementation in children aged 8-16 years: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, stratified, parallel-grouptrial.  Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines , 56(5), 509–520.

Rocque, M., Welsh, B. C., & Raine, A. (2012). Biosocial criminology and modern crime prevention. Journal of Criminal Justice , 40 (4), 306-312.

Schwartz, J. A., Connolly, E. J., Nedelec, J. L., & Beaver, K. M. (2017). An investigation of genetic and environmental influences across the distribution of self-control.  Criminal Justice and Behavior , 44(9), 1163–1182. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854817709495

Silver, I. A., Province, K., & Nedelec, J. L. (2020). Self-reported traumatic brain injury during key developmental stages: Examining its effect on co-occurring psychological symptoms in an adjudicated sample.  Brain Injury , 34(3), 375–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699052.2020.1723166

Tyko, K. (2023). Where is marijuana legal – and illegal – 2023 . AXIOS.  https://www.axios.com/2023/04/20/weed-pot-april-20-medical-marijuana-legal#

Tremblay, R. E., Hartup, W. W., & Archer, J. (Eds.). (2005). Developmental origins of aggression . Guilford Press.

Jackson, D. B., & Vaughn, M. G. (2017). Household food insecurity during childhood and adolescent misconduct.  Preventive Medicine , 96, 113–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.12.042

Walsh, A., & Wright, J. P. (2015). Biosocial criminology and its discontents: A critical realist philosophical analysis. Criminal Justice Studies , 28 (1), 124-140.

Wortley, R. (2011). Psychological criminology: An integrative approach (Vol. 9). Taylor & Francis.

• Spoiler alert: the bumps in your head do not predict your personality. No matter what you saw on TV. But if you want to know about phrenology, check out this article published in the journal Cortex. ↵
• A meta-analysis is a study that takes information from all existing studies on one topic and comes to a conclusion about what the totality of the evidence says. It is very useful when there are a lot of studies and it can be difficult to keep track of which one is the most recent or the best done. This way, all of the research is put together to make an overall stronger conclusion. ↵

an approach to society that relies on empirical evidence and observation, often including experiments and other similar methdologies

a statistical study that combines findings from several independent studies on the same subject, in order to determine the totality of the evidence

Introduction to Criminology and Criminal Justice Copyright © 2024 by Antoinette L. Smith and Tracy Meehan is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Nature vs. Nurture (Criminology is at it Again!)

There are many theories that have been developed which attempt to explain the causes of criminal behaviour, including explanations of crime which focus on the individual – his or her thought process, biological factors, and psychological factors; and explanations of crime which focus on factors external to the individual – the surrounding environment, others who influence the individual, and society as a whole. These two areas of criminology are often seen to be in direct conflict with each other. Nowadays most criminologists agree that it isn't an either-or situation – internal factors and social factors both play a part in determining one's behaviour. This essay takes the same view and argues that both sides of criminology have their strengths and weaknesses in explaining crime, and the notion that only internal or external factors can be the cause for an individual being criminal is outdated. To demonstrate that neither explanations of crime are more convincing than the other, this essay will examine both biological theories and ecological theories and compare them against each other. In doing so, each theory and their origins will be explained, the weaknesses of each theory will be explored, and the crimes that each theory can explain will be stated. Biological theories are interested in the inherited genetics of the individual to determine their predisposition to antisocial behaviour (Hirschi & Gottfredson 1990, p. 414). Cesare Lombroso, dubbed " the father of modern criminology " , popularised biological positivism during the nineteenth century. His general theory proposed that 'the criminal was born, not made' – he believed that atavistic criminals (people who are biologically inferior) were a reversion of the human specimen, having physical features similar to that apes and early man – such a person could be identified by examining their appearance and noting any physical abnormalities or 'stigmata' (White, Haines & Asquith 2012, p. 49).

Related Papers

Sakin Tanvir

Indian Legal Solution Journal of Criminal and Constitutional Law

Faizan Anwer

We are living in a multidisciplinary era. Since the dawn of civilization, every field of study have progressed at its own pace and there have been continuous research and findings at different levels of different diversified fields. There was a time when shooting off of various sciences was an essential phenomenon for inculcating expertise and advancement within a particular area of study. Now all these branches are converging and interconnecting and forming nodes with other fields. Legal studies are no exception to this. In this article, we will try to put some light on criminology with the glasses of biology. The phenomenon of crime integrates multiple factors including human behaviour, psychology, sociology, parenting, forensics, and more recently genetics. The genes present in our very cells may be the causal agent for criminal behaviour, but it’s not a tool to escape from the punishment of one of the most heinous crimes done by most advanced species, Homo sapiens present on the face of the earth. In the advanced modern societies, government prepare the databases of DNA fingerprints of the evil souls of the society. There have been detailed discussions on eugenics and epigenetics. One of the interesting facts is that capital punishment may be one of the methods of implementing eugenics in the core of civilization. The phrase of nature and nurture is very analogous to genetics and epigenetics in this scenario. We all are the products of genetic composition and socioenvironmental factors. Does this rob our free will or does this make us liable?

Diana Shlyapnikova

Through many centuries, criminal behavior was mistakenly explained mostly with biological defects of the individual. It was believed, that abnormal actions, negatively affected society, were preferably conducted by those, who suffered from serious physical deviations in development. However, as the science was progressing, scholars have begun searching other possible causes of the formation of antisocial behavior and psychology began to actively explore this area. Nowadays, it is known, that incorrect parenting style, negative influence of environment, and formation of improper role models may significantly result inner conflicts and thus, led to the abnormal behavior. In this essay, we would further examine, how these aspects can influence the behavior of individuals and lead to criminal conduct, illustrating it with examples from biographies of famous criminals to show how concepts can be applied in reality. First of all, it is necessary to draw a distinction between biological and psychological factors, influencing the behavior of individual. Under biological factors we mean physical anomalies, such as neurotransmitter dysfunction, bradygenesis, and other problems of neural development, genetically predisposed or caused by trauma or injury. Under psychological factors we mean mental disorders, and deviation in education and mental development of the individual. However, despite the fact that the differences seem obvious, both areas are interconnected between deeply. As we know, the connection of nature and nature is rooted into every individual. As the course textbook states " everything psychological is simultaneously biological " (Meyers, 1999, Chapter 2, p.47). Thus, various theories, designed to explain the emerging and development of deviant behavior, combine both approaches. For example, theory of personality and crime by Hans J. Eysenck, British psychologist, states that each individual has innate hereditary predisposition towards asocial behavior, which discloses in certain circumstances. Thus, " criminal behavior is the result of an interaction between certain environmental conditions and features of the nervous system " (Bartol & Bartol, 2005). However, Eysenck does not say, that deviant behavior inborn, but may be caused by the compound of heredity and environment. It is not itself, or criminality that is innate; it is certain peculiarities of the central and autonomic nervous system that react with the environment, with upbringing, and many other environmental factors to increase the probability that a given person would act in a certain antisocial manner (Eysenck & Gudjonsson, 1989)

Current Issues in Criminal Justice

Allan McCay

Elisabetta Sirgiovanni

At the end of the nineteenth century the Italian physician and anthropologist Cesare Lombroso established the foundations of criminological sciences by introducing a biological theory of delinquency, which was later discredited and replaced by the sociological approach. The theory of the " born criminal " was poor in methods and analysis, and turned out to be controversial in its formulations, assumptions, and mostly in its predictions. However, recent research in behavioral genetics and neuroscience has brought back some version of the Lombrosian idea by providing evidence for the genetic and biological correlates of criminality. This research has been impacting legal proceedings worldwide. In this paper, I compare the Lombrosian and the contemporary scientific meanings of "heredity" and "predisposition" to aggressive and violent behavior, by highlighting theoretical similarities and differences in the two approaches. On the one hand, the paper is arguing against the idea that contemporary theories are radically deterministic, while on the other hand it aims at rehabilitating the intellectual image of Lombroso by showing that the denigration of his brilliant work by his successors was unjustified.

