Nature VS Nurture essay PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Nature VS Nurture essay PDF

Description

Nature VS Nurture. What matters most for likelihood of future offending? Emmalee King

Emmalee King S5168680 | Mt Gravatt

1

Nature VS Nurture. What matters most for likelihood of future offending? Ever since Francis Galton created the notion and coined the term; nature vs nurture, it has been debated whether behavioural genetics or our socialisation contributes more to our individual characteristics and behaviours [ CITATION Mic06 \l 3081 ]. It is argued that one or the other contributes significantly more to the criminal behaviour and likelihood of future offending [ CITATION Rob94 \l 3081 ]. This essay will investigate the fundamental understandings of both nature and nurture and how they interplay with criminal offending. Studies suggest that nature is the more influential of the two when shaping criminal behaviours, such as cognitive traits and temperament, however it can also be justified that nurture plays just as much a part as nature does [ CITATION Bar18 \l 3081 ]. Therefore, this essay will aim to analyse the two fields, and come to a justified conclusion on which factor matters most for the likelihood of future offending.

Nature, in psychology, is thought to be the predisposition to behaviours and attitudes, due to our genetic inheritance that is passed on [ CITATION Sau18 \l 3081 ]. Many studies have been undertaken that suggest that genetics contribute significantly to shaping behaviours. One of the most outstanding studies, is the Minnesota Twin Family Study, conducted between 1979 to 1999, led by researcher Thomas Bouchard [ CITATION Tan14 \l 3081 ]. Within the 20 year study, 137 pairs of twins separated at birth were analysed. The findings of this study were that 80% of identical twins said that they felt a greater bond with their twin than they did with their best friend, despite only just meeting them for the first time since their early separation [ CITATION Goo17 \l 3081 ]. This study also found that these twins often shared the same hobbies, habits and personality, specifically in sets of identical twins [ CITATION Tan14 \l 3081 ]. Another influential study into natures effect on behavioural patterns is the effect of nature on mental health. Genetics have been shown to give a hereditary disposition to some mental health disorders, such as schizophrenia, bipolar, anxiety and depression [ CITATION Goo17 \l 3081 ]. The condition bipolar, a manic mood swing disorder, is estimated to be four to six time more likely to develop when there is a family history of bipolar[ CITATION Goo17 \l 3081 ]. The last, and one of the most scientifically supported understandings as to how nature contributes to one’s behaviours is the study of connections between violent behaviour, and serotonergic genes [CITATION Rei07 \l 3081 ]. This study used a sample size of 184 male, previous offenders, who underwent a psychiatric interview and a neurological examination, done to assign the volunteers into a violent or a non-violent

2 group[ CITATION Rei07 \l 3081 ]. Researchers then sequenced the volunteer’s DNA in order to assess the potential different genotypes between violent and non-violent offenders[ CITATION Rei07 \l 3081 ]. The study found that a certain variation in the X chromosome gene that produces Monoamine Oxidase A (MAOA), an enzyme that influences the neurotransmitters norepinephrine, serotonin and dopamine was more common amongst the violent offenders group, and created an increased the risk for violent behaviour and reoffending later in life[ CITATION Rei07 \l 3081 ]. MAOA-uVNTR, a variation in the enzyme, can have low-activity alleles which can result in a considerably increased level in aggressive reactions, meaning people with this enzyme variation can be predisposed to higher levels of both impulsivity and aggression[ CITATION Rei07 \l 3081 ]. Additionally, researchers also found that a serotonin transmitter genotype, known as 5HTT, was also associated with heightened aggression in some gene carriers[ CITATION Rei07 \l 3081 ].

On the other hand, nurture explains the influence of external factors, such as but not limited to, life experiences, treatment by family and education on an individual [ CITATION Sau18 \l 3081 ]. The nurture theory argues that it is how you are brought up and what you are brought up around that determines one’s future behaviours and characteristics [ CITATION Sau18 \l 3081 ]. Perhaps one of the most supportive theories in how nurture shapes the individual is Albert Bandura’s social learning theory. The social learning theory advances that people learn through our experiences with one another, through observation, imitation and modelling [ CITATION Alb71 \l 3081 ]. The theory revolved around the key concepts that people learn through the observation of others behaviours and attitudes, as well as the outcome or consequences of these behaviours [ CITATION Dav19 \l 3081 ]. Bandura states that “most human behaviour is learned observationally through modelling: from observing others, one forms an idea of how new behaviours are performed and on later occasions this coded information serves as a guide for action,” [ CITATION Alb71 \l 3081 ]. Bandura’s (1971) theory created the fundamental understanding and basis of nurture and how it effects one’s behaviours. Another theory supportive of the nurture approach is the differential association theory. The differential association theory proposes that an individual will choose the criminal path, meaning they will be more likely to offend and commit crimes, when the example of law-breaking behaviours exceeds that of law-abiding behaviours [CITATION Edw19 \l 3081 ]. Therefore, this suggests that through an individual’s association with individuals and influences, they will be more likely to behave in a certain way (that of the

3 influential individual). Based off his social learning theory, Bandura conducted a controlled experiment dubbed the Bobo Doll Experiment, in order to investigate how social behaviours can be learned through the process of observation and imitation[CITATION Sau14 \t \l 3081 ]. Using a sample size of 36 boys and 36 girls ages between three and six, they split the children into three groups[CITATION Sau14 \t \l 3081 ]. A non-aggressive model was shown to 24 children, an aggressive model was shown to another 24 children and lastly there was a control group of 24 children with no model present [CITATION Sau14 \t \l 3081 ]. The results of this study found that the group of children who observed the aggressive model were far more imitatively aggressive towards the doll than those in the non-aggressive or control groups[CITATION Sau14 \t \l 3081 ]. There was also more non-imitative aggression amongst the group who observed the aggressive model. Through the results, Bandura explained that children do learn their social behaviour through observation and imitation of others behaviour [CITATION Sau14 \t \l 3081 ].

