If you had to narrow down all aspects of who you are to a single reason, would you argue that the components of your persona are innate, or that they were moulded by society? Has your biological makeup influenced the characteristics that set you apart from others, or is the way you’ve grown in society the cause of it?
Psychologists use the nature vs nurture debate to argue for the true cause of personality and it is an especially prevalent discussion in explaining why individuals commit crime. The nature explanation suggests it is fostered by biological traits whilst the nurture assumes correlations between social environmental factors and psychological outcomes.
In the name of true evaluation, psychological studies investigating these things are often criticised for emphasising one side of the argument too much, but the fact remains that a combination of both biological and social factors form the framework for personalities and mindsets.
Empiricists follow the base assumption that at birth, the mind is essentially a blank slate, gradually filled with a vivid collection of thoughts, feelings and experiences under the influence of others and the world around us. We set ourselves apart from one another in this way. One example of a psychologist and theory who uses this concept is Bandura (1977) and his social learning theory which states that aggression is learned through observation and imitation. He produced this from his Bobo Doll experiment in 1961 where children were made to observe adults either behaving aggressively or gently, with a large inflatable doll. As a result, they mirrored the perceived behaviour, suggesting that individuals behave as such due to their experiences of simply seeing it in the first place. Whether or not they continuing behaving that way depends on the reinforcement they receive, like positive or negative consequences.
It is simple and accepted truth that several of the traits we possess are based on our inherited genes, like hair and eye colour. In turn, some psychologists have applied this to explaining behavioural tendencies, suggesting they are pre-dispositional and wired in. Many genes affect how the brain functions and not all are expressed in the same way in people. In 1947, Hans Eysenck suggested that key aspects of personality (extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism) can be narrowed down to a biological cause. Extraversion refers to how sociable a person is and the opposite end of this spectrum is introversion. Neuroticism covers emotional stability and how a person may respond to stimuli, determined by the reactivity of their sympathetic nervous system. Finally, psychoticism as the name suggests, involves the empathetic ability of an individual with links to their testosterone levels. Altogether, personality was argued to be reliant on the balance between excitation and inhibition process of the autonomic nervous system, leading Eysenck to compose his criminal personality theory and a test that would assess if someone possessed it. He suggested that results of 70% or more in all three categories, in just psychoticism, or in just extraversion and neuroticism, was that of a criminal personality.
Like all theories and studies, those mentioned can be critiqued in depth, bringing us back to the arguably more realistic approach of accepting the role of both nature and nurture and their influence on one another. If given the choice, would you lean into one of these explanations more than the other? Express your view in the comments below…
– Inayah Jannat