{"id":1206,"date":"2015-09-08T20:05:24","date_gmt":"2015-09-08T20:05:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/courses.candelalearning.com\/intropsychmaster\/?post_type=chapter&#038;p=1206"},"modified":"2024-05-17T02:20:35","modified_gmt":"2024-05-17T02:20:35","slug":"the-nature-nurture-question","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/waymaker-psychology\/chapter\/the-nature-nurture-question\/","title":{"raw":"The Nature-Nurture Question","rendered":"The Nature-Nurture Question"},"content":{"raw":"<header id=\"abstract\"><\/header>\r\n<div class=\"textbox learning-objectives\">\r\n<h3>Learning Objectives<\/h3>\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>Examine the historic nature vs. nurture debate<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<h2 class=\"content\">Nature vs. Nurture Debate<\/h2>\r\nAre you the way you are because you were born that way, or because of the way you were raised? Do your genetics and biology dictate your personality and behavior, or is it\u00a0your environment and how you were raised? These questions are central to the age-old <strong>nature-nurture<\/strong> debate. In the history of psychology, no other question has caused so much controversy and offense: We are so concerned with nature\u2013nurture because our very sense of moral character seems to depend on it. While we may admire the athletic skills of a great basketball player, we think of his height as simply a gift, a payoff in the \u201cgenetic lottery.\u201d For the same reason, no one blames a short person for his height or someone\u2019s congenital disability on poor decisions: To state the obvious, it\u2019s \u201cnot their fault.\u201d But we do praise the concert violinist (and perhaps her parents and teachers as well) for her dedication, just as we condemn cheaters, slackers, and bullies for their bad behavior. The problem is, most human characteristics aren\u2019t usually as clear-cut as height or instrument-mastery, affirming our nature\u2013nurture expectations strongly one way or the other. In fact, even the great violinist might have some inborn qualities\u2014perfect pitch, or long, nimble fingers\u2014that support and reward her hard work. And the basketball player might have eaten a diet while growing up that promoted his genetic tendency for being tall. When we think about our own qualities, they seem under our control in some respects, yet beyond our control in others. And often the traits that don\u2019t seem to have an obvious cause are the ones that concern us the most and are far more personally significant. What about how much we drink or worry? What about our honesty, or religiosity, or sexual orientation? They all come from that uncertain zone, neither fixed by nature nor totally under our own control.\r\n\r\n<section class=\"content\">[caption id=\"attachment_2024\" align=\"alignleft\" width=\"308\"]<a href=\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/855\/2016\/10\/21142023\/doggies.jpg\"><img class=\"wp-image-2024 \" src=\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/855\/2016\/10\/21142023\/doggies.jpg\" alt=\"Two similar-looking puppies.\" width=\"308\" height=\"228\" \/><\/a> <strong>Figure 1<\/strong>. Researchers have learned a great deal about the nature-nurture dynamic by working with animals. But of course many of the techniques used to study animals cannot be applied to people. Separating these two influences in human subjects is a greater research challenge. [Photo: mharrsch][\/caption]\r\n<figure data-align=\"left\"><figcaption><\/figcaption><\/figure>\r\nOne major problem with answering nature-nurture questions about people is, how do you set up an experiment? In nonhuman animals, there are relatively straightforward experiments for tackling nature\u2013nurture questions. Say, for example, you are interested in aggressiveness in dogs. You want to test for the more important determinant of aggression: being born to aggressive dogs or being raised by them. You could mate two aggressive dogs\u2014angry Chihuahuas\u2014together, and mate two nonaggressive dogs\u2014happy beagles\u2014together, then switch half the puppies from each litter between the different sets of parents to raise. You would then have puppies born to aggressive parents (the Chihuahuas) but being raised by nonaggressive parents (the Beagles), and vice versa, in litters that mirror each other in puppy distribution. The big questions are: Would the Chihuahua parents raise aggressive beagle puppies? Would the beagle parents raise <em>non<\/em>aggressive Chihuahua puppies? Would the puppies\u2019 <em>nature<\/em> win out, regardless of who raised them? Or... would the result be a combination of nature <em>and<\/em> nurture? Much of the most significant nature\u2013nurture research has been done in this way (Scott &amp; Fuller, 1998), and animal breeders have been doing it successfully for thousands of years. In fact, it is fairly easy to breed animals for behavioral traits.