Nature vs. Nurture: The Debate Over Human Behavior
This paper examines the long-standing nature vs. nurture debate in the behavioral sciences, tracing its origins from Darwin and Galton's evolutionary and genetic arguments in the 19th century to the social learning theories of Skinner and Bandura in the 20th century. It surveys the eugenics movement as an outgrowth of nature-based thinking and contrasts it with behavioral approaches that emphasize environmental influence. The paper ultimately argues that neither side fully accounts for human behavior, pointing to the role of individual free will as a third, often overlooked factor. The author proposes reframing the debate as "nature vs. nurture vs. will."
- Introduction to the Nature vs. Nurture Debate: Overview of the debate and its key theorists
- Darwin, Galton, and the Nature Argument: Evolutionary genetics, eugenics, and inherited traits
- Skinner, Bandura, and the Nurture Argument: Social learning theory and environmental influence
- Conclusion: Toward a Third Factor — Free Will: Free will proposed as missing third variable
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- It efficiently traces the historical arc of the debate, anchoring each position to a named theorist with a citation, giving the argument chronological clarity.
- The paper avoids false dichotomy by refusing to declare a winner, instead proposing that free will constitutes a genuinely missing third variable—an original, if brief, conceptual contribution.
- Despite its short length, it maintains a consistent argumentative thread from the opening thesis through the concluding reframing of the debate.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates synthesis across multiple theoretical traditions: it introduces conflicting schools of thought (evolutionary/genetic vs. behavioral/environmental), acknowledges the partial validity of each, and then moves beyond the binary to propose a new framing. This "thesis–antithesis–synthesis" structure is a core academic argumentation technique suited to introductory-level essays in psychology or social science.
Structure breakdown
The essay opens with a historical overview that introduces the central debate and its key figures. The second paragraph develops the nature side via Darwin and Galton, including the eugenics movement. The third paragraph shifts to the nurture side with Skinner and Bandura's behavioral experiments. The final paragraph weighs both positions, identifies their shared limitation—the absence of free will—and proposes a three-part reformulation of the debate as its concluding argument.
Introduction to the Nature vs. Nurture Debate
The nature vs. nurture argument is one that has been around for many years—especially since the behavioral sciences emerged in the 20th century with the experiments of Skinner and Bandura. It was Bandura's (1977) theory of social learning that viewed all behavior as learned from one's environment. Skinner (1957) likewise postulated that it was the "nurturing" side of one's experience that shaped human activity, thought, and expression. Galton (1883), on the other hand, felt differently. He predated both Skinner and Bandura and was himself a student of Darwin. He thus postulated that "nature" was responsible for the development of human behavior—that some people were simply born with greater gifts, such as intellectual ability, than others. Galton was a 19th-century philosopher and scientist, and his views aligned with ideas like the Great Man Theory, which articulated the position that great leaders are born, not made. This paper shows how the debate between nature vs. nurture has never really abated and how there is most likely a little bit of evidence to support both sides of the argument—meaning the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
Darwin, Galton, and the Nature Argument
Darwin introduced the theory of evolution in the 19th century and advanced the notion that nature is responsible for human development. Whatever skills and attributes people acquire over time are acquired because of a need to adapt in order to survive. Individual human beings receive genetic coding from their parents that enables them to carry on these adaptive skills throughout their lifetime and pass them on to the next generation. Galton viewed this idea as the most likely explanation for human behavior.
This concept was popular in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, as the eugenics movement got underway. Scientists and researchers were interested in controlling population development in the West by genetically engineering the human race. Birth control emerged as a result of the eugenics movement. It was viewed as a way to limit the reproduction of individuals deemed to add nothing positive to the gene pool.
Skinner, Bandura, and the Nurture Argument
By mid-century, the idea that human behavior is largely learned became a dominant view, thanks to the experiments of Skinner and Bandura. They showed that children could be taught to respond to things—such as rats—in a positive light if fear were not associated with those creatures by others. Likewise, children would pick up social behaviors as they grew older by observing those around them and imitating them. Social learning theory became a dominant framework in both psychology and criminology as researchers attempted to understand why individuals acted out or behaved in specific ways.
Conclusion: Toward a Third Factor — Free Will
Though the debate has never been solved, neither side has ever really been put to rest because both offer compelling arguments. There is something to be said about DNA and the role that genetics play in passing on certain aspects and qualities of the human condition from one generation to the next. This can be seen in physical characteristics certainly. At the same time, one's environment surely plays a part in determining human behavior as well. Individuals who follow in the footsteps of their predecessors most likely do so because that is simply what they observed growing up.
Neither side fully explains human behavior on its own, however—for sometimes individuals deviate from what their ancestors have done and what those around them are doing. They stand out and stand alone; they are inventors or leaders in their own right. They display the application of free will, which is a factor that neither side of the nature vs. nurture debate fully tackles. To be more representative, the debate should be reframed as: nature vs. nurture vs. will.
References
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Galton, F. (1883). Inquiries into human faculty and its development. London: J.M. Dent & Co.
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. Acton, MA: Copley Publishing Group.
You’re 96% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.