nature vs nurture ielts essay

• No Comments

IELTS Writing task 2 | Nature vs nurture

WRITING TASK 2

You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.

Write about the following topic:

Research indicates that the characteristics that we are born with have a much greater influence on our personality and development than any experiences we may have in our life.

Which do you consider to be the major influence?

Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.

Write at least 250 words.

More to explore

IELTS Writing task 2 | Working from home

IELTS Writing task 2 | Working from home: In this task 2, we look at the benefits and drawbacks of working from home. What do you think?

IELTS Writing task 2 | Community service in high school

In this IELTS writing task 2 you have to decide whether community service should be part of the school curriculum.

IELTS Writing Task 2 | Public spaces

This IELTS writing task 2 asks whether it is important for governments to invest in public spaces. Check out our sample answers here!

IELTS Writing task 2 | Sports facilities

This IELTS writing task 2 practice question is perfect for trying out your essay structure for ‘discuss both views’ questions.

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Are you taking the academic or General test?

Which task do you wish to complete.

Username or Email Address

Remember Me

IELTS Writing

A collection of band scale 9 essays, 023 nature versus nurture.

Research indicates that the characteristics we are born with have much more influence on our personality and development than any experiences we may have in our life. Which do you consider to be the major influence.

Model Answer

Every so often it is reported that scientists have linked a new gene to a particular human behaviour, for example shyness or extroversion . As a result, some people say that nature is more important than nurture in governing how we behave. I believe however that genetics alone cannot explain our personal characteristics and that our upbringing is as equally important.

It is common for people to say they inherited a particular trait from one of their parents. Until recently it had been impossible to test this hypothesis scientifically, but advances in neuroscience mean there is now strong evidence connecting behaviour and genetics. Thanks to modern brain scanning technology, scientists can predict someone's personality based upon an analysis of the structure of their brain. As people with similar DNA also have similar brains, this is support for the role of genetics in human behaviour.

Nonetheless, many scientists are quick to point out that our environment also plays an important role in our development. Factors such as diet, stimulation , sleep, and exercise all affect the way connections are formed in our brain. It is too simplistic to say that genes determine the way we behave. Having a gene that has been associated with shyness does not mean that you will necessarily be shy. Whether this gene is activated or not will depend upon on one or more of the factors listed above.

In conclusion, although scientists have a greater understanding of the way some genes influence our behaviour, I believe it is still too early to say whether it is genetics or our environment that plays the dominant role.

(268 words)

Leave a comment

Your e-mail address will not be published.

• IELTS Scores
• Life Skills Test
• Find a Test Centre
• Alternatives to IELTS
• General Training
• Academic Word List
• Topic Vocabulary
• Collocation
• Phrasal Verbs
• Writing eBooks
• Reading eBook
• All eBooks & Courses

Nature Nurture Essays

by Rahul Khatri (Pakistan)

Would you prefer to share this page with others by linking to it?

• Click on the HTML link code below.
• Copy and paste it, adding a note of your own, into your blog, a Web page, forums, a blog comment, your Facebook account, or anywhere that someone would find this page valuable.

Band 7+ eBooks

"I think these eBooks are FANTASTIC!!! I know that's not academic language, but it's the truth!"

Linda, from Italy, Scored Band 7.5

IELTS Modules:

Other resources:.

• All Lessons
• Band Score Calculator
• Writing Feedback
• Speaking Feedback
• Teacher Resources
• Free Downloads
• Recent Essay Exam Questions
• Books for IELTS Prep
• Useful Links

Recent Articles

Decreasing House Sizes Essay

Apr 06, 24 10:22 AM

Latest IELTS Writing Topics - Recent Exam Questions

Apr 04, 24 02:36 AM

IELTS Essay: English as a Global Language

Apr 03, 24 03:49 PM

Important pages

IELTS Writing IELTS Speaking IELTS Listening   IELTS Reading All Lessons Vocabulary Academic Task 1 Academic Task 2 Practice Tests

Connect with us

Copyright © 2022- IELTSbuddy All Rights Reserved

IELTS is a registered trademark of University of Cambridge, the British Council, and IDP Education Australia. This site and its owners are not affiliated, approved or endorsed by the University of Cambridge ESOL, the British Council, and IDP Education Australia.

IELTS Mentor "IELTS Preparation & Sample Answer"

• Skip to content
• Jump to main navigation and login

Nav view search

• IELTS Sample

IELTS Academic Reading # 74 - Nature or Nurture?

Ielts academic reading passage - nature or nurture,  nature or nurture.

• Academic Reading
• Academic Reading Passage
• IELTS Reading Passage With Answer

IELTS Materials

• IELTS Bar Graph
• IELTS Line Graph
• IELTS Table Chart
• IELTS Flow Chart
• IELTS Pie Chart
• IELTS Letter Writing
• IELTS Essay

Useful Links

• IELTS Secrets
• Band Score Calculator
• Exam Specific Tips
• Useful Websites
• IELTS Preparation Tips
• Academic Reading Tips
• Academic Writing Tips
• GT Writing Tips
• Listening Tips
• Speaking Tips
• IELTS Grammar Review
• IELTS Vocabulary
• IELTS Cue Cards
• IELTS Life Skills
• Letter Types

• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Copyright Notice
• HTML Sitemap

50 Latest Nature IELTS Topics

• Unlimited Task 1 checks Get all the feedback you need to keep improving your charts and letters.
• Unlimited Task 2 checks Practice and perfect your skills with essays.
• Personalized suggestions Know how to boost your score.
• Detailed mistakes analysis Get instant feedback. Spot every mistake.
• Topic ideas generator Get topic-specific ideas to enhance your writing.
• Vocabulary helper Get the right words for any topic.
• Progress tracking Track your writing improvements.

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2023 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

The Nature vs. Nurture Debate

Genetic and Environmental Influences and How They Interact

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Verywell / Joshua Seong

• Definitions
• Interaction
• Contemporary Views

Nature refers to how genetics influence an individual's personality, whereas nurture refers to how their environment (including relationships and experiences) impacts their development. Whether nature or nurture plays a bigger role in personality and development is one of the oldest philosophical debates within the field of psychology .

Learn how each is defined, along with why the issue of nature vs. nurture continues to arise. We also share a few examples of when arguments on this topic typically occur, how the two factors interact with each other, and contemporary views that exist in the debate of nature vs. nurture as it stands today.

Nature and Nurture Defined

To better understand the nature vs. nurture argument, it helps to know what each of these terms means.

• Nature refers largely to our genetics . It includes the genes we are born with and other hereditary factors that can impact how our personality is formed and influence the way that we develop from childhood through adulthood.
• Nurture encompasses the environmental factors that impact who we are. This includes our early childhood experiences, the way we were raised , our social relationships, and the surrounding culture.

A few biologically determined characteristics include genetic diseases, eye color, hair color, and skin color. Other characteristics are tied to environmental influences, such as how a person behaves, which can be influenced by parenting styles and learned experiences.

For example, one child might learn through observation and reinforcement to say please and thank you. Another child might learn to behave aggressively by observing older children engage in violent behavior on the playground.

The Debate of Nature vs. Nurture

The nature vs. nurture debate centers on the contributions of genetics and environmental factors to human development. Some philosophers, such as Plato and Descartes, suggested that certain factors are inborn or occur naturally regardless of environmental influences.

Advocates of this point of view believe that all of our characteristics and behaviors are the result of evolution. They contend that genetic traits are handed down from parents to their children and influence the individual differences that make each person unique.

Other well-known thinkers, such as John Locke, believed in what is known as tabula rasa which suggests that the mind begins as a blank slate . According to this notion, everything that we are is determined by our experiences.

Behaviorism is a good example of a theory rooted in this belief as behaviorists feel that all actions and behaviors are the results of conditioning. Theorists such as John B. Watson believed that people could be trained to do and become anything, regardless of their genetic background.

People with extreme views are called nativists and empiricists. Nativists take the position that all or most behaviors and characteristics are the result of inheritance. Empiricists take the position that all or most behaviors and characteristics result from learning.

Examples of Nature vs. Nurture

One example of when the argument of nature vs. nurture arises is when a person achieves a high level of academic success . Did they do so because they are genetically predisposed to elevated levels of intelligence, or is their success a result of an enriched environment?

The argument of nature vs. nurture can also be made when it comes to why a person behaves in a certain way. If a man abuses his wife and kids, for instance, is it because he was born with violent tendencies, or is violence something he learned by observing others in his life when growing up?

Nature vs. Nurture in Psychology

Throughout the history of psychology , the debate of nature vs. nurture has continued to stir up controversy. Eugenics, for example, was a movement heavily influenced by the nativist approach.

Psychologist Francis Galton coined the terms 'nature versus nurture' and 'eugenics' and believed that intelligence resulted from genetics. Galton also felt that intelligent individuals should be encouraged to marry and have many children, while less intelligent individuals should be discouraged from reproducing.

The value placed on nature vs. nurture can even vary between the different branches of psychology , with some branches taking a more one-sided approach. In biopsychology , for example, researchers conduct studies exploring how neurotransmitters influence behavior, emphasizing the role of nature.

In social psychology , on the other hand, researchers might conduct studies looking at how external factors such as peer pressure and social media influence behaviors, stressing the importance of nurture. Behaviorism is another branch that focuses on the impact of the environment on behavior.

Nature vs. Nurture in Child Development

Some psychological theories of child development place more emphasis on nature and others focus more on nurture. An example of a nativist theory involving child development is Chomsky's concept of a language acquisition device (LAD). According to this theory, all children are born with an instinctive mental capacity that allows them to both learn and produce language.

An example of an empiricist child development theory is Albert Bandura's social learning theory . This theory says that people learn by observing the behavior of others. In his famous Bobo doll experiment , Bandura demonstrated that children could learn aggressive behaviors simply by observing another person acting aggressively.

Nature vs. Nurture in Personality Development

There is also some argument as to whether nature or nurture plays a bigger role in the development of one's personality. The answer to this question varies depending on which personality development theory you use.

According to behavioral theories, our personality is a result of the interactions we have with our environment, while biological theories suggest that personality is largely inherited. Then there are psychodynamic theories of personality that emphasize the impact of both.

Nature vs. Nurture in Mental Illness Development

One could argue that either nature or nurture contributes to mental health development. Some causes of mental illness fall on the nature side of the debate, including changes to or imbalances with chemicals in the brain. Genetics can also contribute to mental illness development, increasing one's risk of a certain disorder or disease.

Mental disorders with some type of genetic component include autism , attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), bipolar disorder , major depression , and schizophrenia .

Other explanations for mental illness are environmental. This includes being exposed to environmental toxins, such as drugs or alcohol, while still in utero. Certain life experiences can also influence mental illness development, such as witnessing a traumatic event, leading to the development of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Nature vs. Nurture in Mental Health Therapy

Different types of mental health treatment can also rely more heavily on either nature or nurture in their treatment approach. One of the goals of many types of therapy is to uncover any life experiences that may have contributed to mental illness development (nurture).

However, genetics (nature) can play a role in treatment as well. For instance, research indicates that a person's genetic makeup can impact how their body responds to antidepressants. Taking this into consideration is important for getting that person the help they need.

Interaction Between Nature and Nurture

Which is stronger: nature or nurture? Many researchers consider the interaction between heredity and environment—nature with nurture as opposed to nature versus nurture—to be the most important influencing factor of all.

For example, perfect pitch is the ability to detect the pitch of a musical tone without any reference. Researchers have found that this ability tends to run in families and might be tied to a single gene. However, they've also discovered that possessing the gene is not enough as musical training during early childhood is needed for this inherited ability to manifest itself.

Height is another example of a trait influenced by an interaction between nature and nurture. A child might inherit the genes for height. However, if they grow up in a deprived environment where proper nourishment isn't received, they might never attain the height they could have had if they'd grown up in a healthier environment.

A newer field of study that aims to learn more about the interaction between genes and environment is epigenetics . Epigenetics seeks to explain how environment can impact the way in which genes are expressed.

Some characteristics are biologically determined, such as eye color, hair color, and skin color. Other things, like life expectancy and height, have a strong biological component but are also influenced by environmental factors and lifestyle.

Contemporary Views of Nature vs. Nurture

Most experts recognize that neither nature nor nurture is stronger than the other. Instead, both factors play a critical role in who we are and who we become. Not only that but nature and nurture interact with each other in important ways all throughout our lifespan.

As a result, many in this field are interested in seeing how genes modulate environmental influences and vice versa. At the same time, this debate of nature vs. nurture still rages on in some areas, such as in the origins of homosexuality and influences on intelligence .

While a few people take the extreme nativist or radical empiricist approach, the reality is that there is not a simple way to disentangle the multitude of forces that exist in personality and human development. Instead, these influences include genetic factors, environmental factors, and how each intermingles with the other.

Schoneberger T. Three myths from the language acquisition literature . Anal Verbal Behav . 2010;26(1):107-31. doi:10.1007/bf03393086

National Institutes of Health. Common genetic factors found in 5 mental disorders .

Pain O, Hodgson K, Trubetskoy V, et al. Identifying the common genetic basis of antidepressant response . Biol Psychiatry Global Open Sci . 2022;2(2):115-126. doi:10.1016/j.bpsgos.2021.07.008

Moulton C. Perfect pitch reconsidered . Clin Med J . 2014;14(5):517-9 doi:10.7861/clinmedicine.14-5-517

Levitt M. Perceptions of nature, nurture and behaviour . Life Sci Soc Policy . 2013;9:13. doi:10.1186/2195-7819-9-13

Bandura A, Ross D, Ross, SA. Transmission of aggression through the imitation of aggressive models . J Abnorm Soc Psychol. 1961;63(3):575-582. doi:10.1037/h0045925

Chomsky N. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax .

Galton F. Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development .

Watson JB. Behaviorism .

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Nature or Nurture? Reading Questions and Answers

The Blog post contains the following IELTS Reading Questions:

• IELTS Reading True/False/Not Given
• IELTS Reading Multiple Choice Questions
• IELTS Reading Matching Information

Stay informed and prepared for success – Explore our comprehensive Reading Test Info page to get valuable insights, exam format details, and expert tips for mastering the IELTS Reading section .