\r\n\r\nWith people, however, we can\u2019t assign babies to parents at random, or select parents with certain behavioral characteristics to mate, merely in the interest of science (though history does include horrific examples of such practices, in misguided attempts at \u201ceugenics,\u201d the shaping of human characteristics through intentional breeding). In typical human families, children\u2019s biological parents raise them, so it is very difficult to know whether children act like their parents due to genetic (nature) or environmental (nurture) reasons. Nevertheless, despite our restrictions on setting up human-based experiments, we do see real-world examples of nature-nurture at work in the human sphere\u2014though they only provide partial answers to our many questions. The science of how genes and environments work together to influence behavior is called\u00a0<strong>behavioral genetics<\/strong>. The easiest opportunity we have to observe this is the <strong>adoption study<\/strong>. When children are put up for adoption, the parents who give birth to them are no longer the parents who raise them. This setup isn\u2019t quite the same as the experiments with dogs (children aren\u2019t assigned to random adoptive parents in order to suit the particular interests of a scientist) but adoption still tells us some interesting things, or at least confirms some basic expectations. For instance, if the biological child of tall parents were adopted into a family of short people, do you suppose the child\u2019s growth would be affected? What about the biological child of a Spanish-speaking family adopted at birth into an English-speaking family? What language would you expect the child to speak? And what might these outcomes tell you about the difference between height and language in terms of nature-nurture?\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_2025\" align=\"alignright\" width=\"462\"]<a href=\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/855\/2016\/10\/21142159\/twoboys.jpg\"><img class=\"wp-image-2025\" src=\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/855\/2016\/10\/21142159\/twoboys.jpg\" alt=\"Identical twin boys look at each other, one with a straight face and the other with an open-mouth laugh.\" width=\"462\" height=\"462\" \/><\/a> <strong>Figure 2<\/strong>. Studies focused on twins have led to important insights about the biological origins of many personality characteristics. [Photo: ethermoon][\/caption]<\/section><section class=\"content\">\r\n<figure data-align=\"right\"><figcaption><\/figcaption><\/figure>\r\nAnother option for observing nature-nurture in humans involves <strong>twin studies<\/strong>. There are two types of twins: monozygotic (MZ) and dizygotic (DZ). Monozygotic twins, also called \u201cidentical\u201d twins, result from a single zygote (fertilized egg) and have the same DNA. They are essentially clones. Dizygotic twins, also known as \u201cfraternal\u201d twins, develop from two zygotes and share 50% of their DNA. Fraternal twins are ordinary siblings who happen to have been born at the same time. To analyze nature\u2013nurture using twins, we compare the similarity of MZ and DZ pairs. Sticking with the features of height and spoken language, let\u2019s take a look at how nature and nurture apply: Identical twins, unsurprisingly, are almost perfectly similar for height. The heights of fraternal twins, however, are like any other sibling pairs: more similar to each other than to people from other families, but hardly identical. This contrast between twin types gives us a clue about the role genetics plays in determining height.\r\n\r\nNow consider spoken language. If one identical twin speaks Spanish at home, the co-twin with whom she is raised almost certainly does too. But the same would be true for a pair of fraternal twins raised together. In terms of spoken language, fraternal twins are just as similar as identical twins, so it appears that the genetic match of identical twins doesn\u2019t make much difference. Twin and adoption studies are two instances of a much broader class of methods for observing nature-nurture called <strong>quantitative genetics<\/strong>, the scientific discipline in which similarities among individuals are analyzed based on how biologically related they are. We can do these studies with siblings and half-siblings, cousins, twins who have been separated at birth and raised separately (Bouchard, Lykken, McGue, &amp; Segal, 1990; such twins are very rare and play a smaller role than is commonly believed in the science of nature\u2013nurture), or with entire extended families (see Plomin, DeFries, Knopik, &amp; Neiderhiser, 2012, for a complete introduction to research methods relevant to nature\u2013nurture).\r\n\r\nFor better or for worse, contentions about nature\u2013nurture have intensified because quantitative genetics produces a number called a <strong>heritability coefficient<\/strong>, varying from 0 to 1, that is meant to provide a single measure of genetics\u2019 influence of a trait. In a general way, a heritability coefficient measures how strongly differences among individuals are related to differences among their genes. But beware: Heritability coefficients, although simple to compute, are deceptively difficult to interpret. Nevertheless, numbers that provide simple answers to complicated questions tend to have a strong influence on the human imagination, and a great deal of time has been spent discussing whether the heritability of intelligence or personality or depression is equal to one number or another.