nature vs. nurture
Description
The expression “nature vs. nurture” describes the question of how much a person’s characteristics are formed by either “nature” or “nurture.” “Nature” means intrinsic biological factors (namely genetics), while “nurture” can refer to upbringing or life experience more generally. Read the information below, watch the videos, use the “Model Example” template, and write a Nature vs. Nurture Debate paper.
Read
Watch
The Battle Between Nature and Nurture with Irene Gallego Romero
Bobo Doll Experiment at Standford University
1 Nature/Nurture Debate Paper Your Name Florida National University Course Number: Course Name Your Professor Friday, February 3, 2023 2 Nature/Nurture Debate Paper Environmental factors play a significant role in who we are today. For example, twins are biologically identical at birth yet are entirely different throughout their lives (Santrock, 2019). They have gone through distinct stages of life, making their experiences and interests unique to them. So, while biological variables play a role in our makeup, environmental factors decide who we are over time (Santrock, 2019). The main issue regarding nature vs. nurture is the contribution of genetic inheritance and environmental factors to human development (Santrock, 2019). Inherited characteristics and other biological variables impact nature. The influence of environmental factors on a person after development is often termed nurture. The argument is crucial for humans since it decides whether an individual’s behavior, personality, and sexuality result from social influences and genetic evolution (Santrock, 2019). Sexual identities and gender roles are the two major concerns in the nature vs. nurture argument (Santrock, 2019). Gender perceives the societal standards, attitudes, and roles given to the sexes, while sex is rooted in biological differences between females and males (Santrock, 2019). Finally, an individual’s social and economic class determines the significance of environmental and genetic influences (Santrock, 2019). Aggression I do believe that aggression is a learned behavior. Human aggression is described as intellectual rather than instinctive behavior or actions intended to harm another person (Butler & Getting, 2021). The argument over nature vs. nurture has gone on for a long time to understand the causes of aggression. There are a variety of views about the nature and causes of aggression, all of which may be grouped into two categories: those who believe aggression is innate and those who think it is a learned behavior (Pen, 2012). Aggression is a phrase used in psychology 3 to describe behaviors that can cause bodily and mental distress to yourself, others, or environmental elements. According to the Bobo Doll study, watching aggression enhances the viewer’s likelihood of acting aggressively. Children learn that violent behavior is appropriate when an aggressive figure is reinforced by praise (Pen, 2012). Individuals use the word aggression every day to describe the actions of others and possibly even themselves. When they start yelling at or physically hurting each other or even cutting off other vehicles in traffic, we call them aggressive. According to cognitive theorists, aggression is learned rather than innate, thus seeking to understand how it is known (Pen, 2012). They highlight mental processes such as perception and thoughts and the significance of learning and context (Pen, 2012). Bobo Doll Experiment The bobo Doll experiment is a study in which researchers physically and verbally attacked an inflatable clown face toy with preschool-aged children, leading the kids to imitate the adults’ behavior by abusing the Doll in the same way (Mcleod, 2014). The results of Bandura’s Bobo Doll experiment support the argument that our environment impacts our behavior (Everywhere Psychology, 2012). However, what we see and hear impacts how we view and think about the world, ourselves, and the people around us. In his experiment, he proved that children in the control group did imitate the behaviors exposed by the adult models (Everywhere Psychology, 2012; Genovese, 2021). This experiment demonstrates how our early environmental factors can shape who we are, what we believe in, and what we are taught throughout our lives (Everywhere Psychology, 2012). Some of the experiment’s underlying characteristics support the idea that aggression is taught (Everywhere Psychology, 2012). Similarly, the children acted aggressively because the adult acted aggressively and showed kindness when the adult did. This gives support to the concept that aggression is learned. 4 Society and Imitation Imitation is essential to developing skills since it helps us pick up new skills quickly and efficiently by seeing others. The formation of patterns and social imitation is crucial for the survival of a species and the growth of a child, and our knowledge of the social nature of human learning in general (Contaldo et al., 2016). The being mimicked might be used in early intervention to develop social skills, allowing researchers to measure interventions’ behavioral and neurological consequences (Contaldo et al., 2016). In children with low developmental levels, the method enhances social gazes, proximal social behaviors, and play skills (Contaldo et al., 2016). Conclusion Therefore, nurture plays an important role when it comes to identity development. While it is undeniable that individuals inherit genes from both parents, environmental circumstances can influence their qualities oneself. Nurture affects people’s behavior as it changes their lives because of their experiences. We watched how the children mimicked the adult’s aggression with the inflated Doll throughout the Bobo Doll experiment, demonstrating how an attack can be taught. 5 References Butler, M., & Getting, M. (2021). Learned Aggression in Humans. https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_547 Contaldo, A., Colombi, C., Narzisi, A., & Muratori, F. (2016, May 13). The social effect of “Being imitated” in children with an autism spectrum disorder. Frontiers. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00726/full Everywhere Psychology. (2012, August 28). Bandura’s Bobo Doll experiment [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmBqwWlJg8U Genovese, K. (2021, February 26). Bobo Doll experiment. Sites at Penn State – WordPress | powered by WordPress. https://sites.psu.edu/tileyapassionblog2/2021/02/26/bobo-Dollexperiment/ Mcleod, S. (2014). Bobo Doll experiment. Study Guides for Psychology Students – Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/bobo-Doll.html Pen, M. (2012, October 19). Causes of aggression: A psychological perspective. Owlcation. https://owlcation.com/social-sciences/Causes-Of-Aggression-What-Causes-AggressionA-Psychological-perspective Santrock, J. W. (2019). Life-span development (17th ed.). McGraw Hill.
| Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor | ||
| Main Posting | 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)
Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.
Supported by at least three current, credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.
Supported by at least three credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to some of the discussion question(s).
One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.
Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Post is cited with two credible sources.
Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Contains some APA formatting errors. |
0 (0%) – 34 (34%)
Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.
Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.
Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Contains only one or no credible sources.
Not written clearly or concisely.
Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
|
| Main Post: Timeliness | 10 (10%) – 10 (10%)
Posts main post by day 3. |
0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not post by day 3. |
|
| First Response | 17 (17%) – 18 (18%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
15 (15%) – 16 (16%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
13 (13%) – 14 (14%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. |
0 (0%) – 12 (12%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited. |
|
| Second Response | 16 (16%) – 17 (17%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
12 (12%) – 13 (13%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. |
0 (0%) – 11 (11%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited. |
|
| Participation | 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days. |
0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days. |
|
| Total Points: 100 | |||||
| Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor | ||
| Main Posting | 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)
Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.
Supported by at least three current, credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.
Supported by at least three credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to some of the discussion question(s).
One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.
Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Post is cited with two credible sources.
Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Contains some APA formatting errors. |
0 (0%) – 34 (34%)
Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.
Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.
Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Contains only one or no credible sources.
Not written clearly or concisely.
Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
|
| Main Post: Timeliness | 10 (10%) – 10 (10%)
Posts main post by day 3. |
0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not post by day 3. |
|
| First Response | 17 (17%) – 18 (18%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
15 (15%) – 16 (16%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
13 (13%) – 14 (14%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. |
0 (0%) – 12 (12%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited. |
|
| Second Response | 16 (16%) – 17 (17%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
12 (12%) – 13 (13%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. |
0 (0%) – 11 (11%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited. |
|
| Participation | 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days. |
0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days. |
|
| Total Points: 100 | |||||