Within psychology, there is a debate known as nature vs. nurture, which revolves around the importance of biological (nature) and environmental (nurture) factors in the development of the human psyche. While the origins of the debate stretch back to Ancient Greece, it only began to gain major traction during the mid-1900s as our understanding of genetics began to expand. Since then it has become one of the largest debates in psychology, with most modern psychologists agreeing that both sides play significant roles in psychological development, however, the debate over how much influence each side has is still ongoing. By examining two articles, one from Simply Psychology and another from Verywell Mins, insight can be gained into the main arguments and appeals of each side, and from there, a conclusion can be drawn as to which side has the stronger case. Overall, the Simply Psychology article makes a better argument as psychology is a scientific field, and the article features a heavier emphasis on logical appeals.

Within the Simply Psychology article, by Saul Mcleod, there are multiple arguments that support the nature side of the debate by citing genetic inheritance and biological factors in the shaping of human behavior and traits. The article describes nature as basically “pre-wiring,” consisting of whatever is innate or inborn, and nativists, as people who believe that genetics partially or fully determine traits such as language ability, aggression, and personality. The main appeals the article uses are ethos and logos. One example of the appeal to ethos is when the article brings up Noam Chomsky, who claimed that all human individuals are born with an “innate language acquisition device,” which justifies the view of biological implantation of language by citing an expert. The article’s appeals to logos are mainly from citing psychological studies such as twin and adoption studies that strongly indicate the importance of genetic influence. In the studies, identical twins separated from birth usually show more resemblance in characteristics such as intelligence and personality as opposed to fraternal twins, which suggests that biology is fundamental in determining individual characteristics. Other studies in the article emphasize how genes control maturational processes, including puberty and intellectual development, contributing to the idea of “pre-wiring.” The coverage of behavioral genetics in the article further contributes to the argument for nature, with the article citing renowned psychologist Robert Plomin saying that “DNA differences are the major systematic source of psychological differences.”¹ The article brings up polygenic inheritance, an area of behavioral genetics, as another cornerstone of the article’s argument for nature. The article states that when examined under the lens of polygenic inheritance, most traits and behaviors depend upon not just one gene, but on interactions between a large number of genes. The article states that by examining how many of the genes that are associated with a particular trait are present in an individual, researchers can quantify the influence of an individual’s genes on those traits. For example, intelligence, which is seen as a highly heritable trait, is influenced by a host of genetic influences, with some researchers claiming as much as 80% of the variance of intelligence in adults comes from genetic factors. Overall, by citing experts in the field and data from psychological studies, the Simply Psychology article’s arguments for nature provide a solid case that genes are the greater influence on the human psyche.

On the opposite side, Kendra Cherry presents a well built case for the nurture perspective in the Verywell Mind article, emphasizing the significant contribution of environmental influences to human behavior and development. The article defines nurture as involving “early childhood experiences, the way we were raised, our social relationships, and the surrounding culture.”² The article notes that all these very external influences in life deeply affect personality and psychological development. The article utilizes ethos, pathos, and logos in its arguments for the validity of nurture. One way the article appeals to both ethos and pathos is by citing John B. Watson, a notable behaviorist psychologist. The article appeals to ethos by using Watson’s belief that anyone can be conditioned to do anything, no matter what their genes are, which when backed by his deep knowledge of the field, lends credibility to the idea that conditioning is a powerful force in human behavior and personality. The article also uses this ideology to appeal to pathos, as the sentiment that people are more than just the sum of their genetic code most likely resonates with most readers on an emotional level. Supporters of behaviorism are also used to appeal to logos in the article. One example of this is when the article cites the social learning theory of Albert Bandura as proof that aggression and other behaviors are learned through observation of others. Bandura’s Bobo doll experiment demonstrated that children imitated aggressive behavior after watching an adult model, which further supports the power environmental influences hold on people. Parental style, educational experience, and cultural background all shape cognitive and affective development, and the article goes on to make this clear. The behaviors of politeness or aggression are acquired through reinforcement and modeled experiences, and it would appear to follow that the environment itself acts as an active constructor of social norms and personal habits..

Both articles cover the interactions between both sides, through a field known as epigenetics, which studies how external factors influence how genes are expressed. The VeryWellmind article defines epigenetics as how “environment can impact the way in which genes are expressed” implying that while genes still do provide a biological blueprint, environmental influences are the driving force behind these changes in expression. The Simply Psychology article presents a different view, explicitly describing epigenetics as “a direct biological mechanism” that allows our genes to be expressed in different ways, undermining the VeryWellmind article’s idea of the biological blueprint. By emphasizing that it is a biological process that allows genes to “adapt” to environmental factors, the Simply Psychology article shifts a greater emphasis onto the role of nature.

