Nature vs. Nurture: How Both Shape Human Development
This paper examines the longstanding psychological debate over whether nature or nurture plays the dominant role in shaping human development. Drawing on the work of Darwin, Galton, Skinner, Bandura, and Erikson, the paper reviews key arguments from both camps before arguing that neither side alone provides a complete explanation. The author contends that nature and nurture are complementary forces: genetic inheritance sets the stage, while environmental inputs — including parental nurturing, social interaction, media, and culture — guide and shape development over time. Cases of extreme childhood isolation are used to illustrate what happens when nurture is absent. The paper concludes that human beings are simultaneously biological and social creatures, and that development is best understood as the product of both forces working in concert.
- Introduction: Defines nature and nurture; states integrative thesis
- The Case for Nature: Darwin and Galton argue genes determine development
- The Case for Nurture: Skinner, Bandura, and Erikson emphasize environment's role
- Why Nature and Nurture Must Work Together: Synthesis: both forces shape the developing person
- Conclusion: Human development requires both nature and nurture
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- It presents a clear thesis early — that nature and nurture are complementary rather than competing — and returns to that thesis consistently throughout, giving the paper strong argumentative coherence.
- It grounds abstract claims in recognizable theorists (Darwin, Galton, Skinner, Bandura, Erikson), which adds academic credibility and demonstrates familiarity with the relevant literature.
- The use of concrete illustrations — such as cases of extreme childhood isolation and the hypothetical re-imagining of Darwin's upbringing — makes abstract developmental concepts accessible and memorable.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates the technique of synthesis argumentation: rather than simply choosing a side in the debate, the author surveys opposing positions and then builds a third, integrative position from them. This move — acknowledge, steelman, then transcend — is a hallmark of strong undergraduate analytical writing.
Structure breakdown
The paper follows a classic five-part structure: an introduction that lays out the debate and states the thesis; a section presenting the nature argument with its historical context; a section presenting the nurture argument with key theorists; a longer synthesis section that reconciles both positions with examples; and a brief conclusion that restates the integrative claim. The middle synthesis section carries the most analytical weight and is appropriately the longest.
Introduction
For some time now there has been an ongoing debate in the psychology field over whether "nature" or "nurture" plays a bigger role in shaping one's life. Although researchers have engaged in many debates, the verdict is still out among many. Some believe that nature is responsible for dictating how one enters life and sets the stage for what develops; others look at evidence indicating the impactful role of nurture — of environments that help a person grow and develop. For the record, "nature" refers to the genes or hereditary factors that come from the parents and influence who the child is, while "nurture" refers to the surrounding environment and the way the child was raised.
Even though nature might play a significant role, there are many reasons to highlight the role that nurture plays in shaping a child into an adolescent and then an adult. It is not unreasonable to believe that one's environment and culture have a more significant influence on how a child behaves while growing up. However, since the evolutionary era of Darwin, scientists and academics have latched onto the idea that it is nature that determines one's ultimate traits, behaviors, and developmental trajectory.
This paper argues that when it comes to nature and nurture, the question should not be framed as an either/or situation. The fact is that nature and nurture work together to shape an individual over time. Without nurture, there is nothing to form and direct nature. Without nature, there is nothing to be nurtured. One should therefore view them as members of the same developmental team — not as contestants in an academic zero-sum game where only one may survive. The development of every human being is determined by both nature and nurture.
The Case for Nature
The idea that nature is responsible for all development is not new, and was not new when the Darwinian movement of evolution gained momentum in the 19th century. It was, however, substantially reinforced by the atheistic, materialistic doctrine of the evolutionists, who posited that there is no intelligent design or creative intelligence at work in nature — only an evolutionary by-product of nature's drive to survive. Darwin and the school of thought that followed him highlighted nature as the driving force of all human development.
Francis Galton was one of the main advocates of the idea that human faculties and their development were wholly based upon nature. The concept of evolution and natural selection was central to Galton's theory because, without a divine sustainer of life, there was no reason to believe that a nurturing aspect made any difference. In Darwin's cosmology, all human beings were merely animals that had evolved over time, and all of nature was determined by an instinct for survival. Whatever characteristics or traits a human being developed were developed only because of the innate need to adapt and survive. If one failed to adapt and evolve, one did not survive. The weaker links in the species would inevitably be bred out of existence because they would not pass on their genes. Nature thus determined all things in this viewpoint (Stigler).
The Case for Nurture
As the 20th century progressed, researchers began to explore behavioral psychology and human development with a new emphasis on the role that nurture plays in the development of the human mind, cognition, and physical abilities. Even setting aside questions of religion or metaphysics, these researchers concluded that nurture is necessary to move human development forward. Skinner demonstrated how species can be conditioned to act in certain ways — that is, how their environment programs them to behave differently. While some argued that this was merely nature acting in a nurturing manner (Herrnstein), other researchers, like Bandura, showed that human beings are highly susceptible to their environments, including the influence of peers, groups, and media — all of which shape their cognitive processes. In other words, the way people think makes a difference in terms of how they act and grow.
Erik Erikson developed a theory of eight stages of psychosocial development, which holds that every human being passes through eight stages, and that in each stage there is a conflict that must be overcome before the person can move on to the next. In each stage, some degree of nurture is needed, particularly in the formative early stages of a child's life, during which parents play a central role in making the child feel safe, secure, and loved, and in giving the child a sense of right and wrong (Munley). If the nurturing agent is absent, the child cannot move forward in the appropriate way to face and overcome the challenge. Cases of children raised in extreme isolation have demonstrated this clearly. When such children are subsequently given proper care, they are able to overcome behavioral and physical obstacles that had impeded their development up to that point (Soutter). Thus, although nature left to itself will progress in some way, nurture is necessary to guide the process and support healthy development.
Conclusion
The great debate of nature vs. nurture is still ongoing because there are researchers who continue to cling to one camp or the other — the evolutionary camp or the psychological humanism camp. The reality, however, is that people have a foot in both camps. They are shaped by both forces because they are part animal and part rational being. They have natural needs and urges alongside a deep need for nurture. Nature and nurture therefore belong together and should not be seen as competitors. The development of every human being is the product of both, and any framework that insists on privileging one to the exclusion of the other will inevitably offer an incomplete account of what it means to grow and become a person.
Works Cited
Bandura, Albert, et al. "Self-efficacy Beliefs as Shapers of Children's Aspirations and Career Trajectories." Child Development 72.1 (2001): 187–206.
Herrnstein, R. J. "Nature as Nurture: Behaviorism and the Instinct Doctrine." Behaviorism 1.1 (1972): 23–52.
Galton, F. Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development. London: J.M. Dent & Co, 1883.
Munley, Patrick H. "Erik Erikson's Theory of Psychosocial Development and Vocational Behavior." Journal of Counseling Psychology 22.4 (1975): 314.
Soutter, Alison. "Case Report: Successful Treatment of a Case of Extreme Isolation." European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 4.1 (1995): 39–45.
Stigler, Stephen M. "Darwin, Galton and the Statistical Enlightenment." Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society) 173.3 (2010): 469–482.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.