\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_2026\" align=\"alignright\" width=\"295\"]<a href=\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/855\/2016\/10\/21142506\/dna3.jpg\"><img class=\"wp-image-2026\" src=\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/855\/2016\/10\/21142506\/dna3.jpg\" alt=\"Microscopic image of DNA\" width=\"295\" height=\"295\" \/><\/a> <strong>Figure 3<\/strong>. Quantitative genetics uses statistical methods to study the effects that both heredity and environment have on test subjects. These methods have provided us with the heritability coefficient which measures how strongly differences among individuals for a trait are related to differences among their genes. [Image: EMSL][\/caption]\r\n<figure data-align=\"right\"><\/figure>\r\nOne reason nature\u2013nurture continues to fascinate us so much is that we live in an era of great scientific discovery in genetics, comparable to the times of Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton, with regard to astronomy and physics. Every day, it seems, new discoveries are made, new possibilities proposed. When Francis Galton first started thinking about nature\u2013nurture in the late-19th century he was very influenced by his cousin, Charles Darwin, but genetics <em>per se<\/em> was unknown. Mendel\u2019s famous work with peas, conducted at about the same time, went undiscovered for 20 years; quantitative genetics was developed in the 1920s; DNA was discovered by Watson and Crick in the 1950s; the human genome was completely sequenced at the turn of the 21st century; and we are now on the verge of being able to obtain the specific DNA sequence of anyone at a relatively low cost. No one knows what this new genetic knowledge will mean for the study of nature\u2013nurture, but as we will see in the next section, answers to nature\u2013nurture questions have turned out to be far more difficult and mysterious than anyone imagined.\r\n<h2 id=\"what-have-we-learned-about-naturenurture\">What Have We Learned About Nature\u2013Nurture?<\/h2>\r\n<section class=\"content\">It would be satisfying to be able to say that nature\u2013nurture studies have given us conclusive and complete evidence about where traits come from, with some traits clearly resulting from genetics and others almost entirely from environmental factors, such as childrearing practices and personal will; but that is not the case. Instead, <em>everything<\/em> has turned out to have some footing in genetics. The more genetically-related people are, the more similar they are\u2014for <em>everything<\/em>: height, weight, intelligence, personality, mental illness, etc. Sure, it seems like common sense that some traits have a genetic bias. For example, adopted children resemble their biological parents even if they have never met them, and identical twins are more similar to each other than are fraternal twins. And while certain psychological traits, such as personality or mental illness (e.g., schizophrenia), seem reasonably influenced by genetics, it turns out that the same is true for political attitudes, how much television people watch (Plomin, Corley, DeFries, &amp; Fulker, 1990), and whether or not they get divorced (McGue &amp; Lykken, 1992).<\/section><section class=\"content\">\r\n<figure data-align=\"left\">[caption id=\"\" align=\"alignleft\" width=\"447\"]<img class=\"\" src=\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images-archive-read-only\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/902\/2016\/06\/10212112\/000000545original.jpg\" alt=\"Mother splashing with daughter in a fountain.\" width=\"447\" height=\"298\" \/> <strong>Figure 4<\/strong>. Research over the last half century has revealed how central genetics are to behavior. The more genetically related people are the more similar they are not just physically but also in terms of personality and behavior. [Photo: \u85cd\u5ddd\u82a5 aikawake][\/caption]<figcaption><\/figcaption><\/figure>\r\nIt may seem surprising, but genetic influence on behavior is a relatively recent discovery. In the middle of the 20th century, psychology was dominated by the doctrine of behaviorism, which held that behavior could only be explained in terms of environmental factors. Psychiatry concentrated on psychoanalysis, which probed for roots of behavior in individuals\u2019 early life-histories. The truth is, neither behaviorism nor psychoanalysis is incompatible with genetic influences on behavior, and neither Freud nor Skinner was naive about the importance of organic processes in behavior. Nevertheless, in their day it was widely thought that children\u2019s personalities were shaped entirely by imitating their parents\u2019 behavior, and that schizophrenia was caused by certain kinds of \u201cpathological mothering.\u201d\r\n\r\nWhatever the outcome of our broader discussion of nature\u2013nurture, the basic fact that the best predictors of an adopted child\u2019s personality or mental health are found in the biological parents they have never met, rather than in the adoptive parents who raised them, presents a significant challenge to purely environmental explanations of personality or psychopathology. The message is clear: You can\u2019t leave genes out of the equation. But keep in mind, no behavioral traits are completely inherited, so you can\u2019t leave the environment out altogether, either. Trying to untangle the various ways nature-nurture influences human behavior can be messy, and often common-sense notions can get in the way of good science. One very significant contribution of behavioral genetics that has changed psychology for good can be very helpful to keep in mind: When your subjects are biologically-related, no matter how clearly a situation may seem to point to environmental influence, it is never safe to interpret a behavior as wholly the result of nurture without further evidence. For example, when presented with data showing that children whose mothers read to them often are likely to have better reading scores in third grade, it is tempting to conclude that reading to your kids out loud is important to success in school; this may well be true, but the study as described is inconclusive, because there are genetic <em>as well as\u00a0<\/em>environmental pathways between the parenting practices of mothers and the abilities of their children. This is a case where \u201ccorrelation does not imply causation,\u201d as they say. To establish that reading aloud causes success, a scientist can either study the problem in adoptive families (in which the genetic pathway is absent) or by finding a way to randomly assign children to oral reading conditions.