IELTS Reading Passage – Nature or Nurture?

Nature or Nurture?

A   A few years ago, in one of the most fascinating and disturbing experiments in behavioural psychology, Stanley Milgram of Yale University tested 40 subjects from all walks of life for their willingness to obey instructions given by a ‘leader’ in a situation in which the subjects might feel a personal distaste for the actions they were called upon to perform. Specifically, Milgram told each volunteer ‘teacher-subject’ that the experiment was in the noble cause of education, and was designed to test whether or not punishing pupils for their mistakes would have a positive effect on the pupils’ ability to learn.

B   Milgram’s experimental set-up involved placing the teacher-subject before a panel of thirty switches with labels ranging from ’15 volts of electricity (slight shock)’ to ‘450 volts (danger – severe shock)’ in steps of 15 volts each. The teacher-subject was told that whenever the pupil gave the wrong answer to a question, a shock was to be administered, beginning at the lowest level and increasing in severity with each successive wrong answer. The supposed ‘pupil’ was, in reality, an actor hired by Milgram to simulate receiving the shocks by emitting a spectrum of groans, screams and writings together with an assortment of statements and expletives denouncing both the experiment and the experimenter. Milgram told the teacher-subject to ignore the reactions of the pupil, and to administer whatever level of shock was called for, as per the rule governing the experimental situation of the moment.

C   As the experiment unfolded, the pupil would deliberately give the wrong answers to questions posed by the teacher, thereby bringing on various electrical punishments, even up to the danger level of 300 volts and beyond. Many of the teacher-subjects balked at administering the higher levels of punishment, and turned to Milgram with questioning looks and/or complaints about continuing the experiment. In these situations, Milgram calmly explained that the teacher-subject was to ignore the pupil’s cries for mercy and carry on with the experiment. If the subject was still reluctant to proceed, Milgram said that it was important for the sake of the experiment that the procedure be followed through to the end. His final argument was, ‘You have no other choice. You must go on.’  What Milgram was trying to discover was the number of teacher-subjects who would be willing to administer the highest levels of shock, even in the face of strong personal and moral revulsion against the rules and conditions of the experiment.

D   Prior to carrying out the experiment, Milgram explained his idea to a group of 39 psychiatrists and asked them to predict the average percentage of people in an ordinary population who would be willing to administer the highest shock level of 450 volts. The overwhelming consensus was that virtually ail the teacher-subjects would refuse to obey the experimenter. The psychiatrists felt that ‘most subjects would not go beyond 150 volts’ and they further anticipated that only four per cent would go up to 300 volts. Furthermore, they thought that only a lunatic fringe of about one in 1,000 would give the highest shock of 450 volts. Furthermore, they thought that only a lunatic cringe of about one in 1,000 would give the highest shock of 450 volts.

E   What were the actual results? Well, over 60 per cent of the teacher-subjects continued to obey Milgram up to the 450-volt limit! In repetitions of the experiment in other countries, the percentage of obedient teacher-subjects was even higher, reaching 85 per cent in one country. How can we possibly account for this vast discrepancy between what calm, rational, knowledgeable people predict in the comfort of their study and what pressured, flustered, but cooperative teachers’ actually do in the laboratory of real life?

F   One’s first inclination might be to argue that there must be some sort of built-in animal aggression instinct that was activated by the experiment, and that Milgram’s teacher-subjects were just following a genetic need to discharge this pent-up primal urge onto the pupil by administering the electrical shock. A modern hard-core sociobiologist might even go so far as to claim that this aggressive instinct evolved as an advantageous trait, having been of survival value to our ancestors in their struggle against the hardships of life on the plains and in the caves, ultimately finding its way into our genetic make-up as a remnant of our ancient animal ways.

G   An alternative to this notion of genetic programming is to see the teacher-subjects’ actions as a result of the social environment under which the experiment was carried out. As Milgram himself pointed out, ‘Most subjects in the experiment see their behaviour in a larger context that is benevolent and useful to society – the pursuit of scientific truth. The psychological laboratory has a strong claim to legitimacy and evokes trust and confidence in those who perform there. An action such as shocking a victim, which in isolation appears evil, acquires a completely different meaning when placed in this setting.’

H   Thus, in this explanation the subject merges his unique personality and personal and moral code with that of larger institutional structures, surrendering individual properties like loyalty, self-sacrifice and discipline to the service of malevolent systems of authority. I   Here we have two radically different explanations for why so many teacher-subjects were willing to forgo their sense of personal responsibility for the sake of an institutional authority figure. The problem for biologists, psychologists and anthropologists are to sort out which of these two polar explanations is more plausible. This, in essence, is the problem of modern sociobiology – to discover the degree to which hard-wired genetic programming dictates, or at least strongly biases, the interaction of animals and humans with their environment, that is, their behaviour. Put another way, sociobiology is concerned with elucidating the biological basis of all behaviour.

Unlock your full potential in the IELTS Reading section – Visit our IELTS Reading Practice Question Answer page now!

Recommended Questions:

Renewable Energy IELTS Reading Question with Answer

Questions 14-19

Reading Passage 74 has nine paragraphs,  A-I . Which paragraph contains the following information?Write the correct letter  A-I  in boxes  14-19  on your answer sheet.

14.  a biological explanation of the teacher-subjects’ behaviour   15.  the explanation Milgram gave the teacher-subjects for the experiment   16.  the identity of the pupils   17.  the expected statistical outcome   18.  the general aim of sociobiological study   19.  the way Milgram persuaded the teacher-subjects to continue 

Master the art of matching information and boost your score in the IELTS Reading section. Click here to access our step-by-step guide on handling Matching Information questions effectively.

Questions 20-22

Choose the correct letter  A, B, C  or  D. Write your answers in boxes  20-22  on your answer sheet.

20.  The teacher-subjects were told that they were testing whether     

A a 450-volt shock was dangerous.      B punishment helps learning.      C the pupils were honest.      D they were suited to teaching.

21.  The teacher-subjects were instructed to     

A stop when a pupil asked them to.      B denounce pupils who made mistakes.      C reduce the shock level after a correct answer.      D give punishment according to a rule.

22.  Before the experiment took place the psychiatrists     

A believed that a shock of 150 volts was too dangerous.      B failed to agree on how the teacher-subjects would respond to instructions.      C underestimated the teacher-subjects’ willingness to comply with experimental procedure.      D thought that many of the teacher-subjects would administer a shock of 450 volts.

Ready to improve your performance in Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs) ? Click here to access our comprehensive guide on how to tackle MCQs effectively in the IELTS Reading section.

Questions 23-26

Do the following statements agree with the information given in Reading Passage 74?

In boxes  23-26  on your answer sheet, write:

TRUE     if the statement agrees with the information     FALSE     if the statement contradicts the information     NOT GIVEN     if there is no information on this

23.  Several of the subjects were psychology students at Yale University.   24.  Some people may believe that the teacher-subjects’ behaviour could be explained as a positive survival mechanism. 25.  In a sociological explanation, personal values are more powerful than authority.   26.  Milgram’s experiment solves an important question in sociobiology. 

Enhance your skills in identifying information as True, False, or Not Given . Click here to discover expert strategies and techniques for mastering this question type in the IELTS Reading section.

14. F 15. A 16. B 17. D 18. I 19. C 20. B 21. D 22. C 23. NOT GIVEN 24. TRUE 25. FALSE 26. FALSE

We hope you found this post useful in helping you to study for the IELTS Test . If you have any questions please let us know in the comments below or on the Facebook page.

The best way to keep up to date with posts like this is to like us on Facebook , then follow us on Instagram and Pinterest . If you need help preparing for the IELTS Test, join the IELTS Achieve Academy and see how we can assist you to achieve your desired band score. We offer an essay correction service, mock exams and online courses.

Related Posts

Myths about public speaking Reading Ielts Answers and Questions

The Blog post contains the following IELTS Reading Questions: IELTS reading passage -Myths about public…

Cosmic black holes Reading Ielts Answers and Questions

The Blog post contains the following IELTS Reading Questions IELTS Reading Passage – Cosmic black holes…

• Type 2 Diabetes
• Heart Disease
• Digestive Health
• Multiple Sclerosis
• COVID-19 Vaccines
• Occupational Therapy
• Healthy Aging
• Health Insurance
• Public Health
• Patient Rights
• Caregivers & Loved Ones
• End of Life Concerns
• Health News
• Thyroid Test Analyzer
• Doctor Discussion Guides
• Hemoglobin A1c Test Analyzer
• Lipid Test Analyzer
• Complete Blood Count (CBC) Analyzer
• What to Buy
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Medical Expert Board

What Are Nature vs. Nurture Examples?

How is nature defined, how is nurture defined, the nature vs. nurture debate, nature vs. nurture examples, what is empiricism (extreme nurture position), contemporary views of nature vs. nurture.

Nature vs. nurture is an age-old debate about whether genetics (nature) plays a bigger role in determining a person's characteristics than lived experience and environmental factors (nurture). The term "nature vs. nature" was coined by English naturalist Charles Darwin's younger half-cousin, anthropologist Francis Galton, around 1875.

In psychology, the extreme nature position (nativism) proposes that intelligence and personality traits are inherited and determined only by genetics.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, the extreme nurture position (empiricism) asserts that the mind is a blank slate at birth; external factors like education and upbringing determine who someone becomes in adulthood and how their mind works. Both of these extreme positions have shortcomings and are antiquated.

This article explores the difference between nature and nurture. It gives nature vs. nurture examples and explains why outdated views of nativism and empiricism don't jibe with contemporary views. 

Thanasis Zovoilis / Getty Images

In the context of nature vs. nurture, "nature" refers to genetics and heritable factors that are passed down to children from their biological parents.

Genes and hereditary factors determine many aspects of someone’s physical appearance and other individual characteristics, such as a genetically inherited predisposition for certain personality traits.

Scientists estimate that 20% to 60% percent of temperament is determined by genetics and that many (possibly thousands) of common gene variations combine to influence individual characteristics of temperament.

However, the impact of gene-environment (or nature-nurture) interactions on someone's traits is interwoven. Environmental factors also play a role in temperament by influencing gene activity. For example, in children raised in an adverse environment (such as child abuse or violence), genes that increase the risk of impulsive temperamental characteristics may be activated (turned on).

Trying to measure "nature vs. nurture" scientifically is challenging. It's impossible to know precisely where the influence of genes and environment begin or end.

How Are Inherited Traits Measured?

“Heritability”   describes the influence that genes have on human characteristics and traits. It's measured on a scale of 0.0 to 1.0. Very strong heritable traits like someone's eye color are ranked a 1.0.

Traits that have nothing to do with genetics, like speaking with a regional accent ranks a zero. Most human characteristics score between a 0.30 and 0.60 on the heritability scale, which reflects a blend of genetics (nature) and environmental (nurture) factors.

Thousands of years ago, ancient Greek philosophers like Plato believed that "innate knowledge" is present in our minds at birth. Every parent knows that babies are born with innate characteristics. Anecdotally, it may seem like a kid's "Big 5" personality traits (agreeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, neuroticism, and openness) were predetermined before birth.

What is the "Big 5" personality traits

The Big 5 personality traits is a theory that describes the five basic dimensions of personality. It was developed in 1949 by D. W. Fiske and later expanded upon by other researchers and is used as a framework to study people's behavior.

From a "nature" perspective, the fact that every child has innate traits at birth supports Plato's philosophical ideas about innatism. However, personality isn't set in stone. Environmental "nurture" factors can change someone's predominant personality traits over time. For example, exposure to the chemical lead during childhood may alter personality.

In 2014, a meta-analysis of genetic and environmental influences on personality development across the human lifespan found that people change with age. Personality traits are relatively stable during early childhood but often change dramatically during adolescence and young adulthood.

It's impossible to know exactly how much "nurture" changes personality as people get older. In 2019, a study of how stable personality traits are from age 16 to 66 found that people's Big 5 traits are both stable and malleable (able to be molded). During the 50-year span from high school to retirement, some traits like agreeableness and conscientiousness tend to increase, while others appear to be set in stone.

Nurture refers to all of the external or environmental factors that affect human development such as how someone is raised, socioeconomic status, early childhood experiences, education, and daily habits.

Although the word "nurture" may conjure up images of babies and young children being cared for by loving parents, environmental factors and life experiences have an impact on our psychological and physical well-being across the human life span. In adulthood, "nurturing" oneself by making healthy lifestyle choices can offset certain genetic predispositions.

For example, a May 2022 study found that people with a high genetic risk of developing the brain disorder Alzheimer's disease can lower their odds of developing dementia (a group of symptoms that affect memory, thinking, and social abilities enough to affect daily life) by adopting these seven healthy habits in midlife:

• Staying active
• Healthy eating
• Losing weight
• Not smoking
• Reducing blood sugar
• Controlling cholesterol
• Maintaining healthy blood pressure

The nature vs. nurture debate centers around whether individual differences in behavioral traits and personality are caused primarily by nature or nurture. Early philosophers believed the genetic traits passed from parents to their children influence individual differences and traits. Other well-known philosophers believed the mind begins as a blank slate and that everything we are is determined by our experiences.

While early theories favored one factor over the other, experts today recognize there is a complex interaction between genetics and the environment and that both nature and nurture play a critical role in shaping who we are.

Eye color and skin pigmentation are examples of "nature" because they are present at birth and determined by inherited genes. Developmental delays due to toxins (such as exposure to lead as a child or exposure to drugs in utero) are examples of "nurture" because the environment can negatively impact learning and intelligence.

In Child Development

The nature vs. nurture debate in child development is apparent when studying language development. Nature theorists believe genetics plays a significant role in language development and that children are born with an instinctive ability that allows them to both learn and produce language.

Nurture theorists would argue that language develops by listening and imitating adults and other children.

In addition, nurture theorists believe people learn by observing the behavior of others. For example, contemporary psychologist Albert Bandura's social learning theory suggests that aggression is learned through observation and imitation.

In Psychology

In psychology, the nature vs. nurture beliefs vary depending on the branch of psychology.