When comparing the two articles, there are some clear differences in how they focus their respective appeals. The Simply Psychology article consists primarily of logos with a few appeals to ethos. On the contrary, the Verywell Mind article utilizes, in addition to some appeals to ethos and logos, emotional appeals to better connect with a broader, less specialized audience. By analyzing the appeals from the two different articles, the Verywell Mind article is more likely to sway a broader audience made up of average people by all 3 rhetorical appeals, while the Simply Psychology article is much more suited to an academic or scientific audience, with it largely appealing to logic. As for which argument is better overall, since psychology is a scientific field, the Simply Psychology article would probably be seen as having made a better case.

Annotated Bibliography

1.

McLeod, Saul. “Nature vs. Nurture in Psychology.” Simply Psychology, Simply Psychology, 16 July 2024, www.simplypsychology.org/naturevsnurture.html. 

The “Nature vs. Nurture in Psychology” article from Simply Psychology gives a deeper look into the age-old debate over which side has the greatest influence on human development: genetics or environment. While early theories favored one influence over the other, modern psychology recognizes that both influences interact with each other in a very complex way. The article uses reports of evidence from twin studies, where twins were raised apart from each other yet developed linguistic similarities, as support for the genetic effects on intelligence and temperament. In addition, the article refers to other studies, that compared fraternal and identical twins who were raised separately, and found that identical twins, who share more of their genetic makeup than fraternal twins, had greater similarities in their personalities. The article also references adoption studies which show that an adopted child might resemble the biological and adoptive families in one way or another. The article also touches on epigenetics, a field which revolves around how environmental factors influence genes and gene expression, explaining how environmental factors are tied to genetics. However, the article acknowledges the importance of environmental factors as well. The authors cite scientific data and case studies supporting empiricism, such as Albert Bandura’s Bobo doll experiment, in order to balance their view.  The article uses ethos, pathos, and logos in order to inform the readers on the debate. Ethos is utilized by citing the works of various psychologists like Bandura to provide evidence for each side. The article also utilizes pathos, by citing the ramifications of this debate on personal identity, race, parenting, and social policy. Most important to the article, however, is the use of logos, as the article cites various studies both in support of nature and nurture. The general conclusion of the article is that behavior and development result from an ongoing, complex interaction between our genes and the environment, however, it does provide solid arguments for the importance of nature in development.

2.

Kendra Cherry, MSEd. “What to Know about Nature vs. Nurture.” Verywell Mind, 19 Oct. 2022, www.verywellmind.com/what-is-nature-versus-nurture-2795392.  

Nature vs. Nurture: Genetic and Environmental Influences by Kendra Cherry reviews the centuries-old debate between nature (genetic influence) and nurture (environmental influence) in relation to human development, personality, and behavior. It provides definitions, historical perspectives, and current viewpoints from both sides, while also focusing on the interactive effects between the two sides. Proponents of the “nature” view emphasize hereditary factors, including genetic predispositions to characteristics or behaviors, whereas the “nurture” proponents emphasize environmental factors, including parenting, culture, and life events. Examples range from the role of early experience in shaping behavior to the interaction between genes and environmental stimulation in producing characteristics such as intelligence and musical talent. The argument for nurture is supported by the rhetorical appeals of ethos, pathos, and logos. Ethos is established through the author’s standing as a psychology educator and the inclusion of expert-reviewed content, which gives credibility to the discussion. Furthermore, references to important thinkers like John Locke and Albert Bandura align the argument with respected intellectual traditions and strengthen its authority. Pathos is subtly woven into the narrative by discussing relatable and emotionally charged examples, such as how childhood experiences can lead to aggression or kindness. Mentioning traumatic events as contributors to mental illness development, for instance, appeals to readers’ empathy and underscores the tangible impact of environmental factors. In addition by mentioning how notable supporters of nurture believe in the ability of humans to change their learned behaviors as opposed to the ideas of nature which are somewhat “set in stone,” the article appeals to readers who may have made mistakes in their past. Logos is a cornerstone of the article, as it offers logical arguments supported by scientific studies and examples. The discussion on Bandura’s social learning theory and the Bobo doll experiment empirically shows how observation and environment can affect behavior. Adding epigenetics, a study of how environmental aspects influence gene expression, further cements the reasoning through cutting-edge science. Examples like these better explain how nurture interfaces with nature to form a holistic, balanced view. Overall, Cherry has successfully combined these rhetorical appeals to argue that nurture plays a crucial role in forming individuals, where one would often encounter genetic predisposition. With this balanced view, rhetorical appeals, and supporting evidence, the article adds constructively to the arguments for the nurture side of the debate.