\r\n<div class=\"textbox tryit\">\r\n<h3>Try It<\/h3>\r\nhttps:\/\/assess.lumenlearning.com\/practice\/f5ea9bb8-e81b-4dc5-a2b8-f355cdb99d8c\r\n\r\nhttps:\/\/assess.lumenlearning.com\/practice\/fe03f540-bb96-46a8-9ed5-c9462ca22cca\r\n\r\nhttps:\/\/assess.lumenlearning.com\/practice\/45bcd346-dc90-4b44-94c0-40b1f63b7958\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/section>\r\n<div class=\"textbox learning-objectives\">\r\n<h3>Think It Over<\/h3>\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>Is your personality more like one of your parents than the other? If you have a sibling, is their personality like yours? In your family, how did these similarities and differences develop? What do you think caused them?<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Can you think of a human characteristic for which genetic differences would play almost no role? Defend your choice.<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Do you think the time will come when we will be able to predict almost everything about someone by examining their DNA on the day they are born?<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Identical twins are more similar than fraternal twins for the trait of aggressiveness, as well as for criminal behavior. Do these facts have implications for the courtroom? If it can be shown that a violent criminal had violent parents, should it make a difference in culpability or sentencing?<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div class=\"textbox key-takeaways\">\r\n<h3>Glossary<\/h3>\r\n<strong>adoption study<\/strong>: a behavior genetic research method that involves comparison of adopted children to their adoptive and biological parents\r\n<strong>behavioral genetics<\/strong>: the empirical science of how genes and environments combine to generate behavior\r\n<strong>heritability coefficient<\/strong>: an easily misinterpreted statistical construct that purports to measure the role of genetics in the explanation of differences among individuals\r\n<strong>quantitative genetics<\/strong>: scientific and mathematical methods for inferring genetic and environmental processes based on the degree of genetic and environmental similarity among organisms\r\n<strong>twin studies<\/strong>: a behavior genetic research method that involves comparison of the similarity of identical (monozygotic; MZ) and fraternal (dizygotic; DZ) twins\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/section>","rendered":"<header id=\"abstract\"><\/header>\n<div class=\"textbox learning-objectives\">\n<h3>Learning Objectives<\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>Examine the historic nature vs. nurture debate<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<h2 class=\"content\">Nature vs. Nurture Debate<\/h2>\n<p>Are you the way you are because you were born that way, or because of the way you were raised? Do your genetics and biology dictate your personality and behavior, or is it\u00a0your environment and how you were raised? These questions are central to the age-old <strong>nature-nurture<\/strong> debate. In the history of psychology, no other question has caused so much controversy and offense: We are so concerned with nature\u2013nurture because our very sense of moral character seems to depend on it. While we may admire the athletic skills of a great basketball player, we think of his height as simply a gift, a payoff in the \u201cgenetic lottery.\u201d For the same reason, no one blames a short person for his height or someone\u2019s congenital disability on poor decisions: To state the obvious, it\u2019s \u201cnot their fault.\u201d But we do praise the concert violinist (and perhaps her parents and teachers as well) for her dedication, just as we condemn cheaters, slackers, and bullies for their bad behavior. The problem is, most human characteristics aren\u2019t usually as clear-cut as height or instrument-mastery, affirming our nature\u2013nurture expectations strongly one way or the other. In fact, even the great violinist might have some inborn qualities\u2014perfect pitch, or long, nimble fingers\u2014that support and reward her hard work. And the basketball player might have eaten a diet while growing up that promoted his genetic tendency for being tall. When we think about our own qualities, they seem under our control in some respects, yet beyond our control in others. And often the traits that don\u2019t seem to have an obvious cause are the ones that concern us the most and are far more personally significant. What about how much we drink or worry? What about our honesty, or religiosity, or sexual orientation? They all come from that uncertain zone, neither fixed by nature nor totally under our own control.<\/p>\n<section class=\"content\">\n<div id=\"attachment_2024\" style=\"width: 318px\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\"><a href=\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/855\/2016\/10\/21142023\/doggies.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-2024\" class=\"wp-image-2024\" src=\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/855\/2016\/10\/21142023\/doggies.jpg\" alt=\"Two similar-looking puppies.