Nature vs. Nurture in Prenatal Development

Tiara Dawson

Lone Star College (North Harris)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nature vs. Nurture in Prenatal Development

Opening: Nature vs. Nurture Debate

Both nature and nurture are factors that affect human growth and development in different capacities at different stages of human growth and development. Before going deeper into the discussion of how nature and nurture affect a baby’s development, it is imperative to define each of the two terms separately. Nature constitutes the features people inherit through genes from their parents, which eventually translates to their personality. One’s behavior, nature, and brain activation form some of the factors that influence one’s personality. On the other hand, features resulting from one’s environment and experiences result from nurturing. Nurture shapes one’s personality by deriving influences from factors such as environment, culture, and parental relationships. Therefore personality is a common factor drawing influences from nature and nurture. The researcher agrees that both nature and nurture conditions in the womb significantly influence a baby’s growth. However, this research proposes that nurture plays more roles in shaping one’s personality and behavior than nature.

The development of a fetus in the womb depends on the mother’s uptake from the environment. Teratogen theory proves that drug and substance abuse or administration of certain prescriptions during pregnancy impairs prenatal development. Teratogens, come from the environment into which an expectant mother is exposed to. However, the severity of teratogens in prenatal development also depends on both the mother and the fetus’s genetic vulnerabilities. Thus the environment determines the quality of prenatal development more than genes.

Nature

For many years the issue of how nature and nurture contribute to the overall human qualities such as psychopathy, cognitive features, temperament, personality, and behavior has been subject to debate. Believers in nature attribute certain physical features of human beings to genetic inheritance. Such features as straight or curly hair, skin pigmentation, the color of the eyes, and diseases result from genetic inheritance. Research findings attribute diseases such as Huntington’s Chorea and sickle cell anemia to genetic inheritance. The nativists believe that every characteristic of a human being comes from an evolutionary source while distinguishing human features from genetic inheritance. Some differences and characteristics are invisible at birth but later become pronounced as an individual advance in age. The latter fact supports the claim that all human beings consist of a biological clock to enable automatic change in a certain type of behavior at a particular time. For instance, somebody changes will occur during various body development stages such as adolescence and puberty.

Attachment theory by John Bowlby support nativism. John Bowlby’s theory posits that child-parent attachment is understandable as an evolutionary concept where caregivers provide food and security for an infant. As a result, a parent’s efforts to ensure survival for the infant renders an adaptive feature that strengthens the bond between a child and their parents. Further, attachment theory attributes infant-parent attachment to an infant seeking solace or security when stressed or under threat. The infants’ attachment to their parents is a pre-programmed condition that emerges even before an infant is born. Therefore, the environment does not influence children’s relationships with their parents.

Nurture

 

On the other hand, environmentalists believe that humans are born with a blank slate mind. As human beings develop from childhood to adulthood, they come across several experiences that contribute to filling up their minds. For this reason, it is right to argue that behavioral differences and psychological features exhibited at infancy and childhood are resultants of learning. Environmentalists, thus, posits that bringing up a child determines their psychological aspects. Thus maturation concept is only applicable to biological aspects. Theorists such as John B. Watson believe that people can become anything irrespective of their genes through training. Environmentalists use examples to support their claims on empiricism. For instance, environmentalist theorist argues that an individual’s academic excellence does not depend on the genetic inheritance of genes but rather exposing an individual to an academically enriched environment. Also, an individual’s violent behavior that prompts them to abuse family members is not innate but rather an environmentally acquired trait through observation of one’s parents during upbringing. Thus this leads this research to concur with S. Moore’s remarks in his new book that genes do not matter but what matters is the activities of genes in an individual. Moore adds that activities of genes of an individual derive influences from the dynamic environment.

Albert Bandura’s theory supports that nurture contributes more to an individual’s personality that nature. The social learning theory provides that people observe the behavior of others to learn from them. Therefore, children can easily learn a particular behavior from their parents and adapt to such behaviors. This theory exemplary explains that an individual’s aggressive behavior can result from observing the violent behaviors of parents from childhood to adulthood.

Although genes cause the development of some diseases, to one’s family members, it is not always likely that one must contract such diseases in their lifetime. However, environmental factors are significant determiners of whether one will suffer from genetic diseases running in one’s family. The environment can reduce one’s chances of contracting genetic diseases by taking several measures. For instance, if diabetes and heart diseases are prevalent in one’s family, such an individual can reduce the risk of being a victim of such genetic diseases through physical exercise and a healthy diet. Also, one can avert the risk of colon and breast cancer; regular medical screenings can significantly reduce one from suffering from such types of cancer diseases.