• Biopsychology:  Researchers analyze how the brain, neurotransmitters, and other aspects of our biology influence our behaviors, thoughts, and feelings. emphasizing the role of nature.
• Social psychology: Researchers study how external factors such as peer pressure and social media influence behaviors, emphasizing the importance of nurture.
• Behaviorism: This theory of learning is based on the idea that our actions are shaped by our interactions with our environment.

In Personality Development

Whether nature or nurture plays a bigger role in personality development depends on different personality development theories.

• Behavioral theories: Our personality is a result of the interactions we have with our environment, such as parenting styles, cultural influences, and life experiences.
• Biological theories: Personality is mostly inherited which is demonstrated by a study in the 1990s that concluded identical twins reared apart tend to have more similar personalities than fraternal twins.
• Psychodynamic theories: Personality development involves both genetic predispositions and environmental factors and their interaction is complex.

In Mental Illness

Both nature and nurture can contribute to mental illness development.

For example, at least five mental health disorders are associated with some type of genetic component ( autism ,  attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) ,  bipolar disorder , major depression, and  schizophrenia ).

Other explanations for mental illness are environmental, such as:

• Being exposed to drugs or alcohol in utero 
• Witnessing a traumatic event, leading to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)
• Adverse life events and chronic stress during childhood

In Mental Health Therapy

Mental health treatment can involve both nature and nurture. For example, a therapist may explore life experiences that may have contributed to mental illness development (nurture) as well as family history of mental illness (nature).

At the same time, research indicates that a person's genetic makeup may impact how their body responds to antidepressants. Taking this into consideration is important for finding the right treatment for each individual.

 What Is Nativism (Extreme Nature Position)?

Innatism emphasizes nature's role in shaping our minds and personality traits before birth. Nativism takes this one step further and proposes that all of people's mental and physical characteristics are inherited and predetermined at birth.

In its extreme form, concepts of nativism gave way to the early 20th century's racially-biased eugenics movement. Thankfully, "selective breeding," which is the idea that only certain people should reproduce in order to create chosen characteristics in offspring, and eugenics, arranged breeding, lost momentum during World War II. At that time, the Nazis' ethnic cleansing (killing people based on their ethnic or religious associations) atrocities were exposed.

Philosopher John Locke's tabula rasa theory from 1689 directly opposes the idea that we are born with innate knowledge. "Tabula rasa" means "blank slate" and implies that our minds do not have innate knowledge at birth.

Locke was an empiricist who believed that all the knowledge we gain in life comes from sensory experiences (using their senses to understand the world), education, and day-to-day encounters after being born.

Today, looking at nature vs. nature in black-and-white terms is considered a misguided dichotomy (two-part system). There are so many shades of gray where nature and nurture overlap. It's impossible to tease out how inherited traits and learned behaviors shape someone's unique characteristics or influence how their mind works.

The influences of nature and nurture in psychology are impossible to unravel. For example, imagine someone growing up in a household with an alcoholic parent who has frequent rage attacks. If that child goes on to develop a substance use disorder and has trouble with emotion regulation in adulthood, it's impossible to know precisely how much genetics (nature) or adverse childhood experiences (nurture) affected that individual's personality traits or issues with alcoholism.

Epigenetics Blurs the Line Between Nature and Nurture

"Epigenetics " means "on top of" genetics. It refers to external factors and experiences that turn genes "on" or "off." Epigenetic mechanisms alter DNA's physical structure in utero (in the womb) and across the human lifespan.

Epigenetics blurs the line between nature and nurture because it says that even after birth, our genetic material isn't set in stone; environmental factors can modify genes during one's lifetime. For example, cannabis exposure during critical windows of development can increase someone's risk of neuropsychiatric disease via epigenetic mechanisms.

Nature vs. nurture is a framework used to examine how genetics (nature) and environmental factors (nurture) influence human development and personality traits.

However, nature vs. nurture isn't a black-and-white issue; there are many shades of gray where the influence of nature and nurture overlap. It's impossible to disentangle how nature and nurture overlap; they are inextricably intertwined. In most cases, nature and nurture combine to make us who we are. 

Waller JC. Commentary: the birth of the twin study--a commentary on francis galton’s “the history of twins.”   International Journal of Epidemiology . 2012;41(4):913-917. doi:10.1093/ije/dys100

The New York Times. " Major Personality Study Finds That Traits Are Mostly Inherited ."

Medline Plus. Is temperament determined by genetics?

Feldman MW, Ramachandran S. Missing compared to what? Revisiting heritability, genes and culture .  Phil Trans R Soc B . 2018;373(1743):20170064. doi:10.1098/rstb.2017.0064

Winch C. Innatism, concept formation, concept mastery and formal education: innatism, concept formation and formal education .  Journal of Philosophy of Education . 2015;49(4):539-556. doi:10.1111/1467-9752.12121

Briley DA, Tucker-Drob EM. Genetic and environmental continuity in personality development: A meta-analysis .  Psychological Bulletin . 2014;140(5):1303-1331. doi:10.1037/a0037091

Damian RI, Spengler M, Sutu A, Roberts BW. Sixteen going on sixty-six: A longitudinal study of personality stability and change across 50 years .  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology . 2019;117(3):674-695. doi:10.1037/pspp0000210

Tin A, Bressler J, Simino J, et al. Genetic risk, midlife life’s simple 7, and incident dementia in the atherosclerosis risk in communities study .  Neurology . Published online May 25, 2022. doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000200520 

Levitt M. Perceptions of nature, nurture and behaviour .  Life Sci Soc Policy . 2013;9(1):13. doi:10.1186/2195-7819-9-13

Ross EJ, Graham DL, Money KM, Stanwood GD. Developmental consequences of fetal exposure to drugs: what we know and what we still must learn . Neuropsychopharmacology. 2015 Jan;40(1):61-87. doi: 10.1038/npp.2014.14

World Health Organization. Lead poisoning .

Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models .  The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1961; 63 (3), 575–582 doi:10.1037/h0045925

Krapfl JE.  Behaviorism and society .  Behav Anal.  2016;39(1):123-9. doi:10.1007/s40614-016-0063-8

Bouchard TJ Jr, Lykken DT, McGue M, Segal NL, Tellegen A. Sources of human psychological differences: the Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart . Science. 1990 Oct 12;250(4978):223-8. doi: 10.1126/science.2218526

National Institutes of Health.  Common genetic factors found in 5 mental disorders .

Franke HA. Toxic Stress: Effects, Prevention and Treatment . Children (Basel). 2014 Nov 3;1(3):390-402. doi: 10.3390/children1030390

Pain O, Hodgson K, Trubetskoy V, et al.  Identifying the common genetic basis of antidepressant response .  Biol Psychiatry Global Open Sci . 2022;2(2):115-126. doi:10.1016/j.bpsgos.2021.07.008

National Human Genome Research Institute. Eugenics and Scientific Racism .

OLL. The Works of John Locke in Nine Volumes .

Toraño EG, García MG, Fernández-Morera JL, Niño-García P, Fernández AF. The impact of external factors on the epigenome:  in utero  and over lifetime .  BioMed Research International . 2016;2016:1-17. doi:10.1155/2016/2568635

Smith A, Kaufman F, Sandy MS, Cardenas A. Cannabis exposure during critical windows of development: epigenetic and molecular pathways implicated in neuropsychiatric disease .  Curr Envir Health Rpt . 2020;7(3):325-342. doi:10.1007/s40572-020-00275-4

By Christopher Bergland Bergland is a retired ultra-endurance athlete turned medical writer and science reporter. He is based in Massachusetts.

Nature vs. Nurture Debate In Psychology

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

The nature vs. nurture debate in psychology concerns the relative importance of an individual’s innate qualities (nature) versus personal experiences (nurture) in determining or causing individual differences in physical and behavioral traits. While early theories favored one factor over the other, contemporary views recognize a complex interplay between genes and environment in shaping behavior and development.

Key Takeaways

• Nature is what we think of as pre-wiring and is influenced by genetic inheritance and other biological factors.
• Nurture is generally taken as the influence of external factors after conception, e.g., the product of exposure, life experiences, and learning on an individual.
• Behavioral genetics has enabled psychology to quantify the relative contribution of nature and nurture concerning specific psychological traits.
• Instead of defending extreme nativist or nurturist views, most psychological researchers are now interested in investigating how nature and nurture interact in a host of qualitatively different ways.
• For example, epigenetics is an emerging area of research that shows how environmental influences affect the expression of genes.

The nature-nurture debate is concerned with the relative contribution that both influences make to human behavior, such as personality, cognitive traits, temperament and psychopathology.

Examples of Nature vs. Nurture

Nature vs. nurture in child development.

In child development, the nature vs. nurture debate is evident in the study of language acquisition . Researchers like Chomsky (1957) argue that humans are born with an innate capacity for language (nature), known as universal grammar, suggesting that genetics play a significant role in language development.

Conversely, the behaviorist perspective, exemplified by Skinner (1957), emphasizes the role of environmental reinforcement and learning (nurture) in language acquisition.

Twin studies have provided valuable insights into this debate, demonstrating that identical twins raised apart may share linguistic similarities despite different environments, suggesting a strong genetic influence (Bouchard, 1979)

However, environmental factors, such as exposure to language-rich environments, also play a crucial role in language development, highlighting the intricate interplay between nature and nurture in child development.

Nature vs. Nurture in Personality Development

The nature vs. nurture debate in personality psychology centers on the origins of personality traits. Twin studies have shown that identical twins reared apart tend to have more similar personalities than fraternal twins, indicating a genetic component to personality (Bouchard, 1994).

However, environmental factors, such as parenting styles, cultural influences, and life experiences, also shape personality.

For example, research by Caspi et al. (2003) demonstrated that a particular gene (MAOA) can interact with childhood maltreatment to increase the risk of aggressive behavior in adulthood.

This highlights that genetic predispositions and environmental factors contribute to personality development, and their interaction is complex and multifaceted.

Nature vs. Nurture in Mental Illness Development

The nature vs. nurture debate in mental health explores the etiology of depression. Genetic studies have identified specific genes associated with an increased vulnerability to depression, indicating a genetic component (Sullivan et al., 2000).

However, environmental factors, such as adverse life events and chronic stress during childhood, also play a significant role in the development of depressive disorders (Dube et al.., 2002; Keller et al., 2007)

The diathesis-stress model posits that individuals inherit a genetic predisposition (diathesis) to a disorder, which is then activated or exacerbated by environmental stressors (Monroe & Simons, 1991).

This model illustrates how nature and nurture interact to influence mental health outcomes.

Nature vs. Nurture of Intelligence

The nature vs. nurture debate in intelligence examines the relative contributions of genetic and environmental factors to cognitive abilities.

Intelligence is highly heritable, with about 50% of variance in IQ attributed to genetic factors, based on studies of twins, adoptees, and families (Plomin & Spinath, 2004).

Heritability of intelligence increases with age, from about 20% in infancy to as high as 80% in adulthood, suggesting amplifying effects of genes over time.

However, environmental influences, such as access to quality education and stimulating environments, also significantly impact intelligence.

Shared environmental influences like family background are more influential in childhood, whereas non-shared experiences are more important later in life.

Research by Flynn (1987) showed that average IQ scores have increased over generations, suggesting that environmental improvements, known as the Flynn effect , can lead to substantial gains in cognitive abilities.

Molecular genetics provides tools to identify specific genes and understand their pathways and interactions. However, progress has been slow for complex traits like intelligence. Identified genes have small effect sizes (Plomin & Spinath, 2004).

Overall, intelligence results from complex interplay between genes and environment over development. Molecular genetics offers promise to clarify these mechanisms. The nature vs nurture debate is outdated – both play key roles.

Nativism (Extreme Nature Position)

It has long been known that certain physical characteristics are biologically determined by genetic inheritance.

Color of eyes, straight or curly hair, pigmentation of the skin, and certain diseases (such as Huntingdon’s chorea) are all a function of the genes we inherit.

These facts have led many to speculate as to whether psychological characteristics such as behavioral tendencies, personality attributes, and mental abilities are also “wired in” before we are even born.

Those who adopt an extreme hereditary position are known as nativists.  Their basic assumption is that the characteristics of the human species as a whole are a product of evolution and that individual differences are due to each person’s unique genetic code.

In general, the earlier a particular ability appears, the more likely it is to be under the influence of genetic factors. Estimates of genetic influence are called heritability.

Examples of extreme nature positions in psychology include Chomsky (1965), who proposed language is gained through the use of an innate language acquisition device. Another example of nature is Freud’s theory of aggression as being an innate drive (called Thanatos).

Characteristics and differences that are not observable at birth, but which emerge later in life, are regarded as the product of maturation. That is to say, we all have an inner “biological clock” which switches on (or off) types of behavior in a pre-programmed way.

The classic example of the way this affects our physical development are the bodily changes that occur in early adolescence at puberty.

However, nativists also argue that maturation governs the emergence of attachment in infancy , language acquisition , and even cognitive development .

Empiricism (Extreme Nurture Position)

At the other end of the spectrum are the environmentalists – also known as empiricists (not to be confused with the other empirical/scientific  approach ).

Their basic assumption is that at birth, the human mind is a tabula rasa (a blank slate) and that this is gradually “filled” as a result of experience (e.g., behaviorism ).

From this point of view, psychological characteristics and behavioral differences that emerge through infancy and childhood are the results of learning.  It is how you are brought up (nurture) that governs the psychologically significant aspects of child development and the concept of maturation applies only to the biological.

For example, Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory states that aggression is learned from the environment through observation and imitation. This is seen in his famous bobo doll experiment (Bandura, 1961).

Also, Skinner (1957) believed that language is learned from other people via behavior-shaping techniques.

Evidence for Nature

• Biological Approach
• Biology of Gender
• Medical Model

Freud (1905) stated that events in our childhood have a great influence on our adult lives, shaping our personality.

He thought that parenting is of primary importance to a child’s development , and the family as the most important feature of nurture was a common theme throughout twentieth-century psychology (which was dominated by environmentalists’ theories).

Behavioral Genetics

Researchers in the field of behavioral genetics study variation in behavior as it is affected by genes, which are the units of heredity passed down from parents to offspring.