\" width=\"308\" height=\"228\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p id=\"caption-attachment-2024\" class=\"wp-caption-text\"><strong>Figure 1<\/strong>. Researchers have learned a great deal about the nature-nurture dynamic by working with animals. But of course many of the techniques used to study animals cannot be applied to people. Separating these two influences in human subjects is a greater research challenge. [Photo: mharrsch]<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<figure data-align=\"left\"><figcaption><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p>One major problem with answering nature-nurture questions about people is, how do you set up an experiment? In nonhuman animals, there are relatively straightforward experiments for tackling nature\u2013nurture questions. Say, for example, you are interested in aggressiveness in dogs. You want to test for the more important determinant of aggression: being born to aggressive dogs or being raised by them. You could mate two aggressive dogs\u2014angry Chihuahuas\u2014together, and mate two nonaggressive dogs\u2014happy beagles\u2014together, then switch half the puppies from each litter between the different sets of parents to raise. You would then have puppies born to aggressive parents (the Chihuahuas) but being raised by nonaggressive parents (the Beagles), and vice versa, in litters that mirror each other in puppy distribution. The big questions are: Would the Chihuahua parents raise aggressive beagle puppies? Would the beagle parents raise <em>non<\/em>aggressive Chihuahua puppies? Would the puppies\u2019 <em>nature<\/em> win out, regardless of who raised them? Or&#8230; would the result be a combination of nature <em>and<\/em> nurture? Much of the most significant nature\u2013nurture research has been done in this way (Scott &amp; Fuller, 1998), and animal breeders have been doing it successfully for thousands of years. In fact, it is fairly easy to breed animals for behavioral traits.<\/p>\n<p>With people, however, we can\u2019t assign babies to parents at random, or select parents with certain behavioral characteristics to mate, merely in the interest of science (though history does include horrific examples of such practices, in misguided attempts at \u201ceugenics,\u201d the shaping of human characteristics through intentional breeding). In typical human families, children\u2019s biological parents raise them, so it is very difficult to know whether children act like their parents due to genetic (nature) or environmental (nurture) reasons. Nevertheless, despite our restrictions on setting up human-based experiments, we do see real-world examples of nature-nurture at work in the human sphere\u2014though they only provide partial answers to our many questions. The science of how genes and environments work together to influence behavior is called\u00a0<strong>behavioral genetics<\/strong>. The easiest opportunity we have to observe this is the <strong>adoption study<\/strong>. When children are put up for adoption, the parents who give birth to them are no longer the parents who raise them. This setup isn\u2019t quite the same as the experiments with dogs (children aren\u2019t assigned to random adoptive parents in order to suit the particular interests of a scientist) but adoption still tells us some interesting things, or at least confirms some basic expectations. For instance, if the biological child of tall parents were adopted into a family of short people, do you suppose the child\u2019s growth would be affected? What about the biological child of a Spanish-speaking family adopted at birth into an English-speaking family? What language would you expect the child to speak? And what might these outcomes tell you about the difference between height and language in terms of nature-nurture?<\/p>\n<div id=\"attachment_2025\" style=\"width: 472px\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\"><a href=\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/855\/2016\/10\/21142159\/twoboys.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-2025\" class=\"wp-image-2025\" src=\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/855\/2016\/10\/21142159\/twoboys.jpg\" alt=\"Identical twin boys look at each other, one with a straight face and the other with an open-mouth laugh.\" width=\"462\" height=\"462\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p id=\"caption-attachment-2025\" class=\"wp-caption-text\"><strong>Figure 2<\/strong>. Studies focused on twins have led to important insights about the biological origins of many personality characteristics. [Photo: ethermoon]<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n<section class=\"content\">\n<figure data-align=\"right\"><figcaption><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p>Another option for observing nature-nurture in humans involves <strong>twin studies<\/strong>. There are two types of twins: monozygotic (MZ) and dizygotic (DZ). Monozygotic twins, also called \u201cidentical\u201d twins, result from a single zygote (fertilized egg) and have the same DNA. They are essentially clones. Dizygotic twins, also known as \u201cfraternal\u201d twins, develop from two zygotes and share 50% of their DNA. Fraternal twins are ordinary siblings who happen to have been born at the same time. To analyze nature\u2013nurture using twins, we compare the similarity of MZ and DZ pairs. Sticking with the features of height and spoken language, let\u2019s take a look at how nature and nurture apply: Identical twins, unsurprisingly, are almost perfectly similar for height. The heights of fraternal twins, however, are like any other sibling pairs: more similar to each other than to people from other families, but hardly identical. This contrast between twin types gives us a clue about the role genetics plays in determining height.