On the flip side, nurture can negatively influence one’s health by affecting the expression of one’s genes. For instance, an individual is likely to develop anxiety due to exposure to a hostile social environment. Additionally, environmental stressors can also contribute to negative behavior and depression conditions in an individual. Passive smoking emerges when an active smoker exposes a non- smoker to cigarette smoke. As such, children can develop cancer due to exposure to a smoking environment.

The relationship between a child and their parent contributes to nurturing a child’s social, emotional, and physical development. The parent-child relationship is an enjoyable bond, thus important to nurture. This bond defines a child’s personality, choices in life, and the overall individual’s behavior. Nurturing parental relationships can also determine the strength of a child’s emotional, social, and physical health. It involves the overall care that parents give to a child during their upbringing.

Nature vs. Nurture

Both nativists and environmentalists agree on a common ground that nature vs. nurture play significant roles in prenatal development. Both nature and nurture contribute to a child’s personality and their overall behavior. However, while nativists attribute a child’s personality and behavior to the evolution of genes, environmentalists argue that a child’s personality and behavior emerge from environmental experiences. Further, the nativists believe that all characteristics of a person are pre-programmed before a child’s to show up at their appropriate time. On the other hand, an environmentalist attributes most of a person’s characteristics to exposure to the environment’s social learning. To nativists, attachment of a child to their parents is natural, and thus a child’s needs for care and security compels a child to link to their caregivers. On the contrary, parental relationships emerge due and become strong because both the parent and the child participate in nurturing. Lastly, nativists attribute personality and behavior to family and biological factors, while environmentalists give credit to environmental and social factors to shape a child’s personality and behavior.

• The use of case studies in this research helps the researcher give credible facts to support their arguments. For instance, they refer to John Bowlby and Albert Bandura’s theories. The researcher can credibly convince the readers why nurture plays more role in determining a person’s personality than nature. The use of case studies helps the researcher eliminate bias in their arguments and thus reduce interest in research. Without the help of case studies, the researcher may assume that the parental relationship is purely natural. However, case studies provide evidence that distinguishes the roles of nature and Nurture in a parental relationship. Therefore, case studies provide diverse views, thus not limiting the researcher to personal views in research.

Conclusion

Finally, both nature and nurture influencing factors contribute to prenatal development. For instance, the natural connection of a fetus to the mother enables sharing anything ingested by the mother. Notably, although one may assume prenatal development to be purely natural, nurture has more effects on the fetus’s development than nature. For instance, anything that an expectant mother ingests comes from the environment a must be shared between the mother and the fetus. Thus, exposure of a pregnant mother to any environmental factor will also affect a fetus’s development. For prenatal development to take place effectively, both nature and nurture factors must be present.

 

References

Bouchard TJ. Genes, environment, and personality. Science. 1994 June; 264: 1700-1701. From: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/14990529_Genes_Environment_and_Personality

European College of Neuropsychopharmacology. “Intelligence: more nature than nurture?” Science Daily. October 2007. From: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071016131452.htm

Kan KJ, Wicherts JM, Dolan, CV, et al. “On the nature and nurture of intelligence and specific cognitive abilities.” Psychological Science. October 2013. From: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257534231_On_the_Nature_and_Nurture_of_Intelligence_and_Specific_Cognitive_Abilities_The_More_Heritable_the_More_Culture_Dependent

Lynch K. “Genes are not destiny: environment and educahttps://theconversation.com/genes-are-not-destiny-environment-and-education-still-matter-when-it-comes-to-intelligence-63775#:~:text=Some%20genes%20may%20alter%20brain,genetic%20influence%20on%20the%20environment.tion still matter when it comes to intelligence.” The Conversation. August 2016.

Levitt M. Perceptions of nature, nurture, and behavior. Life Sci Soc Policy. 2013 Dec; 9:

McLeod, S. A. (2018, December 20). Nature vs. nurture in psychology. Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/naturevsnurture.html

Nesterak E. “The end of nature versus nurture.” The Psych Report. July 2015. From: https://behavioralscientist.org/the-end-of-nature-versus-nurture/

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

Santrock, J.W. (2017). Life-Span Development. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education

White S. “How to write nature vs. nurture essay easily?” July 21, 2017. From: https://www.allassignmenthelp.com/blog/how-to-write-nature-vs-nurture-essay-easily/