“We now know that DNA differences are the major systematic source of psychological differences between us. Environmental effects are important but what we have learned in recent years is that they are mostly random – unsystematic and unstable – which means that we cannot do much about them.” Plomin (2018, xii)

Behavioral genetics has enabled psychology to quantify the relative contribution of nature and nurture with regard to specific psychological traits. One way to do this is to study relatives who share the same genes (nature) but a different environment (nurture). Adoption acts as a natural experiment which allows researchers to do this.

Empirical studies have consistently shown that adoptive children show greater resemblance to their biological parents, rather than their adoptive, or environmental parents (Plomin & DeFries, 1983; 1985).

Another way of studying heredity is by comparing the behavior of twins, who can either be identical (sharing the same genes) or non-identical (sharing 50% of genes). Like adoption studies, twin studies support the first rule of behavior genetics; that psychological traits are extremely heritable, about 50% on average.

The Twins in Early Development Study (TEDS) revealed correlations between twins on a range of behavioral traits, such as personality (empathy and hyperactivity) and components of reading such as phonetics (Haworth, Davis, Plomin, 2013; Oliver & Plomin, 2007; Trouton, Spinath, & Plomin, 2002).

Implications

Jenson (1969) found that the average I.Q. scores of black Americans were significantly lower than whites he went on to argue that genetic factors were mainly responsible – even going so far as to suggest that intelligence is 80% inherited.

The storm of controversy that developed around Jenson’s claims was not mainly due to logical and empirical weaknesses in his argument. It was more to do with the social and political implications that are often drawn from research that claims to demonstrate natural inequalities between social groups.

For many environmentalists, there is a barely disguised right-wing agenda behind the work of the behavioral geneticists.  In their view, part of the difference in the I.Q. scores of different ethnic groups are due to inbuilt biases in the methods of testing.

More fundamentally, they believe that differences in intellectual ability are a product of social inequalities in access to material resources and opportunities.  To put it simply children brought up in the ghetto tend to score lower on tests because they are denied the same life chances as more privileged members of society.

Now we can see why the nature-nurture debate has become such a hotly contested issue.  What begins as an attempt to understand the causes of behavioral differences often develops into a politically motivated dispute about distributive justice and power in society.

What’s more, this doesn’t only apply to the debate over I.Q.  It is equally relevant to the psychology of sex and gender , where the question of how much of the (alleged) differences in male and female behavior is due to biology and how much to culture is just as controversial.

Polygenic Inheritance

Rather than the presence or absence of single genes being the determining factor that accounts for psychological traits, behavioral genetics has demonstrated that multiple genes – often thousands, collectively contribute to specific behaviors.

Thus, psychological traits follow a polygenic mode of inheritance (as opposed to being determined by a single gene). Depression is a good example of a polygenic trait, which is thought to be influenced by around 1000 genes (Plomin, 2018).

This means a person with a lower number of these genes (under 500) would have a lower risk of experiencing depression than someone with a higher number.

The Nature of Nurture

Nurture assumes that correlations between environmental factors and psychological outcomes are caused environmentally. For example, how much parents read with their children and how well children learn to read appear to be related. Other examples include environmental stress and its effect on depression.

However, behavioral genetics argues that what look like environmental effects are to a large extent really a reflection of genetic differences (Plomin & Bergeman, 1991).

People select, modify and create environments correlated with their genetic disposition. This means that what sometimes appears to be an environmental influence (nurture) is a genetic influence (nature).

So, children that are genetically predisposed to be competent readers, will be happy to listen to their parents read them stories, and be more likely to encourage this interaction.

Interaction Effects

However, in recent years there has been a growing realization that the question of “how much” behavior is due to heredity and “how much” to the environment may itself be the wrong question.

Take intelligence as an example. Like almost all types of human behavior, it is a complex, many-sided phenomenon which reveals itself (or not!) in a great variety of ways.

The “how much” question assumes that psychological traits can all be expressed numerically and that the issue can be resolved in a quantitative manner.

Heritability statistics revealed by behavioral genetic studies have been criticized as meaningless, mainly because biologists have established that genes cannot influence development independently of environmental factors; genetic and nongenetic factors always cooperate to build traits. The reality is that nature and culture interact in a host of qualitatively different ways (Gottlieb, 2007; Johnston & Edwards, 2002).

Instead of defending extreme nativist or nurturist views, most psychological researchers are now interested in investigating how nature and nurture interact.

For example, in psychopathology , this means that both a genetic predisposition and an appropriate environmental trigger are required for a mental disorder to develop. For example, epigenetics state that environmental influences affect the expression of genes.

What is Epigenetics?

Epigenetics is the term used to describe inheritance by mechanisms other than through the DNA sequence of genes. For example, features of a person’s physical and social environment can effect which genes are switched-on, or “expressed”, rather than the DNA sequence of the genes themselves.

Stressors and memories can be passed through small RNA molecules to multiple generations of offspring in ways that meaningfully affect their behavior.

One such example is what is known as the Dutch Hunger Winter, during last year of the Second World War. What they found was that children who were in the womb during the famine experienced a life-long increase in their chances of developing various health problems compared to children conceived after the famine.

Epigenetic effects can sometimes be passed from one generation to the next, although the effects only seem to last for a few generations. There is some evidence that the effects of the Dutch Hunger Winter affected grandchildren of women who were pregnant during the famine.

Therefore, it makes more sense to say that the difference between two people’s behavior is mostly due to hereditary factors or mostly due to environmental factors.

This realization is especially important given the recent advances in genetics, such as polygenic testing.  The Human Genome Project, for example, has stimulated enormous interest in tracing types of behavior to particular strands of DNA located on specific chromosomes.

If these advances are not to be abused, then there will need to be a more general understanding of the fact that biology interacts with both the cultural context and the personal choices that people make about how they want to live their lives.

There is no neat and simple way of unraveling these qualitatively different and reciprocal influences on human behavior.

Epigenetics: Licking Rat Pups

Michael Meaney and his colleagues at McGill University in Montreal, Canada conducted the landmark epigenetic study on mother rats licking and grooming their pups.

This research found that the amount of licking and grooming received by rat pups during their early life could alter their epigenetic marks and influence their stress responses in adulthood.

Pups that received high levels of maternal care (i.e., more licking and grooming) had a reduced stress response compared to those that received low levels of maternal care.

Meaney’s work with rat maternal behavior and its epigenetic effects has provided significant insights into the understanding of early-life experiences, gene expression, and adult behavior.

It underscores the importance of the early-life environment and its long-term impacts on an individual’s mental health and stress resilience.

Epigenetics: The Agouti Mouse Study

Waterland and Jirtle’s 2003 study on the Agouti mouse is another foundational work in the field of epigenetics that demonstrated how nutritional factors during early development can result in epigenetic changes that have long-lasting effects on phenotype.

In this study, they focused on a specific gene in mice called the Agouti viable yellow (A^vy) gene. Mice with this gene can express a range of coat colors, from yellow to mottled to brown.

This variation in coat color is related to the methylation status of the A^vy gene: higher methylation is associated with the brown coat, and lower methylation with the yellow coat.

Importantly, the coat color is also associated with health outcomes, with yellow mice being more prone to obesity, diabetes, and tumorigenesis compared to brown mice.

Waterland and Jirtle set out to investigate whether maternal diet, specifically supplementation with methyl donors like folic acid, choline, betaine, and vitamin B12, during pregnancy could influence the methylation status of the A^vy gene in offspring.

Key findings from the study include:

Dietary Influence : When pregnant mice were fed a diet supplemented with methyl donors, their offspring had an increased likelihood of having the brown coat color. This indicated that the supplemented diet led to an increased methylation of the A^vy gene.

Health Outcomes : Along with the coat color change, these mice also had reduced risks of obesity and other health issues associated with the yellow phenotype.

Transgenerational Effects : The study showed that nutritional interventions could have effects that extend beyond the individual, affecting the phenotype of the offspring.

The implications of this research are profound. It highlights how maternal nutrition during critical developmental periods can have lasting effects on offspring through epigenetic modifications, potentially affecting health outcomes much later in life.

The study also offers insights into how dietary and environmental factors might contribute to disease susceptibility in humans.

Bandura, A. Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1961). Transmission of aggression through the imitation of aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 63, 575-582

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bouchard, T. J. (1994). Genes, Environment, and Personality. Science, 264 (5166), 1700-1701.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment. Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Loss . New York: Basic Books.

Caspi, A., Sugden, K., Moffitt, T. E., Taylor, A., Craig, I. W., Harrington, H., … & Poulton, R. (2003). Influence of life stress on depression: moderation by a polymorphism in the 5-HTT gene.  Science ,  301 (5631), 386-389.

Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. Mouton de Gruyter.

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax . MIT Press.

Dube, S. R., Anda, R. F., Felitti, V. J., Edwards, V. J., & Croft, J. B. (2002). Adverse childhood experiences and personal alcohol abuse as an adult.  Addictive Behaviors ,  27 (5), 713-725.

Flynn, J. R. (1987). Massive IQ gains in 14 nations: What IQ tests really measure.  Psychological Bulletin ,  101 (2), 171.

Freud, S. (1905). Three essays on the theory of sexuality . Se, 7.

Galton, F. (1883). Inquiries into human faculty and its development . London: J.M. Dent & Co.

Gottlieb, G. (2007). Probabilistic epigenesis.   Developmental Science, 10 , 1–11.

Haworth, C. M., Davis, O. S., & Plomin, R. (2013). Twins Early Development Study (TEDS): a genetically sensitive investigation of cognitive and behavioral development from childhood to young adulthood . Twin Research and Human Genetics, 16(1) , 117-125.

Jensen, A. R. (1969). How much can we boost I.Q. and scholastic achievement? Harvard Educational Review, 33 , 1-123.

Johnston, T. D., & Edwards, L. (2002). Genes, interactions, and the development of behavior . Psychological Review , 109, 26–34.

Keller, M. C., Neale, M. C., & Kendler, K. S. (2007). Association of different adverse life events with distinct patterns of depressive symptoms.  American Journal of Psychiatry ,  164 (10), 1521-1529.

Monroe, S. M., & Simons, A. D. (1991). Diathesis-stress theories in the context of life stress research: implications for the depressive disorders.  Psychological Bulletin ,  110 (3), 406.

Oliver, B. R., & Plomin, R. (2007). Twins” Early Development Study (TEDS): A multivariate, longitudinal genetic investigation of language, cognition and behavior problems from childhood through adolescence . Twin Research and Human Genetics, 10(1) , 96-105.

Petrill, S. A., Plomin, R., Berg, S., Johansson, B., Pedersen, N. L., Ahern, F., & McClearn, G. E. (1998). The genetic and environmental relationship between general and specific cognitive abilities in twins age 80 and older.  Psychological Science ,  9 (3), 183-189.

Plomin, R., & Petrill, S. A. (1997). Genetics and intelligence: What’s new?.  Intelligence ,  24 (1), 53-77.

Plomin, R. (2018). Blueprint: How DNA makes us who we are . MIT Press.

Plomin, R., & Bergeman, C. S. (1991). The nature of nurture: Genetic influence on “environmental” measures. behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14(3) , 373-386.

Plomin, R., & DeFries, J. C. (1983). The Colorado adoption project. Child Development , 276-289.

Plomin, R., & DeFries, J. C. (1985). The origins of individual differences in infancy; the Colorado adoption project. Science, 230 , 1369-1371.

Plomin, R., & Spinath, F. M. (2004). Intelligence: genetics, genes, and genomics.  Journal of personality and social psychology ,  86 (1), 112.

Plomin, R., & Von Stumm, S. (2018). The new genetics of intelligence.  Nature Reviews Genetics ,  19 (3), 148-159.

Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior . Acton, MA: Copley Publishing Group.

Sullivan, P. F., Neale, M. C., & Kendler, K. S. (2000). Genetic epidemiology of major depression: review and meta-analysis.  American Journal of Psychiatry ,  157 (10), 1552-1562.

Szyf, M., Weaver, I. C., Champagne, F. A., Diorio, J., & Meaney, M. J. (2005). Maternal programming of steroid receptor expression and phenotype through DNA methylation in the rat .  Frontiers in neuroendocrinology ,  26 (3-4), 139-162.

Trouton, A., Spinath, F. M., & Plomin, R. (2002). Twins early development study (TEDS): a multivariate, longitudinal genetic investigation of language, cognition and behavior problems in childhood . Twin Research and Human Genetics, 5(5) , 444-448.

Waterland, R. A., & Jirtle, R. L. (2003). Transposable elements: targets for early nutritional effects on epigenetic gene regulation . Molecular and cellular biology, 23 (15), 5293-5300.

Further Information

• Genetic & Environmental Influences on Human Psychological Differences

Evidence for Nurture

• Classical Conditioning
• Little Albert Experiment
• Operant Conditioning
• Behaviorism
• Social Learning Theory
• Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory
• Social Roles
• Attachment Styles
• The Hidden Links Between Mental Disorders
• Visual Cliff Experiment
• Behavioral Genetics, Genetics, and Epigenetics
• Epigenetics
• Is Epigenetics Inherited?
• Physiological Psychology
• Bowlby’s Maternal Deprivation Hypothesis
• So is it nature not nurture after all?

Evidence for an Interaction

• Genes, Interactions, and the Development of Behavior
• Agouti Mouse Study
• Biological Psychology

What does nature refer to in the nature vs. nurture debate?

In the nature vs. nurture debate, “nature” refers to the influence of genetics, innate qualities, and biological factors on human development, behavior, and traits. It emphasizes the role of hereditary factors in shaping who we are.

What does nurture refer to in the nature vs. nurture debate?

In the nature vs. nurture debate, “nurture” refers to the influence of the environment, upbringing, experiences, and social factors on human development, behavior, and traits. It emphasizes the role of external factors in shaping who we are.

Why is it important to determine the contribution of heredity (nature) and environment (nurture) in human development?

Determining the contribution of heredity and environment in human development is crucial for understanding the complex interplay between genetic factors and environmental influences. It helps identify the relative significance of each factor, informing interventions, policies, and strategies to optimize human potential and address developmental challenges.