Aggressive Behavior

Anthony Mawson

sumbul fatima

Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences

David Speicher

The question of why some individuals commit vile acts is a subject that has challenged criminologists, psychologist and sociologists for many years. Research has demonstrated there is no simple answer, since criminologists all seek to explain the phenomenon of violent crime in different theoretical concepts. The science of criminological convention thus becomes a science of conflicting ideologies. It is therefore noted that criminologists format their theoretical concepts according to the type of crime they are explaining. The question remains, how to explain the violent and vile acts of human beings. Could it be construed that our genetic dispositions sway towards carrying out these acts, or indeed an abusive childhood which was fuelled by poverty, bad parenting and a dysfunctional social standing. This paper therefore proposes to examine the nature verses nurture debate. This debate is fundamentally one of the oldest issues in psychology, which centres on the relative attributes of genetic inheritance and environmental factors to human development.

Imran Ahmad Sajid

These are introductory slides for undergraduate students at the University of Peshawar.

RELATED PAPERS

Sami Aldeeb

Ruut Veenhoven

Jurnal Aplikasi Teknologi Pangan

Yoga Pratama

Earthquake Spectra

Alisa F. Stewart

Akdeniz Spor Bilimleri Dergisi

emre şimşek

The Veterinary Journal

Joanna Dukes-mcewan

NASN School Nurse

Elizabeth Richardson

Chemistry Letters

Tsuyoshi Ochiai

Computational Optimization and Applications

BMC Genomics

R. Alan Harris

Bulletin of Experimental Biology and Medicine

Rodrigo Bustamante

Proceedings of the XSEDE16 Conference on Diversity, Big Data, and Science at Scale

james esheka taylor

Food and Energy Security

Salete Gaziola

1比1仿制维多利亚大学毕业证 victoria毕业证硕士学位GRE证书原版一模一样

Journal of Sohag Agriscience (JSAS)

Abdelsabour Khaled

Health technology assessment (Winchester, England)

Susan Michie

Rebecca Treiman

PLHIS Caruaru: Plano Local de Habitação de Interesse Social

André A R A Ú J O Almeida

International Journal of Surgery Case Reports

Konstantinos Stamou

Andreea Antonescu

Human & Experimental Toxicology

Martin Mozina

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Columbia College

Nature vs. nurture resource guide, about this guide, get started, selected e-books, key databases, streaming videos, need help contact us., attribution.

This guide was created by Vandy Evermon for the assignments related to the influence of environment or genetics on criminal behavior. If you have any questions, please contact us.

This resource guide is designed to provide information on the topic of the causes of criminal behavior, whether environment or genetics.

Key words that are useful for this topic are:

• Nature versus nurture
• Criminal behavior and causes
• Criminal behavior and genetics
• Criminal behavior and environment

Below are some articles on this topic.

• Nature vs. Nurture Debate Research Starter One of the longest-running controversies in psychology, the “nature versus nurture” debate is an academic question as to whether human behaviors, attitudes, and personalities are the result of innate biological or genetic factors (the “nature” side of the debate) or life experiences and experiential learning (“nurture”).
• Nature versus Nurture and Criminal Behavior Virtual Criminology: Insights from Genetic-Social Science and Heidegger Full text, peer reviewed article
• Criminal Behavior and Genetics Full text, peer reviewed articles
• Criminal Behavior & Genetics in PsycARTICLES Full text, peer-reviewed articles.
• Criminal Behavior and Environment Full text, peer reviewed articles
• Nature Nurture Controversy and Crime Full text, peer reviewed articles in Academic Search Complete database.
• Nature and Nurture Articles Articles about nature and nurture.
• Nature and Nurture Includes books and e-books at Columbia College.
• Human Beings Effect of Environment On Includes books and e-books at Columbia College.
• Nature Versus Nurture The topic page on this subject from the Credo Reference database. Includes essays from Credo Reference e-books. Includes a a mind map of related terms that you can link to.

• Criminal Justice ProQuest Criminal Justice is a database supporting research on crime, its causes and impacts, legal and social implications, as well as litigation and crime trends. This database covers U.S. and international scholarly journals, it includes correctional and law enforcement trade publications, crime reports, crime blogs, and other material relevant for researchers.
• PsycARTICLES PsycARTICLES, from the American Psychological Association (APA), is a source of full-text, peer-reviewed scholarly and scientific articles in psychology. The database contains full-text peer-reviewed articles published by the American Psychological Association and affiliated journals.
• Psychology & Behavioral Sciences Collection The Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection provides the full text of articles from journals covering topics such as behavioral characteristics, psychology, mental processes, anthropology, and observational and experimental methods.
• SocINDEX with Full Text SocINDEX with Full Text offers comprehensive coverage of sociology, encompassing all sub-disciplines and closely related areas of study. Full-text journals, informative abstracts, books, monographs, conference papers and other non-periodical content sources, the database also includes searchable cited references for core coverage journals.
• Breaking the Wall of Nature and Nurture: How Genes and Environment Combine to Affect our Life Course What determines human behavior? In this video of his 2010 Falling Walls Conference lecture, Dalton Conley would say nature and nurture both play a role.
• My Genes Speak for Me: Reconciling Nature and Nurture This film explores the possibility that genetics and environment are not diametrically opposed when it comes to human development—instead, the program asserts, they should be seen as complementary.
• Last Updated: Feb 29, 2024 8:14 PM
• URL: https://library.ccis.edu/crimebehavior

• Introduction to Genomics
• Educational Resources
• Policy Issues in Genomics
• The Human Genome Project
• Funding Opportunities
• Funded Programs & Projects
• Division and Program Directors
• Scientific Program Analysts
• Contact by Research Area
• News & Events
• Research Areas
• Research investigators
• Research Projects
• Clinical Research
• Data Tools & Resources
• Genomics & Medicine
• Family Health History
• For Patients & Families
• For Health Professionals
• Jobs at NHGRI
• Training at NHGRI
• Funding for Research Training
• Professional Development Programs
• NHGRI Culture
• Social Media
• Broadcast Media
• Image Gallery
• Press Resources
• Organization
• NHGRI Director
• Mission & Vision
• Policies & Guidance
• Institute Advisors
• Strategic Vision
• Leadership Initiatives
• Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
• Partner with NHGRI
• Staff Search

Nature vs. Nurture in the Criminal Justice System

Background:.

The pace of research into genetic factors that may influence how we think and act has increased drastically in the last few years. Some forms of mental illness have a strong hereditary component. For example, scientists are trying to determine how genetic factors make some people more susceptible to disorders like schizophrenia, depression and alcoholism. They also are exploring the contributions of genes to certain personality traits, like shyness and impulsiveness.

Scientists currently believe that the vast majority of human behaviors and traits reflect a complex mix of genetics and the environment. It is unlikely that they will discover single genetic mutations that determine such characteristics as intelligence or that fully account for why some people become aggressive or violent.

It is 2010, and Joe Schmoe has been charged with assault. The physical evidence supporting his guilt is overwhelming and he pleads guilty. In preparation for his sentencing hearing, Joe's lawyer asks him to undergo a series of genetic tests to determine whether he carries any of four genetic mutations that have been associated in research literature with violent behavior. The tests, while controversial, show that Joe's DNA does, in fact, contain all four mutations. Based on these results, Joe's lawyer will argue that Joe should be sent to a psychiatric facility rather than to state prison. He claims that because Joe's genetic status predisposed him to this violent act, it would be unfair to sentence him as a criminal for behavior over which he had essentially no control.

Discussion Questions:

• If you were the judge at Joe's sentencing hearing, how, if at all, would the results of this controversial genetic test influence your decision?
• How would your decision be influenced if Joe had only 1 of the 4 mutations associated with violent behavior?
• What would be your decision if Joe was shown to suffer from a mental illness such as schizophrenia? How come?
• If Joe gets sent to prison and tries to get released on parole fifteen years later, should the fact that he may have a genetic predisposition to violent behavior be used to keep him in prison, even if his behavior has been consistently good during his incarceration?
• In the future, should all newborn babies be screened to determine if they have genetic mutations that could be linked to violent behavior? How come?
• What if a medication became available to treat people with these mutations?