<\/p>\n<p>Now consider spoken language. If one identical twin speaks Spanish at home, the co-twin with whom she is raised almost certainly does too. But the same would be true for a pair of fraternal twins raised together. In terms of spoken language, fraternal twins are just as similar as identical twins, so it appears that the genetic match of identical twins doesn\u2019t make much difference. Twin and adoption studies are two instances of a much broader class of methods for observing nature-nurture called <strong>quantitative genetics<\/strong>, the scientific discipline in which similarities among individuals are analyzed based on how biologically related they are. We can do these studies with siblings and half-siblings, cousins, twins who have been separated at birth and raised separately (Bouchard, Lykken, McGue, &amp; Segal, 1990; such twins are very rare and play a smaller role than is commonly believed in the science of nature\u2013nurture), or with entire extended families (see Plomin, DeFries, Knopik, &amp; Neiderhiser, 2012, for a complete introduction to research methods relevant to nature\u2013nurture).<\/p>\n<p>For better or for worse, contentions about nature\u2013nurture have intensified because quantitative genetics produces a number called a <strong>heritability coefficient<\/strong>, varying from 0 to 1, that is meant to provide a single measure of genetics\u2019 influence of a trait. In a general way, a heritability coefficient measures how strongly differences among individuals are related to differences among their genes. But beware: Heritability coefficients, although simple to compute, are deceptively difficult to interpret. Nevertheless, numbers that provide simple answers to complicated questions tend to have a strong influence on the human imagination, and a great deal of time has been spent discussing whether the heritability of intelligence or personality or depression is equal to one number or another.<\/p>\n<div id=\"attachment_2026\" style=\"width: 305px\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\"><a href=\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/855\/2016\/10\/21142506\/dna3.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-2026\" class=\"wp-image-2026\" src=\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/855\/2016\/10\/21142506\/dna3.jpg\" alt=\"Microscopic image of DNA\" width=\"295\" height=\"295\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p id=\"caption-attachment-2026\" class=\"wp-caption-text\"><strong>Figure 3<\/strong>. Quantitative genetics uses statistical methods to study the effects that both heredity and environment have on test subjects. These methods have provided us with the heritability coefficient which measures how strongly differences among individuals for a trait are related to differences among their genes. [Image: EMSL]<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<figure data-align=\"right\"><\/figure>\n<p>One reason nature\u2013nurture continues to fascinate us so much is that we live in an era of great scientific discovery in genetics, comparable to the times of Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton, with regard to astronomy and physics. Every day, it seems, new discoveries are made, new possibilities proposed. When Francis Galton first started thinking about nature\u2013nurture in the late-19th century he was very influenced by his cousin, Charles Darwin, but genetics <em>per se<\/em> was unknown. Mendel\u2019s famous work with peas, conducted at about the same time, went undiscovered for 20 years; quantitative genetics was developed in the 1920s; DNA was discovered by Watson and Crick in the 1950s; the human genome was completely sequenced at the turn of the 21st century; and we are now on the verge of being able to obtain the specific DNA sequence of anyone at a relatively low cost. No one knows what this new genetic knowledge will mean for the study of nature\u2013nurture, but as we will see in the next section, answers to nature\u2013nurture questions have turned out to be far more difficult and mysterious than anyone imagined.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"what-have-we-learned-about-naturenurture\">What Have We Learned About Nature\u2013Nurture?<\/h2>\n<section class=\"content\">It would be satisfying to be able to say that nature\u2013nurture studies have given us conclusive and complete evidence about where traits come from, with some traits clearly resulting from genetics and others almost entirely from environmental factors, such as childrearing practices and personal will; but that is not the case. Instead, <em>everything<\/em> has turned out to have some footing in genetics. The more genetically-related people are, the more similar they are\u2014for <em>everything<\/em>: height, weight, intelligence, personality, mental illness, etc. Sure, it seems like common sense that some traits have a genetic bias. For example, adopted children resemble their biological parents even if they have never met them, and identical twins are more similar to each other than are fraternal twins. And while certain psychological traits, such as personality or mental illness (e.g., schizophrenia), seem reasonably influenced by genetics, it turns out that the same is true for political attitudes, how much television people watch (Plomin, Corley, DeFries, &amp; Fulker, 1990), and whether or not they get divorced (McGue &amp; Lykken, 1992).