IELTS Academic Reading: Cambridge 5 Test 1 Reading passage 2; Nature or Nurture?; with best solutions and best explanations

This Academic IELTS Reading post focuses on solutions to  IELTS Cambridge 5 Reading Test 1 Reading Passage 2 entitled ‘ Nature or Nurture’ . This is an aimed post for IELTS candidates who have great problems finding out and understanding Reading Answers in the AC module. This post can guide you the best to understand every Reading answer quite easily. Finding out IELTS Reading answers is a gradual process, and this post will assist you in this respect.

IELTS Cambridge 5 Test 1: AC Reading Module

Reading Passage 2: Questions 14-26

The headline of the passage: Nature or Nurture?

Questions 14-19: Identifying information

[This question asks you to find information from the passage and write the number of the paragraph (A, B, C or D … .. ) in the answer sheet. Now, if the question is given in the very first part of the question set, I’d request you not to answer them. It’s mainly because this question will not follow any sequence, and so it will surely kill your time. Rather, you should answer all the other questions first. And just like List of Headings, only read the first two lines or last two lines of the expected paragraph initially. If you find the answers, you need not read the middle part. If you don’t find answers yet, you can skim the middle part of the paragraph. Keywords will be a useful matter here.]

Question no. 14: a biological explanation of the teacher-subjects’ behaviour

Keywords for the question: biological explanation, teacher-subjects’ behaviour,  

At the beginning of paragraph F, the writer provides a biological explanation of the behaviour displayed by the teacher-subjects, “One’s first inclination might be to argue that there must be some sort of built-in animal aggression instinct  that was activated by the experiment, and that Milgram’s teacher- subjects were just following a genetic need to discharge this pent-up primal urge onto the pupil by administering the electrical shock. .. ..”

Here, some sort of built-in animal aggression instinct  & teacher- subjects were just following a genetic need = biological explanation about the teacher-subjects’ behaviour,

So, the answer is: F

Question no. 15: the explanation Milgram gave the teacher-subjects for the experiment

Keywords for the question: explanation, Milgram gave, teacher-subjects, for, experiment,  

The last half of paragraph A gives us the answer, “. .. .. .  Specifically, Milgram told each volunteer ‘teacher-subject’ that the experiment was in the noble cause of education, and was designed to test whether or not punishing pupils for their mistakes would have a positive effect on the pupils’ ability to learn.”

Here, Milgram told each volunteer ‘teacher-subject’ = the explanation Milgram gave the teacher-subjects,

So, the answer is: A

Question no. 16: the identity of the pupils

Keywords for the question: identity, pupils,

In paragraph B, we can find the identity of the pupils in line no. 6, “ . .. . The supposed ‘ pupil ‘ was in reality an actor hired by Milgram . . .. .”

Here, an actor = the identity of the pupils,  

So, the answer is: B

Question no. 17: the expected statistical outcome

Keywords for the question: expected, statistical outcome,

The answer can be found in paragraph D. Take a close look at the last half of the paragraph, “ . .. . . The overwhelming consensus was that virtually all the teacher-subjects would refuse to obey the experimenter . The psychiatrists felt that ‘most subjects would not go beyond 150 volts’ and they further anticipated that only four per cent would go up to 300 volts. Furthermore, they thought that only a lunatic fringe of about one in 1.000 would give the highest shock of 450 volts.”

Here, consensus = expected statistical outcome,

Then the writer provides some figures about what people would do regarding providing electric shocks to test subjects.

So, the answer is: D

Question no. 18: the general aim of sociobiological study

Keywords for the question: general aim, sociobiological study,

The last few lines of paragraph I provides the answer, “ . .. Put another way, sociobiology is concerned with elucidating the biological basis of all behaviour .”

Here, is concerned with = general aim,

So, the answer is: I

Question no. 19: the way Milgram persuaded the teacher-subjects to continue

Keywords for the question: way, Milgram, persuaded, teacher-subjects, continue,  

The answer lies in paragraph C. The writer says in lines 3-7, “ . .. .. . Many of the teacher-subjects balked at administering the higher levels of punishment, and turned to Milgram with questioning locks and/or complaints about continuing the experiment. In these situations, Milgram calmly explained that the teacher-subject was to ignore the pupil’s cries for mercy and carry on with the experiment. .. .. .”

Here, Milgram calmly explained = Milgram persuaded the teacher-subjects calmly,

So, the answer is: C

Questions 20-22: Multiple choice questions

[This type of question asks you to choose a suitable answer from the options using the knowledge you gained from the passage. Generally, this question is found as the last question so you should not worry much about it. Finding all the answers for previous questions gives you a good idea about the title.]

Question no. 20: The teacher-subjects were told that they were testing whether –

Keywords for the question: teacher-subjects, were told, testing whether,

We can find the answer in lines 5-7 of paragraph A, “ . .. .. Milgram told each volunteer ‘teacher-subject’ that the experiment was in the noble cause of education, and was designed to test whether or not punishing pupils for their mistakes would have a positive effect on the pupils’ ability to learn .”

Here, punishing pupils for their mistakes = punishment, positive effect = helps, ability to learn = learning,

So, the answer is: B (punishment helps learning.)

Question no. 21: The teacher-subjects were instructed to –

Keywords for the question: teacher-subjects, were instructed,

The answer can be found in the last lines of paragraph B, “ . .. . Milgram told the teacher-subject to ignore the reactions of the pupil, and to administer whatever level of shock was called for , as per the rule governing the experimental situation of the moment.”

Here, to administer whatever level of shock was called for = give punishment, as per the rule = according to a rule,

So, the answer is: D (give punishment according to a rule.)

Question no. 22: Before the experiment took place the psychiatrists –

Keywords for the question: before, experiment took place, psychiatrists,

To find the answer to this question we have to look at two paragraphs. First, take a look at paragraph D where we find the mention of psychiatrists, “Prior to carrying out the experiment, Milgram explained his idea to a group of 39 psychiatrists and asked them to predict the average percentage of people in an ordinary population who would be willing to administer the highest shock level of 450 volts. The overwhelming consensus was that virtually all the teacher-subjects would refuse to obey the experimenter. . .. . .”

These lines suggest that the psychiatrists predicted that no teacher-subjects were willing to obey the experimenter.

However, in the following paragraph (paragraph E), the writer says at the beginning, “What were the actual results? Well, over 60 per cent of the teacher-subjects continued to obey Milgram up to the 450-volt limit! . .. .”

These lines suggest that a big number of the teacher-subjects actually continued to obey the experimenter (Milgram).

This means the psychiatrists underestimated the teacher-subjects’ willingness to comply with experimental procedure.

So, the answer is: C (underestimated the teacher-subjects’ willingness to comply with experimental procedure.)

Questions 23-26: TRUE, FALSE, NOT GIVEN

[In this type of question, candidates are asked to find out whether:

The statement in the question agrees with the information in the passage – TRUE The statement in the question contradicts with the information in the passage – FALSE If there is no information on this – NOT GIVEN

For this type of question, you can divide each statement into three independent pieces and make your way through with the answer.]

Question no. 23: Several of the subjects were psychology students at Yale University.

Keywords for the question: several, subjects, psychology students, Yale University,   

In paragraph A, the writer talks about the teacher-subjects in lines 5-6, “ . .. Specifically, Milgram told each volunteer ‘teacher-subject’ that the experiment was in the noble cause of education, . .. . .”

Here, we have no clue about the identity of the teacher-subjects.  

So, the answer is: NOT GIVEN

Question no. 24: Some people may believe that the teacher-subjects’ behaviour could be explained as a positive survival mechanism.

Keywords for the question: some people, may believe, teacher-subjects’ behaviour, could be explained, as, positive, survival mechanism,

To find the answer to this question, we have to travel all the way to paragraph F where we find about a claim made by someone, “ . .. . A modern hard-core sociobiologist might even go so far as to claim that this aggressive instinct evolved as an advantageous trait , having been of survival value to our ancestors in their struggle against the hardships of life on the plains and in the caves, ultimately finding its way into our genetic make-up as a remnant of our ancient animal ways.”

Here, aggressive instinct = teacher-subjects’ behaviour, an advantageous trait = a positive survival mechanism,

So, the answer is: TRUE

Question no. 25: In a sociological explanation, personal values are more powerful than authority.

Keywords for the question: sociological explanation, personal values, more powerful, than authority,

Have a close look at these lines from paragraph H, “Thus, in this explanation the subject  merges his unique personality and personal and moral code with that of larger institutional structures, surrendering individual properties like loyalty, self-sacrifice and discipline to the service of malevolent systems of authority .”

Here, merges = as equal as, unique personality and personal and moral code = personal values,

So, the answer is: FALSE

Question no. 26: Milgram’s experiment solves an important question in sociobiology.

Keywords for the question: Milgram’s experiment, solves, important question, sociobiology,    

The answer can be found in paragraph I in the first few lines, “Here we have two radically different explanations for why so many teacher-subjects were willing to forgo their sense of personal responsibility for the sake of an institutional authority figure. The problem for biologists, psychologists and anthropologists is to sort out which of these two polar explanations is more plausible . . .. ..”

This means biologists, psychologists and anthropologists are not sure about which explanation is more plausible or reasonable.

So, Milgram’s experiment did not solve the question in sociobiology.

Click here for solutions to Cambridge 5 AC Test 1 Reading Passage 1

Click here for solutions to Cambridge 5 AC Test 1 Reading Passage 3

One thought on “ IELTS Academic Reading: Cambridge 5 Test 1 Reading passage 2; Nature or Nurture?; with best solutions and best explanations ”

• Pingback: IELTS Academic Reading: Cambridge 5 Test 1 Reading passage 1; Johnson's Dictionary; with best solutions and best explanations | IELTS Deal

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Academic IELTS Reading: Test 2 Passage 1; The Dead Sea Scrolls; with top solutions and best explanations

This Academic IELTS Reading post focuses on solutions to an IELTS Reading Test 2 passage 1 that has a passage titled ‘The Dead Sea Scrolls’. This is a targeted post for Academic IELTS candidates who have major problems locating and understanding Reading Answers in the AC module. This post can guide you the best to understand […]

Academic IELTS Reading: Test 1 Reading passage 3; To catch a king; with best solutions and explanations

This Academic IELTS Reading post focuses on solutions to an IELTS Reading Test 1 Reading Passage 3 titled ‘To catch a king’. This is a targeted post for IELTS candidates who have great problems finding out and understanding Reading Answers in the AC module. This post can guide you the best to understand every Reading answer […]

80 Nature vs Nurture Essay Topics & Examples

Have some suggestions and questions about nature vs nurture? On this page, find research and essay topics to explore a particular aspect of the discussion.

📑 Aspects to Cover in a Nature vs Nurture Essay

🏆 best nature vs nurture essay topics & essay examples, 📌 most interesting nurture vs nature topics to write about, 👍 good nature vs nurture topics, ❓ questions about nature vs nurture.

What affects human development: nature or nurture? Are gender roles and differences come naturally, or does society impose them? What can be argued about the personalities of identical twins? Explore any of the issues with us! Our IvyPnada team has prepared nurture vs nature topics to write about. Check essay examples via the links as well.

At first glance, a nature vs nurture essay seems to be easy. However, a limited view of the subject matter may cost you marks, which is why it is crucial to offer a well-rounded account of the debate. Here are some of the aspects that you might want to include in your essay on nature vs nurture.

• The importance of the topic. The debate on what influences one’s personality, intelligence, and character is among the most prominent ones in psychology and other social sciences. Your task is to reflect this and to attempt to justify why the debate is so important. What could be done if it were resolved one day? How does the dispute affect other subject fields and topics in psychology? How would the resolution help the study of psychology and human behavior to move forward? Would it help to prove certain theories or refute the others, and what would be the effect on professional practice?
• The origins of the debate. While you explore the first aspect, you might stumble upon the history of the nature vs nurture debate. Covering this theme in your essay could also earn you some extra marks. Merely summarizing historical facts is not enough, though, because your tutor is probably aware of them already. Instead, you should focus on why the debate started. Were there any developments in psychology that prompted it?
• Prominent views. It is hard to omit the opinions expressed by famous scholars while writing an essay on this subject. John Locke, John B. Watson, Calvin Hall, and other authors had all shared ideas on the issue. If you need more names, try searching sample essays on nature and nurture online since most of them point out the key names. This might also help you to identify possible nature vs nurture essay titles.
• Results of research studies. Research evidence is among the key nature vs nurture essay topics because there were many attempts to prove one or the other view. Examples of such studies may be cited in your textbook, so it should be the first point of your research. Your school’s library and Google Scholar might also give you more information. If you find any sources online, make sure that they are of academic quality, or you might lose marks.
• Your personal experience and thoughts. Because the controversy is so prominent, nearly all people who study psychology or social studies have an opinion on it. If the instructions don’t prevent you from doing this, you should share your thoughts on the debate between nature and nurture. Support your opinion with credible research evidence and link it to the work of other scholars. If you believe that the environment is more important than genes, why is that? What other theorists supported this view, and why did they? Your opinion, supported by relevant facts and views, may become an excellent nature vs nurture essay thesis.
• Suggestions for further research. Try to think about what could be done to resolve the debate once and for all. What are the main gaps in studies on nature vs nurture and how could they be addressed by scholars?

Covering all of the themes above will help you to produce an outstanding essay. Make sure to check our website for a nature vs nurture essay prompt, titles, and other useful materials!