Last updated: March 30, 2012

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Life Sci Soc Policy
• v.9; 2013 Dec

Perceptions of nature, nurture and behaviour

Mairi levitt.

Department of Politics, Philosophy and Religious Studies, Lancaster University, County South, Lancaster, LA1 4YL UK

Trying to separate out nature and nurture as explanations for behaviour, as in classic genetic studies of twins and families, is now said to be both impossible and unproductive. In practice the nature-nurture model persists as a way of framing discussion on the causes of behaviour in genetic research papers, as well as in the media and lay debate. Social and environmental theories of crime have been dominant in criminology and in public policy while biological theories have been seen as outdated and discredited. Recently, research into genetic variations associated with aggressive and antisocial behaviour has received more attention in the media. This paper explores ideas on the role of nature and nurture in violent and antisocial behaviour through interviews and open-ended questionnaires among lay publics. There was general agreement that everybody’s behaviour is influenced to varying degrees by both genetic and environmental factors but deterministic accounts of causation, except in exceptional circumstances, were rejected. Only an emphasis on nature was seen as dangerous in its consequences, for society and for individuals themselves. Whereas academic researchers approach the debate from their disciplinary perspectives which may or may not engage with practical and policy issues, the key issue for the public was what sort of explanations of behaviour will lead to the best outcomes for all concerned.

Trying to separate out nature and nurture as explanations for behaviour, as in classic genetic studies of twins and families, is now said to be both impossible and unproductive. The nature-nurture debate is declared to be officially redundant by social scientists and scientists, ‘outdated, naive and unhelpful’ (Craddock, 2011 , p.637), ‘a false dichotomy’ (Traynor 2010 , p.196). Geneticists argue that nature and nurture interact to affect behaviour through complex and not yet fully understood ways, but, in practice, the debate continues 1 . Research papers by psychologists and geneticists still use the terms nature and nurture, or genes and environment, to consider their relative influences on, for example, temperament and personality, childhood obesity and toddler sleep patterns (McCrae et al., 2000 ; Anderson et al., 2007 ; Brescianini, 2011 ). These papers separate out and quantify the relative influences of nature/genes and nurture/environment. These papers might be taken to indicate how individuals acquire their personality traits or toddlers acquire their sleep patterns; part is innate or there at birth and part is acquired after birth due to environmental influences. The findings actually refer to technical heritability which is, ‘the proportion of phenotypic variation attributable to genetic differences between individuals’ (Keller, 2010 , p.57). In practice, as Keller illustrates, there is ‘slippage’ between heritability, meaning a trait being biologically transmissible, and technical heritability. This is not simply a mistake made by the media or ‘media hype’ but is, she argues, ‘almost impossible to avoid’ (ibid, p.71).

While researchers are aware of the complexity of gene-environment interaction, the ‘nature and nurture’ model persists as a simple way of framing discussion on the causes of behaviours. It is also a site of struggle between (and within) academic disciplines and, through influence on policy, has consequences for those whose behaviours are investigated. There is general agreement between social scientists and geneticists about the past abuses of genetics but disagreement over whether it will be possible for the new behavioural genetics to avoid discrimination and eugenic practices, and about the likely benefits that society will gain from this research (Parens et al. 2006 , xxi). In a special issue of the American Journal of Sociology ‘Exploring genetics and social structure’, Bearman considers the reasons why sociologists are concerned about genetic effects on behaviour; first they see it as legitimating existing societal arrangements, which assumes that ‘genetic’ is unchangeable. Second, if sociologists draw on genetic research it contaminates the sociological enterprise and, third, whatever claims are made to the contrary, it is a eugenicist project (Bearman, 2008 , vi). As we will see all these concerns were expressed by the publics in this study. Policy makers and publics are interested in explaining problem behaviour in order to change/control it, not in respecting disciplinary boundaries, and will expect the role of genetics to be considered alongside social factors. 2

Social and environmental theories of criminal behaviour have been dominant in criminology, and in public policy (Walsh, 2009 , p.7). Genetic disorders and mental illness have provided explanations for a small minority of offenders with specific conditions. A 2007 survey of American criminologists found that ‘criminologists of all ideological persuasions view alleged biosocial causes of crime (hormonal, genetic, and evolutionary factors and possibly low intelligence) as relatively unimportant’ compared with environmental causes (Cooper et al., 2010 ). Sociology textbooks have typically discussed biological theories of criminality only as discredited (Haralambos and Holborn, 2004 , Giddens, 2009 ). Biosocial theories are seen as attractive to ‘agents of social control’ and to be more likely to lead to abusive treatment of offenders. However, with increasing research and public interest in genetics more attention has been paid to biological aspects of crime and to genetic variations within the normal range. Research has focussed on violent and antisocial behaviours which are criminal or may be seen as a precursor to criminal behaviour, for example, antisocial behaviour in young people. Media reports have headlined ‘warrior genes’, ‘the aggressive gene’ and the ‘get out of jail free gene’, all referring to levels of monoamine oxidase A (MAOA) (Lea and Chambers, 2007 ; Levitt and Pieri, 2009 ) 3 . Think tanks and ethics groups have considered the ethics and practicalities of genetic testing for behavioural traits (Campbell and Ross, 2004 ; Dixon, 2005 Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 2002 ).

An attraction of research into genes and behaviour is the hope that identifying a genetic factor that is correlated with an increased incidence of, say, violent and antisocial behaviour, will point to a way of reducing such behaviour. Fotaki discusses the attraction of biological explanations of inequalities in health based on the assumption that genetic interventions ‘would succeed in addressing the causes of ill health that public health policies cannot.’ (Fotaki, 2011 , p.641). The danger is that biological explanations ‘are once more employed for political purposes to explain away the social roots of health inequalities.’ (ibid). Social scientists, and criminologists, have presented biological/genetic explanations of behaviour as dangerous in terms of their potential effect on the individuals or groups identified as genetically at risk. There are obvious dangers of discrimination against, and the stigmatisation of, already vulnerable groups who would be the first to be tested i.e. ‘problem’ families or minority ethnic groups. Discrimination could affect education, employment and family life. The effect of an individual being told s/he has a risk based on a genetic test has been much discussed in relation to health risks (Claassen et al., 2010 . While such information could be motivating, because it is personalised, it can also induce a fatalistic attitude that discourages the person from taking preventative measures. Claasen et al. conclude that it is important to identify those vulnerable to the fatalistic impact and to tailor health risk information (ibid p.194). Identifying risk for behaviour, rather than for disease, is likely to be more problematic because of the difficulty of finding preventative measures that are within the individuals’ own control.

..using DNA to assess risk, make a diagnosis or tailor treatments, may weaken beliefs in the efficacy of preventive behaviour and reinforce biological ways of reducing risk, resulting in a preference for medication as opposed to behavioural means to control or reduce risk (ibid, xiv).

Claasen et al.’s comment on genetic tests for health conditions could apply equally to parents given a behavioural risk for their young child from a genetic test, perhaps before any problem behaviour was evident. The test result could weaken parents’ belief that they could take action to prevent/reduce the risk of the behaviour developing in their child and pharmaceutical solutions, as posited by Caspi et al. might not be available (Caspi et al., 2002 , xvii). However, it is not necessarily the case that evidence of genetic or biological influence on behaviour leads to more punitive treatment. DeLisi et al. give the example of the use of findings from adolescent brain science in the case of Roper v. Simmons in the US which abolished the death penalty for adolescents. On the basis of the research it was stated that young people under the age of 18 ‘are more vulnerable or susceptible to negative influences and outside pressures including peer pressure’ (DeLisa et al., 2010 , p.25) When evidence on genetic traits associated with criminal behaviour has been allowed by courts, mainly in the US, it has so far more often been accepted as a mitigating rather than an aggravating factor in the offenders’ behaviour (Denno, 2009 , Farahany and Coleman, 2006 ).