Some theories exist, arguing that nurture plays into nature and vice versa, meaning they have a symbiotic relationship in determining one’s potential criminal likelihood. Barbara Kaiser and Judy Rasminsky put forward the theory that nurture affects nature, in the sense that some of our genes are switched on, or not, due to our environment[ CITATION Kai16 \l 3081 ]. Additionally, they suggest that some genes that can cause short temperament, such as impulsivity and lack of empathy, make an individual more susceptible to their environmental risks [ CITATION Kai16 \l 3081 ]. An effective example of this is addiction, a genetic trait that has been suggested as hereditary [ CITATION Joh15 \l 3081 ]. While it is plausible for a person to be born with an addiction to illicit drugs, it is more likely that they may carry a gene predisposing them to an addictive character and, once subjected to a relevant scenario, they are readily prompted to criminal thinking and potential deviant behaviour [ CITATION Joh15 \l 3081 ].

Through all the above research, it is evident that both nature and nurture play variable roles in determining one’s potential criminal behaviour, although there is more solid empirical evidence behind the idea that nature influences our behaviour in a more significant manner. Thomas Bouchard’s study into identical twins and their behaviour suggests a strong link between one’s DNA coding, and the way they behave and think. Genetics also influence mental health disorders, which can be a large factor into an individual’s behaviour and the way they think, which can evidently lead to criminal activity [ CITATION Var15 \l 3081 ].

4 Additionally, genetic influences on our DNA coding, such as specific mutations are seen to increase levels of aggression and impulsivity, as suggested by Reif et al, which can also lead to criminal wrongdoing. Through this, it can be seen that our nature influences create some building blocks for potential behaviours. Nurture, then allows for the behaviours to be built, or not, based on our upbringing and our influences. Idealistically, if an individual is brought up around perfect influences, they will be taught correct behaviour and act as such, however this cannot be guaranteed. Likewise, someone can have no genetic predispositions to certain behaviours, but if influenced around criminal activity, deviance and aggression, it is entirely possible for them to learn this behaviour and act as such. The social learning theory and the differential association theory both exemplify how important one’s influences are in relevance to the way they are taught to act.

It is impossible to determine one’s future criminal potential and likelihood of reoffending based purely off of nature or nurture. Nature and nurture work hand in hand in influencing different aspects of an individual’s life, and it is important to note this. To conclude on just one of the two being more influential in the likelihood of reoffending is purely subjective and not evidence based. Evidently, both nature and nurture are equally influential in shaping one’s potential persona and the development of their deviancy and criminal behaviour. Nature creates the genetic building blocks, while nurture can either support or reject these building blocks through one’s environment.

Bibliography (n.d.). Bandura, A. (1971). Social Learning Theory. Retrieved from ASECIB: http://www.asecib.ase.ro/mps/Bandura_SocialLearningTheory.pdf Bartleby Research. (2018). Nature versus Nurture: Criminal Behavior . Retrieved from Bartleby Research: https://www.bartleby.com/essay/Nature-versus-NurtureCriminal-Behavior-P3T9E6SQUDA5 GoodTherapy. (2017). Nature vs. Nurture Debate . Retrieved from GoodTherapy: https://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/psychpedia/nature-versus-nurture Hegger, J. (2015, July 22). Nature vs. nurture: Which causes crime? Retrieved from CorrectionsOne: https://www.correctionsone.com/probation-andparole/articles/nature-vs-nurture-which-causes-crime-u7qC7V8v1F69l0Y7/ Kaiser, B., & Rasminsky, J. (2016, May 1). Challenging Behaviour in Young Children. Retrieved from Challenging Behaviour: http://www.challengingbehavior.com/NAEYC_CultureDoor.pdf

5 Layton, D. (2019, February 7). Social Learning Theory (Bandura). Retrieved from Learning Theories: https://www.learning-theories.com/social-learning-theory-bandura.html Lewis, T. (2014, August 11). Twins Separated at Birth Reveal Staggering Influence of Genetics . Retrieved from LiveScience: https://www.livescience.com/47288-twin-studyimportance-of-genetics.html McLeod, S. (2014). Bobo Doll Experiment. Retrieved from SimplyPsychology: https://www.simplypsychology.org/bobo-doll.html McLeod, S. (2018). Nature vs. Nurture in Psychology . Retrieved from Simply Psychology: https://www.simplypsychology.org/naturevsnurture.html Plomin, R. (1994). Genetics and experience: The interplay between nature and nurture. . Retrieved from APA PsycNET: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1996-97203-000 Reif et al. (2007, March 7). Nature and Nurture Predispose to Violent Behavior: Serotonergic Genes and Adverse Childhood Environment. Retrieved from Neuropsychopharmacology: https://www-naturecom.libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au/articles/1301359#abstract Rutter, M. (2006). Genes and behavior: Nature-nurture interplay explained. . Retrieved from APA PsycNET: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2006-01387-000 Sutherland, E. (1939). Criminology Theory: Selected Classic Readings . Retrieved from Google Scholar: http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar_url? url=http://books.google.com.au/books%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26id %3DywPrBgAAQBAJ%26oi%3Dfnd%26pg%3DPT105%26dq%3Dedwin%2Bsutherland %2Bdifferential%2Bassociation%26ots%3DeXLgSf9kRv%26sig%3DHdak00_9B6ajFS6JwWrxu9Awqw&hl=en Varshney et al. (2015). Violence and mental illness: what is the true story? . Retrieved from Epidemiology and Community Health: https://jech.bmj.com/content/70/3/223...