• Nature vs. Nurture In most cases, nature determines the physical characteristics which in effect influence the behavior of an individual. These are traits which largely determined by the socio-cultural environmental factors or the way the individuals are socialized […]
• Human Development: Nature or Nurture? With studies and theories carried out to examine the impact of nature on the personal development and personality traits, heredity is an important factor in the development.
• As Nature Made Him: Summary and Analysis As aforementioned, the author of this book provides useful analysis of this aspect of personality. One of the greatest questions that readers get answer from this book is the question of nature vs.nurture in sexuality […]
• Nature vs. Nurture: “In Cold Blood” by Truman Capote Thus, by contrasting Dick’s nurturing in love and affection and the conditions of his blissful childhood and adolescence with the details of a horrible crime committed by him and his attitude to it, the author […]
• Physical and Mental Wellbeing: Nature Versus Nurture In conclusion, the debates on nature versus nurture reveal that both innate health conditions and external factors shape the outcomes for physical and mental wellbeing of an individual.
• Nature Versus Nurture and Learning Among Children Of much concern among modern researchers is the determination of the degree of influence of nature and nurture on the development of a child and the provision of learning experiences.
• Violent Behavior: Nature vs. Nurture Considering this circumstance, the shifts in one’s attitudes are likely to be ascribed to the modifications in conditions, which can be reported by families with children.
• “Nature” Versus “Nurture”: Effects on Child Development Consequently, a child’s behavior cannot be viewed as solely attributable to the genetic composition of the parents and the hereditary characteristics.
• Nature vs. Nurture: New Science Stirs Debate How Behavior Is Shaped A prime example of this nature of debates is the debate on whether nature or nurture has a greater bearing on the development of the diverse individual behavioral differences that exist.
• Alcoholism-Nature vs. Nurture Debate The analysis on physiological physiology regarding alcohol shows that, alcohol displays feelings of superiority and fearless behavior and also, it reduces an individual’s fear.
• The Relationship Between Nature and Nurture on the Intelligence
• The Controversies Surrounding the Topic of Nature Versus Nurture
• The Nurture Side of the Dichotomy Nature Versus Nurture
• The Formula For Fruition: The Age Old Debate of Nature Versus Nurture by Kendra Cherry
• The Meaning of Nature and Nurture in Psychology
• The Role of Nature vs. Nurture in Violent Behavior
• Influence of Nature Versus Nurture on Child Development
• The Role of Nature and Nurture: Adolescence Eating Disorders
• The Nature vs. Nurture Debate in Learning More About Alcoholism
• The Psychological Argument Between Nature vs. Nurture
• The Role of Nature and Nurture in Human Development
• The Influence of Nature Versus Nurture on an Individual Human Behavior
• Use of Nature and Nurture Based Studies on Epigenetics
• The Impact of Nature and Nurture on Huck’s and Finn’s Personality and Behavior in the Adventure of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
• The Correlation Between Nature and Nurture in the Personal Development
• Role of Nature and Nurture in Language Development
• Personality, Behavior, and the Significance of Nature vs. Nurture
• The Disputes Concerning the Popular Nature vs. Nurture Argument
• Understanding the Role of Nature Versus Nurture in Alcohol Addiction
• Wild Child vs. Nature and Nurture
• The Importance of Nature Verses Nurture in Shaping Behavior and Personality
• The Differences Between Boys and Girls from Combination Between Nature and Nurture
• The Role of Nature and Nurture in Human Homosexuality
• The Nature Versus Nurture Debate in the Blasphemy of Talking Politics During Bach Year, an Article by Susan McClary
• What Roles Do Nature and Nurture Play on Children’s
• What Differentiates the Entrepreneurs From Non-Entrepreneurs on Nature and Nurture
• The Source of Violence: Nature vs. Nurture
• Gender and Socialization: Nature or Nurture
• How Nature and Nurture Affects the Pies in Adolescence and Adulthood
• The Debate Between Criminal Nature and Criminal Nurture: William Sheldon Theory
• The Nurture and Care From Nature and the Damage Caused by Humans to Our Environment
• The Evolutionary Theory of Nature vs. Nurture
• The Personality and Biology Differences in Nature Versus Nurture and Man Versus Woman Situations in Daily Life
• The Importance of Twin Studies in the Nature Versus Nurture Debate
• The Scientific and Cultural Debate of Nature vs. Nurture
• The Issue of Nature Versus Nurture in the Development of Serial Killers
• The Role of Nature vs. Nurture, Culture and Gender, and Family
• What Makes a Monster Nature vs. Nurture in Mary Shelleys Frankenstein
• The Theme of Nature Versus Nurture in Shelly’s Frankenstein
• The Psychology Field of Study About Nature and Nurture
• How Children Develop and the Interplay of Nature vs. Nurture?
• How Nature vs. Nurture Affect Human Development?
• Homosexuality: Nature vs. Nurture?
• How Do Nature vs. Nurture Work Together Example?
• How Does Nature vs. Nurture Affect Human Behavior?
• Why Is Nature vs. Nurture Called a False Debate?
• Nature vs. Nurture: Do Our Genes Affect Our Personalities?
• Nature vs. Nurture: Which Has a More Significant Influence on Child Development?
• How Do You Argue Nature vs. Nurture?
• Nature vs. Nurture: Who’s to Blame for Acts of Violence?
• How Does Nature vs. Nurture Affect Intelligence?
• Nature vs. Nurture: Which Is the Origin of Virtue?
• How Does Shelley Represent the Nature vs. Nurture Debate?
• Nature vs. Nurture: Which Determines Personality?
• What Are Examples of Nature vs. Nurture?
• Nature vs. Nurture: What Does Matter More?
• What Is Stronger Nurture vs. Nature?
• Why Nurture Is Better Than Nature?
• How Does the Nature vs. Nurture Debate in May Affect the Physical?
• What Is Nature vs. Nurture in Child Development?
• How Nature vs. Nurture Influence Substance Abuse?
• Twin Studies: What Can They Tell Us About Nature vs. Nurture?
• How Does Nature vs. Nurture Affect the Development of Social-Emotion Attributes?
• Who Won Nature vs. Nurture?
• How Nature vs. Nurture Apply the Principles of Life?
• What Is the Difference Between Nature vs. Nurture in Child Development?
• What Is the Main Idea of Nature vs. Nurture?
• Is Nature vs. Nurture Misleading?
• Nature vs. Nurture: What Impacts a Child’s IQ?
• How Does Nature vs. Nurture Affect Human Development?
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, March 2). 80 Nature vs Nurture Essay Topics & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/nature-vs-nurture-essay-examples/

"80 Nature vs Nurture Essay Topics & Examples." IvyPanda , 2 Mar. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/nature-vs-nurture-essay-examples/.

IvyPanda . (2024) '80 Nature vs Nurture Essay Topics & Examples'. 2 March.

IvyPanda . 2024. "80 Nature vs Nurture Essay Topics & Examples." March 2, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/nature-vs-nurture-essay-examples/.

1. IvyPanda . "80 Nature vs Nurture Essay Topics & Examples." March 2, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/nature-vs-nurture-essay-examples/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "80 Nature vs Nurture Essay Topics & Examples." March 2, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/nature-vs-nurture-essay-examples/.

• Cognitive Development Essay Ideas
• Emotional Development Questions
• Human Development Research Ideas
• Developmental Psychology Essay Ideas
• Child Development Research Ideas
• Moral Development Essay Topics
• Lifespan Development Essay Titles
• Literacy Development Titles
• Personality Development Ideas
• Social Development Essay Topics
• Human Nature Essay Titles
• Academic Achievements Research Topics
• Bioethics Titles
• Emotional Intelligence Paper Topics
• Genetics Research Ideas

Nature Vs Nurture Essay for Students and Children

500+ words essay on nature vs nurture.

The topic of nature vs nurture is always a great topic of debate among people. There are great men who did work hard to achieve great heights . But still, they are some people who didn’t work that hard yet still managed to be successful.

In other words, it is a debate between hard work and talent. In the grooming of a person, the nurturing is essential. However, still, there are some individuals who were never born in a great environment . Yet by their sense of knowledge and intellectualism created a special place in the hearts of people.

Nature has given us many things in life and one of them is talents. Either we are born as the only individual in our family or it is in our genes. Furthermore, nature plays a vital role in deciding the future of a child. Many singers in this era are born with beautiful voices. They did not need any nurturing. Their talent took them to heights they couldn’t even imagine.

For instance, some of the great legends like Lata Mangeshkar, Asha Bhosle, Kishor Kumar had soulful voices. Also, they were the ones who sang from their childhood days. They started their careers and became successful at a very early age. Moreover, they did not get much teaching but still are the legends of all time.

Apart from singing, there are other talents that nature has given us. Various scientists like Albert Einstein , Isaac Newton , Galileo Galilei, started their work in their teenage years. They had amazing intellectualism, because of which they got recognition in their entire world. Furthermore, these scientists did not get any mentoring. They did everything on their own. Because they had extraordinary intelligence and ambition in life.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

On the other hand, the nurturing of a person is important. Because hard work beats talent. With proper mentoring and practice, a person can achieve success in life. If a person has an environment in which everybody is in the same profession and are successful in it.

Then there is a great chance that the person will land up in the same profession and will achieve heights. Because in that environment he will get proper nurturing.

Furthermore, he will also be able to perform better over the years. “ Hard work always pays off ”. This idiom is always true and nobody can deny that. If a person has true dedication then it can beat talent. Various singers, dancers, musicians, businessmen, entrepreneurs did work really hard for years.

And because of that, they got recognition in the entire world. In these categories, musicians are who achieved heights only with their hard work and constant practice.

It is true that there are no shortcuts to success. Various known legends like Bob Dylon. Lou Reed, Elvis Persley, Michael Jackson worked hard throughout their lives. As a result, they were some of the great personalities in the entire world.

Q1. What is the meaning of nurture?

A1. Nurture means the way a person grooms himself. This is done in order to achieve success. Nurturing is essential in a person’s life because it can be a way a person can cross the barrier and do something great. Moreover nurture also means the mentoring and care a person is getting in an environment.

Q2. What is the difference between Nature and Nurture?

A2. The main difference between nature and nurture is, nature is the talent a person inherits from his parents or is God gifted. While nurturing is hard work and mentoring of a person in a particular field. So that he may excel in that field.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

Home — Essay Samples — Psychology — Nature Versus Nurture — The Nature vs Nurture Debate

The Nature Vs Nurture Debate

• Categories: Nature Versus Nurture

About this sample

Words: 603 |

Published: Jan 29, 2024

Words: 603 | Page: 1 | 4 min read

Table of contents

Nature argument, nurture argument, interactionist perspective, criticisms and limitations of the debate.

• One of the most compelling examples of genetic influences on behavior is the study of identical twins. Identical twins share the same genes and were commonly separated at birth, yet they often display remarkable similarities in personality traits, interests, and even medical conditions.
• Genetic factors can lead to the onset of psychological disorders such as Autism and Schizophrenia.
• Evolution and natural selection have created inherited traits such as physical characteristics that enable humans to adapt to their environments.
• Early childhood experiences can heavily influence an individual’s cognitive development. Studies have shown that a nurturing environment positively contributes to intellectual development and conversely, poverty and violence negatively impact cognitive development.
• Socialization is a critical environmental factor that shapes one's personality. Cultural norms also deeply influence one's way of thinking, behavior, and personal identity.
• Environmental factors can heavily impact behavior, such as peer pressure and negative societal influences leading to adverse outcomes.
• Genetic factors and environmental factors have both been shown to interact to influence behavior, gene-environment interaction being critical scientific evidence of this.
• Epigenetics, the study of how environmental factors can activate or suppress certain genes, can have impacts on both personality and physical health.
• Plomin, R. (2018). Genetics and life events: The importance of childhood environments for recruitment into ‘nature’s experiments’. Psychological Review, 125(5), 778-791.
• Reiss, D., Neiderhiser, J. M., Hetherington, E. M., & Plomin, R. (2000). The relationship code: Deciphering genetic and social influences on adolescent development. Harvard University Press.
• Jablonka, E., & Raz, G. (2009). Transgenerational Epigenetic Inheritance: Prevalence , Mechanisms, and Implications for the Study of Heredity and Evolution. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 84(2), 131–176.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr. Heisenberg

Verified writer

• Expert in: Psychology

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

4 pages / 1899 words

2 pages / 962 words

3 pages / 1170 words

2 pages / 829 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Nature Versus Nurture

Nature vs nurture has long been a contentious debate within the field of psychology, exploring the influence of genetics and environmental factors on human development. As scholars and researchers continue to delve into this [...]

Throughout history, philosophers and scholars have grappled with the concept of human nature. This essay will explore the three major views of human nature: Tabula Rasa, Innate Goodness, and Evil Inclination. By examining the [...]

An individual's behavior and social interactions are heavily influenced by their attitudes and personality traits. In psychology, attitudes refer to the feelings, beliefs, and behaviors towards a particular object or idea, while [...]

Human growth and development involve a variety of complex processes, periods, and theories that contribute to the understanding of how individuals change and develop over time. In this essay, we will explore the developmental [...]

Nature can be defined as to what abilities we present with at birth, ability can be determined by our genes; including those that we develop with age. Both a biological and evolutionary perspective support the model that our [...]

One of the most controversial scientific debates is the nature vs. nurture conflict. This focuses on whether our genes control and determine the person we are believed to be today, or if our early environment has shaped us into [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• Writing Correction
• Online Prep Platform
• Online Course
• Speaking Assessment
• Ace The IELTS
• Target Band 7
• Practice Tests Downloads
• IELTS Success Formula
• Essays Band 9 IELTS Writing Task 2 samples – IELTS Band 9 essays
• Essays Band 8 IELTS Writing – samples of IELTS essays of Band 8
• Essays Band 7 IELTS Writing – samples of IELTS essays of Band 7
• Essays Band 6 IELTS Writing – samples of IELTS essays of Band 6
• Essays Band 5 IELTS Writing – samples of IELTS essays of Band 5
• Reports Band 9 IELTS Writing – samples of IELTS reports of Band 9 (Academic Writing Task 1)
• Reports Band 8 IELTS Writing – samples of IELTS reports of Band 8
• Reports Band 7 IELTS Writing – samples of IELTS reports of Band 7
• Letters Band 9 IELTS Writing Task 1 – samples of IELTS letters of Band 9
• Letters Band 8 IELTS Writing – samples of IELTS letters of Band 8
• Letters Band 7 IELTS Writing – samples of IELTS letters of Band 7
• Speaking Samples
• Tests Samples
• 2023, 2024 IELTS questions
• 2022 IELTS questions
• 2021 IELTS questions
• 2020 IELTS questions
• High Scorer’s Advice IELTS high achievers share their secrets
• IELTS Results Competition
• IELTS-Blog App

IELTS essay, topic: Some people believe that preserving natural environment is crucial, but make no effort to do so (reasons and solutions)

• 16 Comments
• IELTS Essays - Band 8

Some people believe that preserving natural environment is crucial, however, most make no effort to do so. Why do you think this is happening? What are some simple actions that could help the environment?