Environmental explanations of behaviour can, of course, also be presented as deterministic, claiming a closed future for those experiencing poverty and disadvantage. However, it is biological explanations that have caused more concern not only because of the history of eugenics but also because they may be seen as more fundamental, being there from birth, and as harder to change. The public in surveys are reported to see the greatest role for genetic factors in physical features, a lesser role in health conditions and a smaller role still in human behaviour (Condit, 2010 , p.619).

Public perceptions

The model of nature/genes and nurture/environment is still used in behavioural genetics, as well as in popular culture, and has implications for public policy, including the treatment of offenders who claim that a genetic trait has influenced their criminal behaviour. The aim of this research was to explore ideas on the causes of behaviour, particularly violent and antisocial behaviour and examine how respondents use the nature/nurture model. This qualitative research looks at the ways in which lay publics in different age groups conceptualise the factors and influences that made them who they are and their explanations for the behaviour of other people; especially violent behaviour. It was hypothesised that the increased research and media emphasis on the role of genetic factors in health and behaviour might result in an increasing interest in ‘nature’, biology and genes as explanations for behaviour particularly among the young, but, when explaining their own behaviour people might prefer to see themselves as agents with control over their lives. By exploring explanations of behaviour with respondents from different generations, age differences should be apparent.

The views of 78 respondents from 3 generations were gathered by individual interview and questionnaires, using the same open ended questions and responses to two real-life criminal court case studies where environmental or genetic factors had been used by the defence team. Respondents were drawn from a group of retired people participating in an informal ‘senior learners’ programme at Lancaster University, a group of their mainly younger relatives and, in order to recruit more third generation respondents, a group of first year students taking a criminology module. The senior learners group had a programme of talks and discussions and could attend undergraduate lectures. They had, by definition, shown an interest in current issues in a range of fields. There were no educational or age requirements for the group but all the volunteers were retired from paid work and were aged from around 65 years to over 80 years.. They had had similar careers to those popular with social science students; social work, probation, teaching and administrative positions. The senior learners were asked to pass on questionnaires to younger relatives to investigate age differences in attitudes. The first 13 senior learners who responded were interviewed but as only 15 questionnaires were received from their relatives ethical approval was obtained to distribute the same questionnaire to Lancaster University students taking the criminology first year module. Most students were enrolled on social science degrees, including psychology and sociology, and age 18 or 19. While the sample of senior learners and relatives had only a few more women than men, 78 per cent of the students were female reflecting the gender balance on the module as a whole. This makes it difficult to comment on any gender differences in responses. No claims to generalisability are made for this exploratory study. Responses were coded and entered on SPSS and also analysed thematically using Atlas-ti.

The introduction to the interviews and questionnaire was ‘I am interested in your views and ideas on what makes us the people we are; what makes people behave the way they do? What is the influence of nature and nurture?’ The terms, nature and nurture were not used again until the final question. Although the terms were not defined all respondents readily used them with consistent meanings. They identified ‘nature’ with biology, ‘what you are born with’ and genes or DNA and nurture with all aspects of the environment including parenting, socio-economic conditions, the food you eat, culture and other people. Their understanding of environment was therefore similar to that used by genetic researchers; environment as everything that is external to the individual, although they tended to refer more to the social than the biological environment.

A general warm-up question asked whether, in their own family, there was anything they thought of as a ‘family trait’. Then respondents were asked; ‘Imagine a baby swapped at birth and brought up in a completely different family– which influences do you think would be most important – the influence of the birth parents or the influences of the new family- and why?’ 4 The rest of the interview schedule, and the subsequent questionnaire, consisted of open-ended questions.

Respondents were asked how they would explain different kinds of behaviour if they came across a child who is kind and considerate; a young person who displays antisocial and aggressive behaviour adult and an adult with criminal convictions for violence. This was to tap into any differences in general explanations of good and bad behaviour in young people and adults. A quotation about the child killers in the Bulger case being ‘unreformable’ was used to ascertain whether they saw some types of violent behavior, and the actors concerned, as immutable. In order to see how respondents conceptualized the influences of nature/biology/genes and environment/people/experiences in their own lives, respondents were asked to write down ‘what or who made you what you are today’ and any explanation of their responses. Comments were gathered on the introduction of an environmental factor (childhood neglect) by the defence in a violent attack by two young boys in England, and on a genetic factor (MAOA levels) introduced by the defence in an criminal court in Italy. Respondents were asked how they thought such evidence should be dealt with; whether it should affect the degree of blame and whether it should affect criminal responsibility. The final question asked if it mattered ‘for individuals or society’ whether nature or nurture was seen as most important in explaining problem behaviour. Those interviewed were asked if they had any further comments and there was a space for any additional comments on the questionnaire.

This paper focuses on the ways in which respondents employed nature/genes and nurture/environment in their responses as a whole and what other concepts they drew on when explaining behaviour.

Respondents’ explanations of what makes people behave the way they do are discussed through three themes.

• Nurture is more influential than nature
• Nature and nurture interact
• Emphasising nature (but never nurture) can be dangerous

Theme 1: Nurture is more influential than nature

Whether asked about influences on a baby adopted at birth, on their own lives, on an aggressive child or a violent young person, almost all respondents emphasised nurture. Parents and family were seen as the most important influences for babies and young children, moving to peer group and other relationships and experiences for a young person. The explanation for the violent behaviour of an adult had more to do with the individual and the importance of nurture/environment in explaining behaviour weakened. The quotations below explaining behaviour in a child adopted at birth, a young person and an adult illustrate the widening of influences from infancy through childhood and the onus on adults to take responsibility for themselves.

[a child] The environment in which a child grows up in, particularly the influence and role of the parents shapes how a child will grow up and what sort of adult they will be (77 Student). [a young person] I believe that upbringing shapes a person’s personality. Provisions of education, lifestyle opportunities and friendship groups all determine ….outlook. You can see evidence in young people at the school I teach at (20 Relative). Once adult they have to take responsibility for themselves and address whatever has been in their background. An adult can’t turn round and say it’s not my fault (5 Senior Learner).

Participants also saw themselves as shaped by the people surrounding them, starting with their parents, or those who brought them up. Several mentioned the illness and/or death of a parent during their childhood and older respondents talked about separation due to the second world war. Students were especially likely to mention the influence of morals instilled in them by their parents, the core values and discipline that they were taught at home. Educational experiences were important to all. For the senior learners the school leaving age had been age 15, so whether or not they stayed on at school and took public examinations was crucial for their future, and, this decision depended largely on their parents and environment. For the student respondents who had come to university from school, life so far has been ‘kind of set-out’ (41 Student), in the sense that they had progressed through the education system to gain qualifications for university. For their peer group it was normal still to be in education or training at the age of 18.

The lasting effects of early influences were particularly striking among the senior learners, because they were much further removed in years from their childhood. Many related stories about parental influence and also about teachers who taught them at least 50 years ago and had affected them for better or worse. For example a senior learner recalled one of her teachers;

I hated primary school – the teacher in 3rd or 4th year juniors [for ages 9–11] I hated her she was not a nice woman….. I passed to go to the grammar school and it shocked her. She made a derogatory comment – may not have been directed at me but felt it was- about some who should have passed and didn’t and some passing who should not have done…… I always vowed I would never be like that when I was teaching….(11 Senior Learner).

Those who related negative influences presented themselves as active in response, not necessarily at the time but later in their lives. For example a student whose mother had died wrote that ‘it made me more independent’ and another student who was bullied at school wrote that ‘it made me stronger’. The adult had to deal with all the influences (negative or positive) and take control.

Theme 2: Nature and nurture interact

While respondents’ view of themselves and of a child adopted at birth assigned greater influence to environment this did not mean that they held a simplistic model of, for example 60:40 nurture to nature. In this one question when they were asked to choose one or other as the major influence, almost all chose nurture, as many social scientists might do. However, in open questions and comments more complex interactive models were expressed. Environment/nurture can affect genes/nature and vice versa. No one used the term epigenetics but responses referred to the possibility of environmental influences affecting gene expression, for example;

People with certain predispositions (e.g. to violence) are affected by society, and society affects how their genes are expressed (40 Student).