<\/section>\n<section class=\"content\">\n<figure data-align=\"left\">\n<div style=\"width: 457px\" class=\"wp-caption alignleft\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"\" src=\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images-archive-read-only\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/902\/2016\/06\/10212112\/000000545original.jpg\" alt=\"Mother splashing with daughter in a fountain.\" width=\"447\" height=\"298\" \/><\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-caption-text\"><strong>Figure 4<\/strong>. Research over the last half century has revealed how central genetics are to behavior. The more genetically related people are the more similar they are not just physically but also in terms of personality and behavior. [Photo: \u85cd\u5ddd\u82a5 aikawake]<\/p>\n<\/div><figcaption><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p>It may seem surprising, but genetic influence on behavior is a relatively recent discovery. In the middle of the 20th century, psychology was dominated by the doctrine of behaviorism, which held that behavior could only be explained in terms of environmental factors. Psychiatry concentrated on psychoanalysis, which probed for roots of behavior in individuals\u2019 early life-histories. The truth is, neither behaviorism nor psychoanalysis is incompatible with genetic influences on behavior, and neither Freud nor Skinner was naive about the importance of organic processes in behavior. Nevertheless, in their day it was widely thought that children\u2019s personalities were shaped entirely by imitating their parents\u2019 behavior, and that schizophrenia was caused by certain kinds of \u201cpathological mothering.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Whatever the outcome of our broader discussion of nature\u2013nurture, the basic fact that the best predictors of an adopted child\u2019s personality or mental health are found in the biological parents they have never met, rather than in the adoptive parents who raised them, presents a significant challenge to purely environmental explanations of personality or psychopathology. The message is clear: You can\u2019t leave genes out of the equation. But keep in mind, no behavioral traits are completely inherited, so you can\u2019t leave the environment out altogether, either. Trying to untangle the various ways nature-nurture influences human behavior can be messy, and often common-sense notions can get in the way of good science. One very significant contribution of behavioral genetics that has changed psychology for good can be very helpful to keep in mind: When your subjects are biologically-related, no matter how clearly a situation may seem to point to environmental influence, it is never safe to interpret a behavior as wholly the result of nurture without further evidence. For example, when presented with data showing that children whose mothers read to them often are likely to have better reading scores in third grade, it is tempting to conclude that reading to your kids out loud is important to success in school; this may well be true, but the study as described is inconclusive, because there are genetic <em>as well as\u00a0<\/em>environmental pathways between the parenting practices of mothers and the abilities of their children. This is a case where \u201ccorrelation does not imply causation,\u201d as they say. To establish that reading aloud causes success, a scientist can either study the problem in adoptive families (in which the genetic pathway is absent) or by finding a way to randomly assign children to oral reading conditions.<\/p>\n<div class=\"textbox tryit\">\n<h3>Try It<\/h3>\n<p>\t<iframe id=\"assessment_practice_f5ea9bb8-e81b-4dc5-a2b8-f355cdb99d8c\" class=\"resizable\" src=\"https:\/\/assess.lumenlearning.com\/practice\/f5ea9bb8-e81b-4dc5-a2b8-f355cdb99d8c?iframe_resize_id=assessment_practice_id_f5ea9bb8-e81b-4dc5-a2b8-f355cdb99d8c\" frameborder=\"0\" style=\"border:none;width:100%;height:100%;min-height:300px;\"><br \/>\n\t<\/iframe><\/p>\n<p>\t<iframe id=\"assessment_practice_fe03f540-bb96-46a8-9ed5-c9462ca22cca\" class=\"resizable\" src=\"https:\/\/assess.lumenlearning.com\/practice\/fe03f540-bb96-46a8-9ed5-c9462ca22cca?iframe_resize_id=assessment_practice_id_fe03f540-bb96-46a8-9ed5-c9462ca22cca\" frameborder=\"0\" style=\"border:none;width:100%;height:100%;min-height:300px;\"><br \/>\n\t<\/iframe><\/p>\n<p>\t<iframe id=\"assessment_practice_45bcd346-dc90-4b44-94c0-40b1f63b7958\" class=\"resizable\" src=\"https:\/\/assess.lumenlearning.com\/practice\/45bcd346-dc90-4b44-94c0-40b1f63b7958?iframe_resize_id=assessment_practice_id_45bcd346-dc90-4b44-94c0-40b1f63b7958\" frameborder=\"0\" style=\"border:none;width:100%;height:100%;min-height:300px;\"><br \/>\n\t<\/iframe><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n<div class=\"textbox learning-objectives\">\n<h3>Think It Over<\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>Is your personality more like one of your parents than the other? If you have a sibling, is their personality like yours? In your family, how did these similarities and differences develop? What do you think caused them?<\/li>\n<li>Can you think of a human characteristic for which genetic differences would play almost no role? Defend your choice.<\/li>\n<li>Do you think the time will come when we will be able to predict almost everything about someone by examining their DNA on the day they are born?