It is commonly believed that preservation of natural resources is imperative, yet most people seem to exert no effort in doing so. Understanding the causes of this negligent attitude may help with devising some simple measures to safeguard the deteriorating environment.

Lack of awareness is probably the foremost reason why the vast majority of individuals appears to be unmindful of the current environmental issues. Normally, people have tendency to downplay abstract problems, or those to happen in the distant future. This is because they are not properly informed of the possible detrimental effects of taking the environment for granted. To illustrate, residents in urban areas often deliberately dump their into the nearby creeks and drainage canals causing them to become clogged. It is only when devastating floods strike, that they come to realize the consequences of their actions.

Some basic solutions that could be carried out are extensive awareness through all forms of communication and strict implementation of waste management. In addition to the traditional press, social media is a powerful means of disseminating information regarding the impending disasters and their potential hazards. This is a good way of persuading the public to actively take part in the campaign. Another straightforward solution, and by far the least anyone can do to help save the nature is disposing of garbage thoughtfully. Apart from avoiding throwing trash anywhere, everyone should practice proper segregation of biodegradable, non-biodegradable, and recyclable wastes at all times. These actions, when coordinated by the local governments, can be tremendously successful.

In conclusion, while individual awareness is key to maintaining a healthy ecosystem, concerted efforts of governments and are much more effective in achieving such goal.

The response is well written, it contains reasons, solutions and fully addresses the task. The ideas aren’t repeated, they are conveyed in a clear and easy to understand manner and organised well with sufficient use of cohesive devices. The vocabulary is varied, sentence structures are complex and instances of incorrect grammar are hardly noticeable. Overall, this essay is likely to achieve Band 8 in IELTS.

Click here to see more IELTS essays of Band 8

Related posts:

• IELTS essay, topic: Young people don’t communicate with older people as much as they used to (reasons and solutions) This essay topic was seen in a recent IELTS tests...
• IELTS essay, topic: Young people are finding it harder to find permanent jobs (reasons and solutions) In many countries, young people are finding it harder and...
• IELTS essay, topic: Many people do not exercise enough and eat an unhealthy diet (reasons and solutions) This essay topic was seen in a recent IELTS tests...
• IELTS essay, topic: More and more people participate in extreme sports (reasons and solutions) This essay topic was seen in recent IELTS tests in...
• IELTS essay, topic: Despite the benefits of walking, very few people walk nowadays (reasons and solutions) This essay topic was seen in a recent IELTS test...

16 thoughts on “IELTS essay, topic: Some people believe that preserving natural environment is crucial, but make no effort to do so (reasons and solutions)”

Thanks very much..this is best blog that are read everywhere.

Thank you so much for the kind words, Sukhvir! We work on it very hard to make it as helpful as possible for all the IELTS test takers out there.

Very good source of learning

very helpful..I have learn a lot through it

Very helpful site hope for the best result this time . I have one confusion regarding opinon , when and where to give our opinions ?? Please help

A very natural place for the writer’s opinion is the conclusion paragraph.

Very very beneficial for me…thanks alot for such kind of valuable material

How many paras should be written while editing Task 2

An IELTS Writing Task 2 should have 1 introduction paragraph, 2 to 3 body paragraphs and 1 conclusion paragraph.

Nailing 8bands 👌👌👌

I reading these essays every day through which i improved my writing band score as i learnt many things. such as, how to use variety of sentence,grammer,vocabs and so.Thank you very much

Thanks Simarbhullar, that’s great to hear!

The best blog on the internet is THE IELTS-BLOG.

Wow Suren, thanks so much for saying that! It means a lot.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Nature or Nurture? : Reading with Answers

IELTS Academic Test – Passage 02: N ature or Nurture reading with answers location, explanation and pdf summary.

Nature or Nurture?

A A few years ago, in one of the most fascinating and disturbing experiments in behavioural psychology, Stanley Milgram of Yale University tested 40 subjects from all walks of life for their willingness to obey instructions given by a ‘leader’ in a situation in which the subjects might feel a personal distaste for the actions they were called upon to perform. Specifically, Milgram told each volunteer ‘teacher-subject’ that the experiment was in the noble cause of education, and was designed to test whether or not punishing pupils for their mistakes would have a positive effect on the pupils’ ability to learn. B Milgram’s experimental set-up involved placing the teacher-subject before a panel of thirty switches with labels ranging from ’15 volts of electricity (slight shock)’ to ‘450 volts (danger – severe shock)’ in steps of 15 volts each. The teacher-subject was told that whenever the pupil gave the wrong answer to a question, a shock was to be administered, beginning at the lowest level and increasing in severity with each successive wrong answer. The supposed ‘pupil’ was, in reality, an actor hired by Milgram to simulate receiving the shocks by emitting a spectrum of groans, screams and writings together with an assortment of statements and expletives denouncing both the experiment and the experimenter. Milgram told the teacher-subject to ignore the reactions of the pupil, and to administer whatever level of shock was called for, as per the rule governing the experimental situation of the moment. C As the experiment unfolded, the pupil would deliberately give the wrong answers to questions posed by the teacher, thereby bringing on various electrical punishments, even up to the danger level of 300 volts and beyond. Many of the teacher-subjects balked at administering the higher levels of punishment, and turned to Milgram with questioning looks and/or complaints about continuing the experiment. In these situations, Milgram calmly explained that the teacher-subject was to ignore the pupil’s cries for mercy and carry on with the experiment. If the subject was still reluctant to proceed, Milgram said that it was important for the sake of the experiment that the procedure be followed through to the end. His final argument was, ‘You have no other choice. You must go on.’  What Milgram was trying to discover was the number of teacher-subjects who would be willing to administer the highest levels of shock, even in the face of strong personal and moral revulsion against the rules and conditions of the experiment. D Prior to carrying out the experiment, Milgram explained his idea to a group of 39 psychiatrists and asked them to predict the average percentage of people in an ordinary population who would be willing to administer the highest shock level of 450 volts. The overwhelming consensus was that virtually ail the teacher-subjects would refuse to obey the experimenter. The psychiatrists felt that ‘most subjects would not go beyond 150 volts’ and they further anticipated that only four per cent would go up to 300 volts. Furthermore, they thought that only a lunatic fringe of about one in 1,000 would give the highest shock of 450 volts. Furthermore, they thought that only a lunatic cringe of about one in 1,000 would give the highest shock of 450 volts. E What were the actual results? Well, over 60 per cent of the teacher-subjects continued to obey Milgram up to the 450-volt limit! In repetitions of the experiment in other countries, the percentage of obedient teacher-subjects was even higher, reaching 85 per cent in one country. How can we possibly account for this vast discrepancy between what calm, rational, knowledgeable people predict in the comfort of their study and what pressured, flustered, but cooperative teachers’ actually do in the laboratory of real life? F One’s first inclination might be to argue that there must be some sort of built-in animal aggression instinct that was activated by the experiment, and that Milgram’s teacher-subjects were just following a genetic need to discharge this pent-up primal urge onto the pupil by administering the electrical shock. A modern hard-core sociobiologist might even go so far as to claim that this aggressive instinct evolved as an advantageous trait, having been of survival value to our ancestors in their struggle against the hardships of life on the plains and in the caves, ultimately finding its way into our genetic make-up as a remnant of our ancient animal ways. G An alternative to this notion of genetic programming is to see the teacher-subjects’ actions as a result of the social environment under which the experiment was carried out. As Milgram himself pointed out, ‘Most subjects in the experiment see their behaviour in a larger context that is benevolent and useful to society – the pursuit of scientific truth. The psychological laboratory has a strong claim to legitimacy and evokes trust and confidence in those who perform there. An action such as shocking a victim, which in isolation appears evil, acquires a completely different meaning when placed in this setting.’ H Thus, in this explanation the subject merges his unique personality and personal and moral code with that of larger institutional structures, surrendering individual properties like loyalty, self-sacrifice and discipline to the service of malevolent systems of authority. I Here we have two radically different explanations for why so many teacher-subjects were willing to forgo their sense of personal responsibility for the sake of an institutional authority figure. The problem for biologists, psychologists and anthropologists are to sort out which of these two polar explanations is more plausible. This, in essence, is the problem of modern sociobiology – to discover the degree to which hard-wired genetic programming dictates, or at least strongly biases, the interaction of animals and humans with their environment, that is, their behaviour. Put another way, sociobiology is concerned with elucidating the biological basis of all behaviour.

Questions 14-19

Reading Passage 2 has nine paragraphs,  A-I . Which paragraph contains the following information? Write the correct letter  A-I  in boxes  14-19  on your answer sheet. 14 . a biological explanation of the teacher-subjects’ behaviour   15 . the explanation Milgram gave the teacher-subjects for the experiment   16 . the identity of the pupils   17 . the expected statistical outcome   18 . the general aim of sociobiological study   19 . the way Milgram persuaded the teacher-subjects to continue 

________________

1) IELTS 5 READING PASSAGE – JOHNSON’S DICTIONARY ↗

2) IELTS 5 READING PASSAGE – THE TRUTH ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT ↗

3) IELTS 5 READING PASSAGE – BAKELITE: THE BIRTH OF MODERN PLASTICS ↗

4) IELTS 5 READING PASSAGE – WHAT’S SO FUNNY? ↗

5) IELTS 5 READING PASSAGE – THE BIRTH OF SCIENTIFIC ENGLISH ↗

6) IELTS 5 READING PASSAGE – EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION ↗

Questions 20-22

Choose the correct letter  A, B, C  or  D. Write your answers in boxes  20-22  on your answer sheet. 20. The teacher-subjects were told that they were testing whether     A a 450-volt shock was dangerous.     B punishment helps learning.     C the pupils were honest.     D they were suited to teaching. 21. The teacher-subjects were instructed to     A stop when a pupil asked them to.     B denounce pupils who made mistakes.     C reduce the shock level after a correct answer.     D give punishment according to a rule. 22. Before the experiment took place the psychiatrists     A believed that a shock of 150 volts was too dangerous.     B failed to agree on how the teacher-subjects would respond to instructions.     C underestimated the teacher-subjects’ willingness to comply with experimental procedure.     D thought that many of the teacher-subjects would administer a shock of 450 volts.

Questions 23-26

Do the following statements agree with the information given in Reading Passage 74? In boxes  23-26  on your answer sheet, write:

TRUE     if the statement agrees with the information FALSE     if the statement contradicts the information NOT GIVEN     if there is no information on this

23.  Several of the subjects were psychology students at Yale University.   24.  Some people may believe that the teacher-subjects’ behaviour could be explained as a positive survival mechanism. 25.  In a sociological explanation, personal values are more powerful than authority.   26.  Milgram’s experiment solves an important question in sociobiology. 

Check out N ature or Nurture reading answers below with locations and explanations given in the text.

14. F    15. A    16. B    17. D    18. I   19.  C    20. B    21. D    22. C    23. NOT Given   24. TRUE   25. FALSE   26. FALSE 

If you want the pdf summary of N ature or Nurture reading passage, please write your email in the comment section below. We’ll send it across at the speed of light.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

IELTS TEST TYPES

✓  IELTS Academic

✓  IELTS General Training

USEFUL LINKS

✓  IELTS Full Form

✓  IELTS Band Score

✓  IELTS Vocabulary

✓  IELTS Grammar

CONNECT WITH US

Pinterest ↗

IELTS® is a registered trademark of The British Council, IDP- IELTS Australia and the University of Cambridge ESOL Examinations (Cambridge ESOL). This site and its owners are not affiliated, approved or endorsed by the University of Cambridge ESOL, the British Council, IELTS Progress Check, and IDP Education Australia. "IELTS Progress Check" is the name of the official IELTS online practice test and is in no way affiliated with this website. To find out more about the official IELTS online practice test please visit https://www.ieltsprogresscheck.com/.

ABOUT US | PRIVACY POLICY | DISCLAIMER | TERMS | CONTACT US

© 2023 IELTSPROGRESS.COM | All Rights Reserved

• Full IELTS Practice Tests
• Practice Tests

Nature or Nurture?

• View Solution

Solution for: Nature or Nurture?

Answer table.

 Found a mistake? Let us know!

 Share this Practice Test

Exam Review

A few years ago, in one of the most fascinating and disturbing experiments in behavioural psychology, Stanley Milgram of Yale University tested 40 subjects from all walks of life for their willingness to obey instructions given by a ‘leader’ in a situation in which the subjects might feel a personal distaste for the actions they were called upon to perform. Specifically, Milgram told each volunteer 'teacher-subject' that the experiment was in the noble cause of education, and was designed to test whether or not punishing pupils for their mistakes would have a positive effect on the pupils' ability to learn .

Milgram’s experimental set-up involved placing the teacher-subject before a panel of thirty switches with labels ranging from '15 volts of electricity (slight shock)' to ‘450 volts (danger - severe shock)' in steps of 15 volts each. The teacher-subject was told that whenever the pupil gave the wrong answer to a question, a shock was to be administered, beginning at the lowest level and increasing in severity with each successive wrong answer . The supposed 'pupil' was in reality an actor hired by Milgram to simulate receiving the shocks by emitting a spectrum of groans, screams and writhings together with an assortment of statements and expletives denouncing both the experiment and the experimenter. Milgram told the teacher-subject to ignore the reactions of the pupil, and to administer whatever level of shock was called for as per the rule governing the experimental situation of the moment .

As the experiment unfolded, the pupil would deliberately give the wrong answers to questions posed by the teacher, thereby bringing on various electrical punishments, even up to the danger level of 300 volts and beyond. Many of the teacher-subjects balked at administering the higher levels of punishment, and turned to Milgram with questioning locks and/or complaints about continuing the experiment. In these situations, Milgram calmly explained that the teacher-subject was to ignore the pupil's cries for mercy and carry on with the experiment . If the subject was still reluctant to proceed, Milgram said that it was important for the sake of the experiment that the procedure be followed through to the end. His final argument was, ‘You have no other choice. You must go on.' What Milgram was trying to discover was the number of teacher-subjects who would be willing to administer the highest levels of shock, even in the face of strong persona! and moral revulsion against the rules and conditions of the experiment.