An older respondent reflects on personal experience of child rearing and asks whether nurture is influenced by nature;

I think the nature nurture debate is very interesting. In my family I can see where my children have their own natures that have developed despite being brought up in the same family with the same boundaries etc. However, as a parent did I alter how I nurture them to take into account their nature? (14 Senior Learner).

This quotation illustrates the inseparability of nature and nurture. The child is developing within the family and the parent is developing parenting strategies informed by previous experiences and by other influences including the reactions of the children.

It was obvious to respondents that both genetic and environmental factors impact on everyone (although the role of genes is not yet understood) and it will be harder for some than for others to behave well because of their genes and environment. These people may need different treatment or extra help if they have committed violent and aggressive crimes but that does not excuse their behaviour. Only in exceptional cases, like insanity, can a young person or adult be said to have no choice but to act in a particular way. It is important that people are seen as responsible while also giving them the help they need. In these two comments the treatment for environmental problems and ‘biology’ are similar; the individual can be helped to modify his/her behaviour.

No, [nature and nurture] both play a part, but they can’t be the explanation for everything. Some people grow up in broken homes and get treated appallingly- yet they seem to understand right + wrong and accept responsibility for their actions. There are too many excuses and we never solve any problems, just make them harder to resolve.......I think if you are sane and you know right from wrong you need to suffer the consequences if you’ve committed a crime, but I do appreciate you may need help psychologically if you have anger issues, for example. If we constantly find reasons to diminish blame from people who have committed heinous acts of crime more people will think they can get away with it and it will cause more harm than good (78 Student). Some say you can’t fight your biology, but there are social factors that can stop bad behaviour like learned restraint (72 Student).

The desire to leave a space for individual agency may be linked to the finding that emphasising nature, but never nurture, could be dangerous. It is clear that as children grow up they can exercise more control over their environment, although some have more control and choices than others. On the other hand, whatever the individual is born with (genes and nature) is, or seems to be, less malleable which could lead to different criminal justice policies and different social perceptions of the criminal.

Theme 3: Emphasising nature (but never nurture) can be dangerous for society as a whole as well as for the criminal and victims

The question asked was whether it mattered ‘for individuals or society’ if either nature or nurture was seen as most important in explaining problem behavior. The two most popular answers were that both nature and nurture were needed to explain behaviour, or, that nurture was more important and that there were dangers in emphasising nature. No one in the sample regarded an emphasis on nurture as dangerous or detrimental to the individual or society. On the contrary, emphasising nurture was thought more likely to lead to non-punitive treatment of offenders. There would be attempts to alter future behaviour through improved education and parenting and spreading of knowledge in society about the impact nurture has on young people. Society as a whole would share the blame rather than the individual. As a student put it; ‘society as a whole [would be] open for criticism’ (55 S). An emphasis on nurture was therefore seen as more likely to lead to understanding of problem behaviours and effective treatment, however, the individuals were still to be held responsible for their behaviour.

In contrast there was a mistrust of nature/genetic explanations that again centred on the practical consequences for individuals. It would affect the way criminals were treated by others but could also change their view of themselves. Behaviour would be seen as unchangeable, out of the control of the individual or social action. As a consequence, individual accountability might be removed. The idea that individuals must normally be held responsible for their actions was constantly emphasised (Levitt, 2013 ).

It does [matter] because [if nurture is emphasised] people will care, parent and look after and raise people with more care. However if it’s proven it is nature, then people may lose the will to live (60 Student).

Several SLs referred to the examination at the end of primary education (the ‘eleven plus’) when explaining why they emphasised environment/nurture rather than nature, or, in this case, innate intelligence. The ‘eleven plus’ examination was used to decide which children would be offered a place at an academically selective grammar school and was based on the idea that intelligence, and future academic achievement, could be accurately measured and predicted at the age of 10 or 11.

‘The 11+ was a nature thing. I did the 11+ − it had an effect. Saying children not going to improve or change. Very embedded in the whole idea of nature – it can’t really be true’ (8 Senior Learner).

An emphasis on nature has practical detrimental consequences for individuals. Their status is fixed, for example as ‘not academic’ or ‘born evil’ and suggests, to them and to others, that their ‘nature’ is unchangeable or very difficult to change by individual or social action.

Yes, [it matters] hugely as position of blame is dependent on whether a person chose to do what they did .....nature suggests no control (35 Student).

Those who thought an emphasis on nature meant people were irredeemable either gave that as a reason not to emphasise nature or to suggest that in fact ‘defects’ of nature could be overcome, as in this comment by a student emphasising the power of education;

Yes it is very important because it helps to understand if people are reformable (nurture) or irredeemable (nature). I believe we are determined by our education and thus with the proper help we can change. In the case of people with major biological defects, education is still a way to get over these obstacles and society should be ready to help these people (38 Student).

It might be thought that offenders themselves would embrace a genetic explanation of their behaviour if this was interpreted, as the respondents feared, as meaning they were not responsible for their crimes. However, a small study of juvenile offenders in the Netherlands found that they gave social explanations of their crimes and most rejected the idea that biology might be a factor. They committed a crime for a specific purpose like to get money or to impress others or they gave environmental reasons such as a deprived background or peer pressure or explained their offences were due to psychological conditions brought on by the use of alcohol and soft drugs (Horstkötter et al., 2012 , p.291). Whether they gave goal directed or environmental reasons ‘most of them also state that they had a choice and that it was their choice to commit the crime’ (ibid p.292). As one young offender said in interview;

In the end the person makes the choice himself… The choices I have made also had a share in my past. But in the end I am the one who has made these choices (ibid).

Genes and environment

Respondents were at ease with the language of nature and nurture which was only used in the introduction to the questionnaire or interview. They readily equated genes with nature and nurture with all sorts of environmental influences. There was an acknowledgement that our understanding of environmental factors is greater than our understanding of genetics but that that would change. Older respondents were more likely to be concerned about such a change.

They're going to be doing a lot more with genetics. Influences policy profoundly and people have to be very careful. It worries me that seen to be [more determining]. The complexities don’t get looked at. If you emphasise environment it is safer from a policy point of view because given that most people don’t know what they are talking about it is safer to see the person as redeemable than to come down on the side of genetics and write people off (3 Senior Learner).

This quotation is typical in its view that nature/genes are seen as determining even though the influences on behaviour are, in reality, complex. Like the studies quoted at the beginning of the article respondents often acknowledged the complexities as nature and nurture interact but separated them when explaining the causes of specific behaviours. Students were less likely to be fearful of genetic explanations of behaviour despite their academic interest in social science. However, the hypothesis that young people might be more likely to be interested in genetic explanations for behaviour was not shown in this small study. The senior learners were more likely to refer to reading on genes and display knowledge of genetics. Older respondents and their relatives more often echoed the sociologists’ concerns about behavioural genetics discussed by Bearman earlier (Bearman, 2008 ). For those who feared the practical consequences of genetic explanations, like the respondent quoted above, ‘it is safer’ to keep away from them.

Some respondents in all age groups were prepared for advances in genetics to change their understanding of behaviour and prepared for current views of genes/nature as more basic, fixed and unchanging to change too. One of the youngest relatives, in her 20s, emphasised our incomplete knowledge of genetic influences on behaviour as a reason for focussing on nurture ‘at present’;

It is very tricky as we cannot see genes and I am not sure that I totally trust the idea of blaming genes for violent behaviour- maybe the person has a gene for passive behaviour as well. …….In any case we can change nurture but at present we cannot change nature so let’s do one thing at a time (20 Relative).

As respondents in this small study grappled with explanations for their own and others’ behaviour they focussed on the practical consequences leading to a greater concern over explanations based on nature than the more familiar ones based on a complex web of environmental factors. Whereas academic researchers approach the debate from their disciplinary perspectives which may or may not engage with practical and policy issues, the key issue for the public was what sort of explanations of behaviour will lead to the best outcomes for all concerned.

