What is the nature vs. nurture debate?<\/p>\n
The nature vs. nurture debate is one of the most common discussions within the field of psychology and surrounds the question of what, relatively speaking, influences our behaviour most \u2013 nature i.e. genetics and biological factors, or nurture i.e. environmental factors. The general consensus is that both nature and nurture are both equally influential in the development of human beings. However, proponents of the \u2018nature\u2019 argument (known as \u2018nativists\u2019) believe that human behaviour is already \u2018wired in\u2019 before birth. For example, Chomsky (1965) believed that language was learned via an innate, biological \u2018language acquisition device\u2019 which facilitates the development of language throughout childhood and beyond. On the other side of the coin, those who argue nurture to be more influential (known as \u2018empiricists\u2019) believe in the concept of \u2018tabula rasa\u2019 \u2013 the idea that the human mind starts off as a blank slate, which we then gradually add behavioural traits to throughout life. In essence, empiricists posit that our psychological characteristics and behaviours develop throughout infancy via learning (i.e. the \u2018behavioural\u2019 approach). For example, Bandura\u2019s (1961) \u2018Bobo doll\u2019 experiment suggested that aggressive behaviour is learned via imitation of others\u2019 behaviour.<\/p>\n
Bandura, A., Ross, D. & Ross, S.A. (1961). Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 575-82.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A short answer detailing the nature vs. nurture debate<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1943,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[26],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\n