Prior to carrying out the experiment, Milgram explained his idea to a group of 39 psychiatrists and asked them to predict the average percentage of people in an ordinary population who would be willing to administer the highest shock level of 450 volts. The overwhelming consensus was that virtually all the teacher-subjects would refuse to obey the experimenter . The psychiatrists felt that 'most subjects would not go beyond 150 volts' and they further anticipated that only four per cent would go up to 300 volts. Furthermore, they thought that only a lunatic fringe of about one in 1.000 would give the highest shock of 450 volts.

What were the actual results? Well, over 60 per cent of the teacher-subjects continued to obey Milgram up to the 450-volt limit! In repetitions of the experiment in other countries, the percentage of obedient teacher-subjects was even higher, reaching 85 per cent in one country How can we possibly account for this vast discrepancy between what calm, rational, knowledgeable people predict in the comfort of their study and what pressured, flustered, but cooperative teachers’ actually do in the laboratory of real life?

One’s first inclination might be to argue that there must be some sort of built-in animal aggression instinct that was activated by the experiment , and that Milgram’s teacher- subjects were just following a genetic need to discharge this pent-up primal urge onto the pupil by administering the electrical shock. A modern hard-core sociobiologist might even go so far as to claim that this aggressive instinct evolved as an advantageous trait, having been of survival value to our ancestors in their struggle against the hardships of life on the plains and in the caves, ultimately finding its way into our genetic make-up as a remnant of our ancient animal ways.

An alternative to this notion ot genetic programming is to see the teacher-subjects' actions as a result of the social environment under which the experiment was carried out. As Milgram himself pointed out. Most subjects in the experiment see their behaviour in a larger context that is benevolent and useful to society - the pursuit of scientific truth. The psychological laboratory has a strong claim to legitimacy and evokes trust and confidence in those who perform there. An action such as shocking a victim, which in isolation appears evil, acquires a completely different meaning when placed in this setting'.

Thus, in this explanation the subject merges his unique personality and personal and moral code with that of larger institutional structures, surrendering individual properties like loyalty, self-sacrifice and discipline to the service of malevolent systems of authority.

Here we have two radically different explanations for why so many teacher-subjects were willing to forgo their sense of personal responsibility for the sake of an institutional authority figure. The problem for biologists, psychologists and anthropologists is to sort out which of these two polar explanations is more plausible . This, in essence, is the problem of modem sociobiology - to discover the degree to which hard-wired genetic programming dictates, or at least strongly biases, the interaction of animals and humans with their environment, that is, their behaviour. Put another way  sociobiology is concerned with elucidating the biological basis of all behaviour . 

Questions 1-6

Reading Passage has nine paragraphs , A-I.

Which paragraph contains the following information?

Write the correct letter A-I in boxes 1-5 on your answer sheet.

1 A B C D E F G H I a biological explanation of the teacher-subjects’ behaviour Answer: F      Locate

2 A B C D E F G H I the explanation Milgram gave the teacher-subjects for the experiment Answer: A      Locate

3 A B C D E F G H I the identity of the pupils Answer: B      Locate

4 A B C D E F G H I the expected statistical outcome Answer: D

5 A B C D E F G H I the general aim of sociobiological study Answer: I      Locate

6 A B C D E F G H I the way Milgram persuaded the teacher-subjects to continue Answer: C      Locate

Questions 7-9

Choose the correct letter  A, B, C or D.

Write your answers in boxes 7-9  on your answer sheet.

7.    The teacher-subjects were told that they were testing whether

A a 450-volt shock was dangerous.

B punishment helps learning.

C the pupils were honest.

D they were suited to teaching. Answer: B      Locate

8.    The teacher-subjects were instructed to

A stop when a pupil asked them to.

B denounce pupils who made mistakes.

C reduce the shock level after a correct answer.

D give punishment according to a rule. Answer: D      Locate

9.    Before the experiment took place the psychiatrists

A believed that a shock of 150 volts was too dangerous.

B failed to agree on how the teacher-subjects would respond to instructions.

C underestimated the teacher-subjects’ willingness to comply with experimental procedure.

D thought that many of the teacher-subjects would administer a shock of 450 volts. Answer: C      Locate

Questions 10-13

Do the following statements agree with the information given in Reading Passage?

In boxes 10-13  on your answer sheet, write

TRUE if the statement agrees with the information

FALSE if the statement contradicts the information

NOT GIVEN if there is no information on this

10 TRUE FALSE NOT GIVEN Several of the subjects were psychology students at Yale University. Answer: NOT GIVEN

11 TRUE FALSE NOT GIVEN Some people may believe that the teacher-subjects’ behaviour could be explained as a positive survival mechanism. Answer: TRUE      Locate

12 TRUE FALSE NOT GIVEN In a sociological explanation, personal values are more powerful than authority. Answer: FALSE      Locate

13 TRUE FALSE NOT GIVEN Milgram’s experiment solves an important question in sociobiology. Answer: FALSE      Locate

Other Tests

• 4 - YES-NO-NOT GIVEN
• 5 - Sentence Completion
• 4 - Summary, form completion

Micro-Enterprise Credit for Street Youth

• Economics & Business
• 0 unanswered
• 15 - Matching Information

A spark, a flint: How fire leapt to life

• 10 - Matching Information
• 3 - Summary, form completion

Young children's sense of identity

• 6 - TRUE-FALSE-NOT GIVEN
• 7 - Summary, form completion

The Development of Plastics

• Step-by-step Guide
• 11 - Matching Headings
• 3 - Matching Information

Country Comfort Inn, Hunter Valley

• Recent Actual Tests
• 6 - YES-NO-NOT GIVEN

Making a change How easy is it for us to change our lives - and why?

• General Training

Found a mistake? Let us know!

Please descibe the mistake as details as possible along with your expected correction, leave your email so we can contact with you when needed.

Describe what is wrong with the practice test:

Please enter description

Enter your name:

Enter your email address:

Please enter a valid email

Connect with the writers

Once paid, the initial draft will be made. For any query r to ask for revision, you can get in touch with the online chat support available 24X7 for you.

Finished Papers

Why is writing essays so hard?

Patterns and boring topics imposed by schools and universities are not very conducive to creativity and human development. Such essays are very difficult to write, because many are not interested in this and do not see the meaning of the text. There are a number of criteria that make it impossible to write essays:

• Boring and incomprehensible topics. Many topics could be more interesting, but teachers formulate them in a way that makes you want to yawn.
• Templates. 90% do not know how to make an essay interesting, how to turn this detailed answer to a question into a living story.
• Fear of not living up to expectations. It seems to many that the essay is stupid and that they simply did not understand the question. There is a fear of getting a bad mark and disappointing the professor, parents and classmates. There is a fear of looking stupid and embarrassing in front of the team.
• Lack of experience. People don't know what and how to write about. In order to make a good essay, you need to have a perfect understanding of the topic and have the skills of a writer.

That is why the company EssaysWriting provides its services. We remove the responsibility for the result from the clients and do everything to ensure that the scientific work is recognized.

260 King Street, San Francisco

Updated Courtyard facing Unit at the Beacon! This newly remodeled…

• Newsletters
• Account Activating this button will toggle the display of additional content Account Sign out

“Parenting Doesn’t Matter”? Tell Me Another One.

This emergent consensus makes no sense to me.

This essay was adapted from Melinda Wenner Moyer’s newsletter, Is My Kid the Asshole? Subscribe here .

The other day, a friend pointed me to Arthur C. Brooks’ new essay in the Atlantic, “ The One Big Thing You Can Do for Your Kids .” Brooks is a Harvard social scientist, an Atlantic columnist, a former president of the American Enterprise Institute, and the author of 13 books, including  one he co-wrote with Oprah Winfrey.

Brooks makes a lot of points in his essay that I support. Like the assertion that “the parenting technique that truly matters is warmth and affection” and the argument that “you will make a lot of mistakes, but mostly they won’t matter.”

In other words, Brooks says, we don’t have to be perfect parents. Our kids will be OK.

I totally agree, but I’m not at all convinced by the premise for his argument. Brooks argues that it’s OK for us to make mistakes as parents because how we parent doesn’t matter—our children’s characteristics are shaped far more by nature (genes) than nurture (environment). “A huge amount of personality is biological and inherited,” Brooks writes, citing a couple of studies.

I think he’s overreaching here—and also overlooking other important considerations.

First, Brooks cites a study suggesting that genes play a large role in shaping personality. He writes:

One 1996 study involving 123 pairs of identical twins (who share 100 percent of their genes) and 127 pairs of fraternal twins (who, like any other pair of siblings, share about 50 percent)  estimated  that 41 percent of neuroticism may be inherited, as well as 53 percent of extroversion, 61 percent of openness to experience, 41 percent of agreeableness, and 44 percent of conscientiousness.

Yet, when I think about who I want my kids to become, I’m not focused on broad personality traits like these. I mean, yes—I hope that my kids don’t end up neurotic, and I hope that they grow up to be conscientious, agreeable, and open to new experiences. (I couldn’t care less about extroversion.) But what I care about far more are their values and choices. Will my son treat girls and women with the respect they deserve? Will my kids be anti-racist? Will they stand up for—or at least show support and compassion for—peers who are being bullied?

These questions aren’t answered by that study. But they are addressed by others, which suggest that what we do as parents absolutely shapes kids’ values and behavior toward others. We know that the conversations parents have with kids about racism, sexism, sex, consent, and bullying make a difference in terms of what values kids hold and how they behave toward others; I cite plenty of this research in  my first book . Other studies have found  that broad parenting practices shape kids’ values and moral development. Some studies even suggest  that the quality of the parent-child relationship affects how strongly various traits are shaped by genes vs. the environment—suggesting that how we raise our kids doesn’t merely affect how our kids turn out; it also affects just how much of an influence we have.

I want to spend a second reflecting on the numbers in that personality trait study too. The study finds that “41 percent of neuroticism may be inherited, as well as 53 percent of extroversion, 61 percent of openness to experience, 41 percent of agreeableness, and 44 percent of conscientiousness.”

If 41 percent or 53 percent or 61 percent of a trait is inherited, that means that the rest—a substantial portion!—is not inherited. This again suggests that the environment in which kids are raised  does  matter.

A few years ago, for this newsletter , I interviewed  Danielle Dick , a psychologist at Virginia Commonwealth University who specifically studies genetic and environmental influences on human behavior. Dick explained to me that, yes, our kids’ genes absolutely shape who they will become. “The research unambiguously shows that our children’s genes play a large role in their behavior,” she told me.

But then she added: “I’m absolutely not saying that parents don’t matter.”

I was interviewing Dick because she wrote a (wonderful!) parenting book called  The Child Code: Understanding Your Child’s Unique Nature for Happier, More Effective Parenting —and if genes were the only thing that mattered, I daresay she would not have penned a book full of parenting advice. In  The Child Code , Dick argues that when making parenting choices, parents should consider how their kids are wired, because aligning parenting strategies with kids’ temperaments can make them more effective.

Back to Brooks’ essay. To support his argument that parents don’t matter, Brooks also mentions a 2021 study  that investigated the link between specific parenting behaviors and personality. Brooks described this study as showing that “in most aspects, parenting mattered about as much as birth order—which is to say, its effect was little to none.”

Yet, in the very next paragraph, Brooks highlights two important exceptions: The personality traits of conscientiousness and agreeableness were shaped by parenting. Conscientiousness was found to be shaped by parent involvement in kids’ lives and how much cultural stimulation parents provided, and agreeableness was shaped by how much structure the parents provided—did they make their kids do their homework, etc.?—and parents’ goals.

Conscientiousness and agreeableness are among the personality traits I care about most because they most closely align with being a good human being—and this study, which Brooks cites as evidence that parenting doesn’t matter, suggests to me that parenting does matter for these traits. Other studies have reported that the environment plays an important role in shaping social values too.

It’s also worth highlighting that this 2021 study looked only at how personality traits were shaped by four specific parenting factors: parental goals, parental involvement in their kids’ school, parental structure, and parental cultural stimulation. The study didn’t investigate the impact of so many other things we as parents do, such as the conversations we have with our kids and how we engage with their emotions (which, research suggests,  do matter when it comes to the development of children’s moral values).

So, even if the study had found no relationship between those four parenting dimensions and child personality traits, it would still be inaccurate and misleading to conclude that parenting doesn’t matter. The study looked at just a very small slice of what parents do.

As an aside, I find it interesting that most of the recent essays   I’ve come across  that argue that parents don’t matter have been written by men, who are often less involved in parenting. Maybe there’s a bit of rationalization going on?  It’s fine that I’m not doing much at home—parenting doesn’t matter!  Or maybe it makes sense: If men aren’t all that involved in child-rearing, then of course they will not have that much of an influence on their children. Research does suggest that kids learn more values from their  mothers and grandmothers  than from their fathers and grandfathers.

Still, these essays rub me the wrong way, and not just because they overgeneralize and cherry-pick the science. They feel like yet another way to undermine the hard, important work that women typically do. (Brooks also wrote an essay  on marriage last year that argued that couples shouldn’t attempt to split domestic duties equally because doing so “militates against one of the most important elements of love: generosity—a willingness to give more than your share in a spirit of abundance, because giving to someone you care for is pleasurable in itself.” OK, dude.) I can’t help but point out that the “Nature matters more than nurture” argument has long been used to support racism too.

Let me circle back to Brooks’ overarching point. Brooks argues that it’s OK for us to make mistakes as parents because what we do doesn’t make much of a difference. I disagree: I think it’s OK for us to make mistakes because parenting does matter. Mistakes are opportunities for growth and education. When we screw up, we teach our kids many important things. We teach them that all humans are works in progress and that we should strive to learn and grow throughout our lives. We model for them how to apologize, be humble, and take responsibility for our actions. We teach them that life is often more complex and messy and beautiful than we expect it to be—and that, I believe, is a good thing.