1 Behavioural epigenetic research has indicated that life experiences can affect gene expression. While controversial the research suggests the possibility of further complications for the nature-nurture relationship as nurture may be said to shape nature (Buchen, 2010 Powledge, 2011 ). 2 Bearman op cit iv. The ESRC Cambridge Network Social Contexts of Pathways into Crime (SCoPiC) promoted multidisciplinary research into the causes of crime and included the E risk longitudinal twin study led by Terri Moffitt which investigated how genetic and environmental factors shape children's disruptive behaviour http://www.scopic.ac.uk Accessed 3 Sep 2013. 3 Violent and antisocial behaviour in this longitudinal study was correlated with a common genetic trait (low expression of MAOA) only where the person was severely maltreated in childhood. Behaviour was measured on 4 outcomes; diagnoses of conduct disorder, psychological tests of aggression and anti-social personality disorder and convictions for violent crime. Caspi et al. 2002 (supplementary material). 4 This initial warm-up question implied that the influences of nature and nurture could be separated and quantified as in common usage both in academic and popular discourses. As discussed respondents were able to express their views more fully (and with more complexity) in the subsequent open questions.

Acknowledgement

The support of the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) is gratefully acknowledged. This work was part of the Research Programme of the ESRC Genomics Network at Cesagen (ESRC Centre for Economic and Social Aspects of Genomics).

Competing interests

The author declares that she has no competing interests.

• Anderson P, Butcher KF, Schanzenbach DW. Childhood obesity and disadvantage: is nature trumping nurture? NBER working paper No. 13479. Cambridge MA: National Bureau of Economic Research; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bearman P. Exploring genetics and social structure. American Journal of Sociology. 2008; 114 (Suppl;S1):v–x. doi: 10.1086/596596. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brescianini S, Volzone A, Fagnani C, Patriarca V, Grimaldi V, Lanni R, Serino L, Mastroiacovo P, Stazi MA. Genetic and environmental factors shape infant sleep patterns: a study of 18-month-old twins. Pediatrics. 2011; 127 (5):1296–1302. doi: 10.1542/peds.2010-0858. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Buchen L. In their nurture – can epigenetics underlie the enduring effects for a mother’s love. Nature. 2010; 467 :146–148. doi: 10.1038/467146a. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Campbell E, Ross LF. Attitudes of healthcare professionals and parents regarding genetic testing for violent traits in childhood. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2004; 30 :580–586. doi: 10.1136/jme.2003.005389. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Caspi A, et al. Role of genotype in the cycle of violence in maltreated children. Science. 2002; 2 (5582):851–854. doi: 10.1126/science.1072290. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Claassen L, Henneman L, De Vet R, Knol D, Marteau T, Timmermans D. Fatalistic responses to different types of genetic risk information: Exploring the role of Self-Malleability. Psychology and Health. 2010; 25 (2):183–196. doi: 10.1080/08870440802460434. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Condit CM. When do people deploy genetic determinism? A review pointing to te need for multi-Factorial theories of public utilization of scientific discourses. Sociology Compass. 2010; 5 (7):618–635. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2011.00385.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cooper JA, Walsh A, Ellis L. Is criminology moving toward a paradigm shift? Evidence from a Survey of the American Society of Criminology Journal of Criminal Justice Education. 2010; 21 (3):332–347. [ Google Scholar ]
• Craddock N. Horses for courses: the need for pragmatism and realism as well as balance and caution. A commentary on Angel. Social Science and Medicine. 2011; 73 :636–638. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.06.049. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• DeLisa M, Wright JP, Vaughn MG, Beaver KM. Nature and nurture by definition means both: a response to males. Journal of Adolescent Research. 2010; 25 (1):24–30. doi: 10.1177/0743558409353063. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Denno DW. Behavioral genetics evidence in criminal cases: 1994–2007. In: Farahany NA, editor. The impact of behavioral sciences on criminal law. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2009. pp. 317–354. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dixon M. Brave new choices: behavioural genetics and public policy. London: IPPR; 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
• Farahany NA, Coleman JE., Jr Genetics and responsibility: to know the criminal from the Crime. Law and Contemporary Problems. 2006; 69 :115–162. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fotaki M. Agency versus structure or nature versus nurture: when the new twist on an old debate is not that new after all: a commentary on Angel. Social Science & Medicine. 2011; 73 (5):639–642. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.06.044. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Giddens A. Sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Haralambos M, Holborn M. Sociology themes and perspectives. London: Collins Educational; 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
• Horstkötter D, Berghmans R, de Ruiter C, Krumeich A, de Wert G. “We are also normal human beings, you know”. Views and attitudes of juvenile delinquents on antisocial behaviour, neurobiology and prevention. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry. 2012; 35 :289–297. doi: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2012.04.006. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Keller EF. The mirage of a space between nature and nurture. Durham & London: Duke University Press; 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lea R, Chambers G. Monamine oxidase, addiction and the ‘warrior’ gene hypothesis. The New Zealand Medical Journal. 2007; 120 :1250. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Levitt M. Genes, environment and responsibility for violent behaviour: ‘Whatever genes one has it is preferable that you are prevented from going around stabbing people’ New Genetics and Society. 2013; 32 (1):4–17. doi: 10.1080/14636778.2012.699352. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Levitt M, Pieri E. “It could just be an additional test couldn’t it?” Genetic testing for susceptibility to aggression and violence. New Genetics and Society. 2009; 28 (2):189–200. doi: 10.1080/14636770902901629. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McCrae RR, Costa PT, Jr, Ostendorf F, Angleitner A, Hřebíčková M, Avia MD, Sanz J, Sánchez-Bernardos ML, Kusdil ME, Woodfield R, Saunders PR, Smith PB. Nature over nurture: temperament, personality and life span development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2000; 78 (1):173–86. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.78.1.173. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nuffield Council on Bioethics . Genetics and human behaviour: the ethical context. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics; 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Parens E, Chapman ER, N. Press N, editors. Wrestling with behavioural genetics. Science, ethics and public conversation. Baltimore: The John Hopkins Press; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Powledge TM. Behavioral Epigenetics: How nurture shapes nature. Biosciences. 2011; 61 :588–592. doi: 10.1525/bio.2011.61.8.4. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Traynor BJ, Singleton AB. Nature versus nurture: death of a dogma, and the road ahead. Neuron. 2010; 68 :196–200. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2010.10.002. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Walsh A. Biology and criminality. The biosocial synthesis. Oxon: Routledge; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]

Nature vs. Nurture

Reviewed by Psychology Today Staff

The expression “nature vs. nurture” describes the question of how much a person's characteristics are formed by either “nature” or “nurture.” “Nature” means innate biological factors (namely genetics ), while “nurture” can refer to upbringing or life experience more generally.

Traditionally, “nature vs. nurture” has been framed as a debate between those who argue for the dominance of one source of influence or the other, but contemporary experts acknowledge that both “nature” and “nurture” play a role in psychological development and interact in complex ways.

• The Meaning of Nature vs. Nurture
• The Nature-vs.-Nurture Debate
• Identifying Genetic and Environmental Factors

The wording of the phrase “nature vs. nurture” makes it seem as though human individuality— personality traits, intelligence , preferences, and other characteristics—must be based on either the genes people are born with or the environment in which they grew up. The reality, as scientists have shown, is more complicated, and both these and other factors can help account for the many ways in which individuals differ from each other.

The words “nature” and “nurture” themselves can be misleading. Today, “ genetics ” and “environment” are frequently used in their place—with one’s environment including a broader range of experiences than just the nurturing received from parents or caregivers. Further, nature and nurture (or genetics and environment) do not simply compete to influence a person, but often interact with each other; “nature and nurture” work together. Finally, individual differences do not entirely come down to a person’s genetic code or developmental environment—to some extent, they emerge due to messiness in the process of development as well.

