Nature vs. Nurture: Genetic and Environmental Influences on Human Behavior
This paper examines the long-standing nature versus nurture debate as it applies to human behavior, drawing on research from anthropology, psychology, theology, and neuroscience. It reviews evidence from gender identity studies, cognitive anthropology among the Veso of Madagascar, behavioral psychology, and the neuroscience of emotion to assess the relative contributions of genetics (genotype) and environment (phenotype) to human behavior. The paper concludes that while genetic factors appear to be the primary determinants of broad human characteristics, cultural enculturation significantly shapes how those characteristics are expressed in individual behavior. A proposed research methodology using gender as a genetic variable and voting behavior as a behavioral proxy is also described.
- Introduction and Background: Framing the genetics versus environment debate
- Gender Identity and the Nature–Nurture Debate: John/Joan case and gender identity origins
- Anthropological and Psychological Perspectives: Veso culture and behavioral psychology findings
- Emotion, Fear Conditioning, and Culture: Neural basis of fear and Pavlovian conditioning
- Personality, Culture, and Homosexual Orientation: Cultural personality shaping and sexual orientation
- Proposed Research Methodology: Survey design using gender and voting behavior
- Conclusion: Nature primary, culture shapes behavioral expression
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper synthesizes sources across multiple disciplines — anthropology, psychology, neuroscience, and theology — giving the argument breadth and interdisciplinary credibility.
- It uses specific, well-chosen case studies (the John/Joan case, the Veso of Madagascar) to ground abstract theoretical claims in concrete evidence.
- The paper maintains an appropriately balanced stance, acknowledging the primacy of genetics while consistently recognizing the significant role of cultural enculturation.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates effective comparative literature synthesis: rather than summarizing each source in isolation, it draws connections between findings across fields, using each new source to build upon, qualify, or complicate the conclusions drawn from previous ones. This cumulative argumentative structure is particularly effective in interdisciplinary research papers.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with an abstract and background framing the nature/nurture question, then moves into a literature review organized by discipline (gender studies → anthropology → psychology → neuroscience → theology). A methodology section follows, proposing a survey-based study using gender and voting behavior. The paper uses APA citation style throughout and concludes each section by tying findings back to the central genotype/phenotype distinction.
Introduction and Background
For decades, scientists and philosophers of every sort have attempted to determine whether nature or nurture is the more important factor in human behavior. Theologians have also entered the debate, as questions about how to treat various socially influential behaviors — such as gender identification and homosexuality — make arriving at some conclusion regarding the genesis of human behavior increasingly compelling. The work to date on the subject seems to point in the direction of a duality, though one aspect of that duality may be worthy of slightly more weight. There appears to be a consensus across many fields of study that nature is more largely responsible for determining human characteristics than nurturing by agents of enculturation, but that culture does nonetheless exert a great influence on behavior.
Behavior is one of the most complex and interesting of human characteristics. Like many other characteristics — such as height or weight — behavior has come to be understood as reflecting a combination of influences, some genetic and others environmental. While it had for many years been assumed that behavior was essentially all learned, recent advances in a number of research techniques have allowed scientists new and provocative glimpses into the genetic basis of human behavior. Moreover, numerous disciplines — from anthropology to law to zoology — have contributed studies and data toward more reliably determining the relative contributions of genetics and environment to human life. It appears, especially in light of the discovery of various genetic markers for all sorts of human characteristics, that nature is more largely responsible for determining human characteristics than is nurturing by agents of socialization. However, the environment — our human cultures and the resulting enculturation of individuals — may be more greatly responsible for shaping an individual's specific behavior than are that person's genetics.
The following preliminary research explores some of the aspects of the nature versus nurture controversy. The complex interplay between genotype and phenotype are variables studied via findings across various disciplines to determine whether the genotype (the nature aspect) is more influential than the phenotype (the nurture aspect) in determining human behavior.
References
Astuti, R. (2001). Are we all natural dualists? A cognitive developmental approach. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 7(3), 429.
Bonsor, J. A. (1998). Homosexual orientation and anthropology: Reflections on the category "objective disorder." Theological Studies.
Hausman, B. L. (2000). Do boys have to be boys? Gender, narrativity, and the John/Joan case. NWSA Journal, 12(3), 114–138.
LeDoux, J. E. (1995). Emotion: Clues from the brain. Annual Review of Psychology, 46, 209+.
Moore, J. (2002). Some thoughts on the relation between behavior analysis and behavioral neuroscience. The Psychological Record, 52(3), 261+.
Suh, E. M. (2002). Cultural influences on personality. Annual Review of Psychology.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.