<\/li>\n<li>Identical twins are more similar than fraternal twins for the trait of aggressiveness, as well as for criminal behavior. Do these facts have implications for the courtroom? If it can be shown that a violent criminal had violent parents, should it make a difference in culpability or sentencing?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"textbox key-takeaways\">\n<h3>Glossary<\/h3>\n<p><strong>adoption study<\/strong>: a behavior genetic research method that involves comparison of adopted children to their adoptive and biological parents<br \/>\n<strong>behavioral genetics<\/strong>: the empirical science of how genes and environments combine to generate behavior<br \/>\n<strong>heritability coefficient<\/strong>: an easily misinterpreted statistical construct that purports to measure the role of genetics in the explanation of differences among individuals<br \/>\n<strong>quantitative genetics<\/strong>: scientific and mathematical methods for inferring genetic and environmental processes based on the degree of genetic and environmental similarity among organisms<br \/>\n<strong>twin studies<\/strong>: a behavior genetic research method that involves comparison of the similarity of identical (monozygotic; MZ) and fraternal (dizygotic; DZ) twins<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n\n\t\t\t <section class=\"citations-section\" role=\"contentinfo\">\n\t\t\t <h3>Candela Citations<\/h3>\n\t\t\t\t\t <div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t <div id=\"citation-list-1206\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t <div class=\"licensing\"><div class=\"license-attribution-dropdown-subheading\">CC licensed content, Original<\/div><ul class=\"citation-list\"><li>Modification and adaptation. <strong>Provided by<\/strong>: Lumen Learning. <strong>License<\/strong>: <em><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"license\" href=\"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-nc-sa\/4.0\/\">CC BY-NC-SA: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike<\/a><\/em><\/li><\/ul><div class=\"license-attribution-dropdown-subheading\">CC licensed content, Shared previously<\/div><ul class=\"citation-list\"><li>The Nature-Nurture Question. <strong>Authored by<\/strong>: Eric Turkheimer. <strong>Provided by<\/strong>: University of Virginia. <strong>Located at<\/strong>: <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/nobaproject.com\/modules\/the-nature-nurture-question\">http:\/\/nobaproject.com\/modules\/the-nature-nurture-question<\/a>. <strong>Project<\/strong>: Noba Project. <strong>License<\/strong>: <em><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"license\" href=\"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-nc-sa\/4.0\/\">CC BY-NC-SA: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike<\/a><\/em><\/li><\/ul><\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t <\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t <\/div>\n\t\t\t <\/section>","protected":false},"author":74,"menu_order":14,"template":"","meta":{"_candela_citation":"[{\"type\":\"cc\",\"description\":\"The Nature-Nurture Question\",\"author\":\"Eric Turkheimer\",\"organization\":\"University of Virginia\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/nobaproject.com\/modules\/the-nature-nurture-question\",\"project\":\"Noba Project\",\"license\":\"cc-by-nc-sa\",\"license_terms\":\"\"},{\"type\":\"original\",\"description\":\"Modification and adaptation\",\"author\":\"\",\"organization\":\"Lumen Learning\",\"url\":\"\",\"project\":\"\",\"license\":\"cc-by-nc-sa\",\"license_terms\":\"\"}]","CANDELA_OUTCOMES_GUID":"11bd4aab-3c37-454c-b32f-cbbe2017d7f8, f2b4f51e-06d9-47a8-a119-cedb7ef35e5c","pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":[],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[],"license":[],"class_list":["post-1206","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry"],"part":512,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/waymaker-psychology\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/1206","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/waymaker-psychology\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/waymaker-psychology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/waymaker-psychology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/74"}],"version-history":[{"count":35,"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/waymaker-psychology\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/1206\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8173,"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/waymaker-psychology\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/1206\/revisions\/8173"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/waymaker-psychology\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/512"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/waymaker-psychology\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/1206\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/waymaker-psychology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1206"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/waymaker-psychology\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=1206"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/waymaker-psychology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=1206"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/waymaker-psychology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=1206"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}