A person’s biological nature can affect a person’s experience of the environment. For example, a person with a genetic disposition toward a particular trait, such as aggressiveness, may be more likely to have particular life experiences (including, perhaps, receiving negative reactions from parents or others). Or, a person who grows up with an inclination toward warmth and sociability may seek out and elicit more positive social responses from peers. These life experiences could, in turn, reinforce an individual’s initial tendencies. Nurture or life experience more generally may also modify the effects of nature—for example, by expanding or limiting the extent to which a naturally bright child receives encouragement, access to quality education , and opportunities for achievement.

Epigenetics—the science of modifications in how genes are expressed— illustrates the complex interplay between “nature” and “nurture.” An individual’s environment, including factors such as early-life adversity, may result in changes in the way that parts of a person’s genetic code are “read.” While these epigenetic changes do not override the important influence of genes in general, they do constitute additional ways in which that influence is filtered through “nurture” or the environment.

Theorists and researchers have long battled over whether individual traits and abilities are inborn or are instead forged by experiences after birth. The debate has had broad implications: The real or perceived sources of a person’s strengths and vulnerabilities matter for fields such as education, philosophy , psychiatry , and clinical psychology. Today’s consensus—that individual differences result from a combination of inherited and non-genetic factors—strikes a more nuanced middle path between nature- or nurture-focused extremes.

The debate about nature and nurture has roots that stretch back at least thousands of years, to Ancient Greek theorizing about the causes of personality. During the modern era, theories emphasizing the role of either learning and experience or biological nature have risen and fallen in prominence—with genetics gaining increasing acknowledgment as an important (though not exclusive) influence on individual differences in the later 20th century and beyond.

“Nature versus nurture” was used by English scientist Francis Galton. In 1874, he published the book English Men of Science: Their Nature and Nurture , arguing that inherited factors were responsible for intelligence and other characteristics.

Genetic determinism emphasizes the importance of an individual’s nature in development. It is the view that genetics is largely or totally responsible for an individual’s psychological characteristics and behavior. The term “biological determinism” is often used synonymously.

The blank slate (or “tabula rasa”) view of the mind emphasizes the importance of nurture and the environment. Notably described by English philosopher John Locke in the 1600s, it proposed that individuals are born with a mind like an unmarked chalkboard and that its contents are based on experience and learning. In the 20th century, major branches of psychology proposed a primary role for nurture and experience , rather than nature, in development, including Freudian psychoanalysis and behaviorism.

Modern scientific methods have allowed researchers to advance further in understanding the complex relationships between genetics, life experience, and psychological characteristics, including mental health conditions and personality traits. Overall, the findings of contemporary studies underscore that with some exceptions—such as rare diseases caused by mutations in a single gene—no one factor, genetic or environmental, solely determines how a characteristic develops.

Scientists use multiple approaches to estimate how important genetics are for any given trait, but one of the most influential is the twin study. While identical (or monozygotic) twins share the same genetic code, fraternal (or dizygotic) twins share about 50 percent of the same genes, like typical siblings. Scientists are able to estimate the degree to which the variation in a particular trait, like extraversion , is explained by genetics in part by analyzing how similar identical twins are on that trait, compared to fraternal twins. ( These studies do have limitations, and estimates based on one population may not closely reflect all other populations.) 

It’s hard to call either “nature” or “nurture,” genes or the environment, more important to human psychology. The impact of one set of factors or the other depends on the characteristic, with some being more strongly related to one’s genes —for instance, autism appears to be more heritable than depression . But in general, psychological traits are shaped by a balance of interacting genetic and non-genetic influences.

Both genes and environmental factors can contribute to a person developing mental illness. Research finds that a major part of the variation in the risk for psychiatric conditions such as autism spectrum disorder, anxiety disorders, depression, and schizophrenia can be attributed to genetic differences. But not all of that risk is genetic, and life experiences, such as early-life abuse or neglect, may also affect risk of mental illness (and some individuals, based on their genetics, are likely more susceptible to environmental effects than others).

Like other psychological characteristics, personality is partly heritable. Research suggests less than half of the difference between people on measures of personality traits can be attributed to genes (one recent overall estimate is 40 percent). Non-genetic factors appear to be responsible for an equal or greater portion of personality differences between individuals. Some theorize that the social roles people adopt and invest in as they mature are among the more important non-genetic factors in personality development.

About one out of ten people is left-handed but the reasons why are not well understood. A new study now helps unlock the mystery of left-handedness.

A Personal Perspective: Facing the interplay between genetic factors and linguistic development prompted a question: Should I trust my instincts or those of others?

The latest findings on genetics reveals how genes may affect the risk for substance use disorders, and how they can help predict which treatment will work.

How do we make sense of new experiences? Ultimately, it's about how we categorize them—which we often do by "lumping" or "splitting" them.

How are twin studies used to answer questions related to the nature-and-nurture debate?

All I ask of strangers in the store—don't judge me as being less competent because my hair is grey and my skin well-textured. I’m just out doing my best, as we all are.

The new Biophilia Reactivity Hypothesis argues our attraction to the natural world is not an instinct but a measurable temperament trait.

A Personal Perspective: How can Adam Grant's newest book help OCD sufferers? In more ways than you think.

Do selfish genes mean that humans are designed to be selfish?

Are classical musicians more "craft" and jazz musicians more "creative"? A question for debate.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

At any moment, someone’s aggravating behavior or our own bad luck can set us off on an emotional spiral that threatens to derail our entire day. Here’s how we can face our triggers with less reactivity so that we can get on with our lives.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

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.

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.

Stressors and memories can be passed through small RNA molecules to multiple generations of offspring in ways that meaningfully affect their behavior.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Related Articles

Child Psychology

Vygotsky vs. Piaget: A Paradigm Shift

Interactional Synchrony

Internal Working Models of Attachment

Soft Determinism In Psychology

Branches of Psychology

Learning Theory of Attachment

LAFCU essay winners: How my environment molded me into the person I am today

Here are the four winners of LAFCU's Write to Educate essay contest. The students were tasked with answering this question: How has the place you have grown up molded you into the person you are today and impacted your life?

The winners each received a $5,000 college scholarship and another $500 was donated to each winner's designated charity.

My community shaped and expanded my worldview

Nature vs Nurture. How much does the environment a person is placed into have an effect on their character versus how they were born?

I have contemplated this question many times when it comes to myself and how much I have allowed myself to be changed by the people around me. From a young age I have always had a strong sense of self. I have known who I am and what I need to do to accomplish my goals of becoming smarter and stronger. I have had little care for the judgments from my peers.

This has been an asset because it has allowed me to reach heights beyond what I thought was possible but that does not mean I always know my path forward. That doesn’t mean I have not changed. As much as I, and every other human on the planet, resists change, it is impossible to grow without changing.

Becoming older means expanding one’s view of the world from a simplified version to a messy one. A world full of complexity and inconsistency which each and every one of us must navigate and find our own path through the shroud known as our future. The community that I have grown up with are my paddles allowing me to navigate the treacherous river, giving me advice and a wider world view of things I never thought existed.

My morality is the first thing that was shaped by my community. Every person has the basics of morality sewn into them from birth but when it comes to more complicated situations, my community has changed my view.

My younger self was much more cut and dry where I would label something as wrong no matter what, with no exception. My community has taught me to view these situations with more context to make more informed decisions.

For example, a kid beats another kid because he was being bullied by him. My old self would say the kid who got into the fight should be punished because he laid his hands on another person and should have taken other outlets to resolve the problem. The way I see it now is that even though his decision was wrong to hurt the other kid, no one was able to stop the bully from bullying him and the system itself has failed the kid by allowing the bullying to happen. I have no wish for anyone to get hurt, but I see that situation as much more nuanced than I once did.

These ideas have been shaped by my own experiences and by the people around me who have been put into tough situations. I have learned from the diverse community around me that the choices people make are rarely simple ones.

My political views have also been shaped by my community. I am growing up in a community that largely has different political views from my own. Having different people to communicate with that have grown up in ways different from my own, has allowed me to find where I stand on certain issues.

Within my community I have been able to find people that I respect, and I take note of the things they believe and challenge their ideas versus my own. Even if in the end our ideas of how the world should be run may differ, I have been able to find common ground with tons of people and I have been able to refine my views into a more well-rounded, multi-faceted, diverse view of the world.

My community is full of people from all different races and cultures, and by combining perspectives from all those different people, we can find a way to have a more united world with the basic necessity of finding common ground and understanding which can unite us all. Where I have grown up has shaped the way I think and how I act. Even though I have always had a strong sense of self, there are parts of my personality that have been changed and molded by my experiences, and my community has influenced the way that I view different situations. Without my community I would not be as accepting and open-minded as I am today.

— Antonio Rojas of East Lansing High School is headed to the University of Michigan. Chosen charity: Cristo Rey Community Center

Lansing Hmong community encouraged my success

Many things in life are taken for granted. During my childhood, I was very active in the Hmong Lansing community. The community would occasionally hold multiple annual events for gatherings. I would meet many new people there and hear their stories, advice or opinions on life. The younger me at the time didn’t know what to take from these experiences and failed to appreciate these moments.

As I matured, I understood what these opportunities meant when I grew around the community. It was the experience of learning from others. The learning experiences growing up in the Hmong Lansing community have molded me to become a person of ambitions, someone who gives back, and the love of cooking for others.

In the Hmong community, the place has molded me into a person of ambitions. I am a first-generation Asian American coming from Hmong immigrants. My parents came to America for a better opportunity. Within my community, most do not have a college education. People from the Hmong community had to adjust to the culture, language, and way of life in America. Born in America, I adjusted to the culture there easily compared to my community.

I felt the need to carry their dreams of being successful. I wanted to take the opportunity that wasn’t given to my community and achieve greater heights. I want to strive for success within the Hmong community.I have grown into a person who gives back to their community. I can always remember the events that brought the community together all over Michigan. It was a yearly cultural event called the Lansing Hmong New Year. It was an event of celebration, bonding, and opportunity to connect with others. I wanted to help continue thisongoing tradition. I started doing community service to involve myself.

Even though it may not have been much, I felt a sense of accomplishment in giving back to the community. Seeing the joy of others is what truly motivates me to give back to my community.

The place I had grown up in created a love for cooking. I vividly remember the times when my parents would have a barbecue for various occasions for the community. I would always ask my dad to teach me how to grill. It was until one particular day that pestering led my dad to teach me how to grill. It was my brother’s graduation event.

Graduation from high school was important in the Hmong community; it was the time for people to gather for the success of one’s education. My dad guided me in the process of grilling until he thought I was ready by myself. I took my first step in grilling, and it was a success. People in the community for my brother’s graduation thought my cooking was delicious. I was filled with joy and pride. I liked having that feeling and having others enjoy what I make. Learning that skill gave me a passion for cooking for others.

Throughout my life in the Hmong Lansing community, it has taught me many valuable lessons in life. Whether it was basic knowledge or insights, these life lessons were appreciated. Without the love, guidance, and support from the community, I wouldn’t have grown into the person I am now. The Hmong Lansing community holds a special place in my heart.

— Elvis Vue of Waverly High School will attend Ferris State University. Chosen charity: Hmong Family Association

Rural upbringing influenced my career choice

Did you know that rural students are now officially recognized as an under-represented group in colleges?

For decades, rural students have faced unique barriers in getting into the best colleges, but in recent years, people have started to realize that the lack of rural representation in academia is a problem. From my own experiences growing up in a small, rural town, I have gained skills vital to my future career as a plasma physicist, allowing me to collaborate with my peers in the scientific community to better the world.

One of the key things that Napoleon has offered me is a close-knit community, which has given me social skills that I would not otherwise have, allowing me to effectively collaborate with others when the time comes to work as a group. These skills will serve me well in my future career, where I will be collaborating with scientists both in my own field and related disciplines.

As a smaller, rural school district, Napoleon had not always had the resources of larger schools. Despite this, my teachers have helped me to develop creative ways to solve problems when not all the tools are available, allowing me to effectively function in situations where I do not have the same opportunities as other students.

For instance, though my school doesn’t offer advanced physics education, I was able to seek out opportunities like the Academically Talented Youth Program at Western Michigan University or Physicists Inspiring the Next Generation (PING) at Michigan State University, which allowed me to gain knowledge I would not otherwise have, and I was supported in this endeavor by my school.

As a student in ATYP, I had to leave school early once a week in order to gain an accelerated honors education in English − not only was my school able to accommodate my periodic absences, they were also willing to accept my ATYP credits in lieu of the school’s English classes. This flexibility let me have more time at school to pursue other modes of education such as dual enrollment.

Similarly, my upbringing in a more rural area has given me a perspective on the world and how it works that is beyond what my more urban peers are familiar with. Growing up in a forest, I have always been surrounded by nature, and I have a deep love for the woods around my home. This has spurred my intention to enter the field of plasma physics, where I can make a difference by working towards the end goal of nuclear fusion energy, a clean and safe source of electricity that will keep the woodlands I have loved safe for centuries to come.

Already, I am able to apply this perspective to the community around me. In my role for the Jackson Community Foundation’s Youth Advisory Committee, I have had an incredible opportunity to serve as a mediator, helping to resolve issues that occur in my group of students working towards a better future for the youth of Jackson County.

— Thomas Hays of Napolean High School will attend Michigan State University. Chosen charity: Jackson Community Foundation

Success comes from overcoming rural limitations

Livingston County has always been my home. Despite continuing development, the area where I live remains rural. Growing up in a rural area is equal parts wonderful and frustrating. Rural means fewer people per square mile with smaller communities and less diversity.

My school is not known in the area for its diversity. There is not much variety when it comes to everything from what grocery store your family shops at to what school you attend.

My education has been limited by my rural community because my school has fewer class selections and availability. For example, both last year and this year I signed up to take classes (AP English Literature and Pre-Calculus) my school offers but I was unable to attend these classes because the only availability conflicted with my other classes. To combat this struggle, I committed to learning these classes online through a virtual education platform with whom my school partners.

One of my other choices, AP biology, did not have enough student interest to schedule the class and I had to change selections. This has been a limiting challenge for me as well as other students in my district. To broaden options, many students participate in dual enrollment classes with community colleges in the area. Limited variety and availability has encouraged me to stretch my idea of traditional school to take the classes that will help shape my future.

Activities like archery and horseback riding are local to me. I attended horse camp at age 6 and have been involved with horses ever since. Currently I am a member of my school’s equestrian team and own my own horse, Gingersnap. Horsemanship has taught me selflessness, hard work, responsibility, and perseverance. Without access to local barns and camps I would have missed out on developing important life skills.

My school’s archery team was started by another student in my grade who had a passion for archery, the outdoors, and hunting. I joined immediately. In addition to memories and friendships, archery has taught me how to set and achieve realistic goals, that practice makes progress, and teamwork. I am grateful for my community being in an area that supports and fosters growth in clubs such as these.

Despite the lack of variety, I strive for excellence in every opportunity to reach my full potential. My classmates and l help encourage each other in many areas from academics to sports and clubs. A friend of mine created the Environmental Club, of which I was a member, to help promote recycling and decrease wastefulness. She also created Students for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI). Our club not only recognizes diversity but we find solutions to problems in our community every day. We spread awareness at school through bulletin boards displaying achievements by a variety of groups in hopes to foster change and inspire others in our community and the world beyond.

With a smaller school population, there is less diversity but we do have an inclusive program called Peer to Peer. Neurotypical students are paired with neurodivergent students (called “links”) to assist them with participation and making friends. These “links” are often the only friendships these students have at school. I helped encourage my “link” to communicate with me by starting conversations, asking questions, and playing games.

Our school is small enough that our Peer to Peer class was able to meet and play Braille Uno during lunch. The more intimate setting including our whole group may not be possible in a larger district. While we may not have the diversity of a larger school, I embrace any available opportunities to learn about others.

I would not trade growing up in a rural area as I feel I made the most of my opportunities and developed skills that will support my transition to a larger college community and beyond.

— Vivian Hansen of Pinckney High School will attend Eastern Michigan University. Chosen charity: Bountiful Harvest Pantry