Nature versus Nurture Debate - Literature review Example

Nature versus Nurture Debate The “Nature versus Nurture” debate can come under explanation as an argument trying to understand weather people depicting certain behavior are born that way, or made. It may be difficult to put a finger on one final answer and say with absolute certainty, that a man who is a compulsive liar became the way he is, and was not born like that, or vice versa (Raine, pp. 106-111). This is where the nature versus nurture debate comes into play. Criminals are often heard saying that they experienced a strong urge to kill someone or indulge in criminal activities, but the question arises as to where this urge actually comes from. What differentiates those who possess this urge from those who do not, and if everybody possesses this urge, what stops some people from indulging in criminal behavior. All these questions remain unanswered largely, despite numerous researches being carried out regarding the topic. One possible explanation could be that criminals lose all sense of self-control when faced with a situation that arouses violent behavior. Thus, such behavior could be blamed on situational factors to some extent, and one could say that if it were not for this situation, someone would not have acted a certain way. However, according to a famous psychoanalyst, Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) every human has a natural drive to do something. Freud attributed most human behavior to the sex drive and, thus went on to explain that further when these drives are not fulfilled and met, one disposes of them in other forms. Therefore, using Freud’s theory, one could also state that an individual with an unmet sex drive could have the tendency to indulge in violent behavior in order to let the frustration out. In addition, when humans are free from the fear of punishment, they are more likely to indulge in deeds that are not positively looked up to. A criminal who is used to committing crimes on a regular basis, and is no longer afraid of the consequences that will follow, is more likely to indulge in such behavior, that a fresh offender who is afraid of the outcomes of his acts. Every individual puts in great thought into what they do and even criminals therefore are likely to have several reasons for acting a certain way. What can be the most probably answer to this confusion, is that criminal behavior may not always be attributed to only one particular reason, that is, nature or nurture, and may be a combination of both. To some extent, psychological studies have proven that violence can be genetically transferred, which means, angry parents are likely to have children with the same temper. However, one also see many examples of households where children at a young age see their parents indulging in violent behavior or criminal activities, and this passes on to them through the nurture aspect. The diathesis stress model states that many a times, individuals are born with the tendency of being violent and indulging in criminal activities, but for one reason or the other, do not grow up to indulge in such behavior. A variety of psychological researches have gone great lengths to prove and provide evidence for the fact that (Raine, pp.46-49) several brain abnormalities tend to cause psychopathy or aggression. On the other hand, other researches have showed that there is a connection between serotonin levels in the brain and aggression, which can be a possible explanation of criminal behavior (Meloy, 132-138). Moreover, other researches such as those conducted by Lykken in 1995 (pp. 42-51) have proven that environmental factors and the surroundings in which an individual is brought up plays an important role in determining who they become at a later stage, and that violence can be passed on through observation. A child who grows up in a household where his parents are constantly in a tussle, or one parent sexually or physically abuses the other, is likely to adopt such behavior and practice it as an adult (Zimbardo, 148-152). However, no matter how many people adapt violent behavior through their surroundings, there are many cases of those also who shape themselves to be someone totally, opposite to what they have observed all their life. According to the diathesis stress model, in order for someone to indulge in criminal behavior or acts of violence on a regular basis, it is most likely that they are both, genetically predisposed to violence, and are affected by environmental factors. Thus, a combination of both these things, have the tendency to result in criminal behavior or acts of violence by an individual. Thus, if we take two individuals who are genetically predisposed to violence and criminal behavior and put them in different home settings, one in a very loving home, and the other in a house where violence is practiced on a regular basis, it is likely that these children will grow up as two different adults. The child placed in a caring family will be less likely to turn into an aggressive individual, since the environmental factors will make up for his genetic tendency of being violent. One of the oldest theories that explained violent behavior was demonology. Under this theory, psychologists believed that the individual practicing violent behavior or appearing to be a psychopath was possessed by demons. Thus, instead of focusing on the environmental factors causing such behavior, they focused on the individual themselves, and attempted getting rid of these demons by torturing the individual. However, Cesare Lombroso was a well-known Italian criminologist, and in 1876, he brought about the theory of ‘anthropological determinism’ (2006, pp. 39-45). This theory explained that people could be born as criminals and they could be identified so, if they had certain physical defects. Thus, by observing someone’s physical attributed, Lombroso believed, criminal behavior could be understood. It was one of Lomrbosos students, Enrico Ferri, who acknowledged the presence of criminal behavior but looked at other factors besides the physical tendency of indulging in crime, such as social factors, population, religion, cultural and ethical background etc. Furthermore, he classified criminals into the following types, which were the born or instinctive criminal, insane criminal, passionate criminal, involuntary criminal, occasional criminal, and the habitual criminal. However, by Ferries’ definition, the last two types of criminals listed are not born criminals, but are instead produced due to a broken family or other such mishaps. The FBI states that the way an individual turns out to be as an adult, greatly depends on their upbringing during the time from when they are around eight years of age, to their late teens (FBI, 2005). A compulsive killer thus, is likely to have aggression and violence predisposed to him genetically, and such behavior is further encouraged when these individuals are made to live in surroundings where they are deprived of a close-knit family, or regularly observe violence. They therefore grow up with an unfulfilled sex drive and aggression that has been mounting up inside them for years at end, and criminal behavior then simply becomes an outlet for them (Brown, pp. 206-302). Compulsive killers, when usually examined, are often found to be those people who have had early family problems. Either they are found to be belonging to broken families, or in their early childhood years, they have suffered some sort of severe loss, which results in them engaging in such behavior at a later stage. One thus starts becoming a compulsive murderer, from a very early age, and signs start developing in the individual. Even though they do not go about murdering people at such an early age, these individuals may be found abusing their siblings, back chatting with parents or throwing objects around. As they grow into teenagers, they may be found indulging in drugs, alcohol, sex, and having a bad tempter, which later results in criminal behavior. Henderson, a famous psychologist stated, that people can be taught anything, and anything can be learned, then they could be taught to value equality (Brown, pp. 63-72). This statement goes a great length to prove that criminal behavior is learned, and Henderson seems to be supporting the nurture point of view, a great deal. A great number of psychologists believe that everyone is born a clean slate. Then what is it that brings them to such a state in life, or causes them to turn into criminals? It is probably a combination of the nature and nurture aspects that produce individuals like these under discussion. According to Gibbons in the year 1968 (Brown, pp. 23-49), genetic factors are usually specific in nature, while criminal behavior is not, and thus genetic factors cannot always be the best explanation for criminal behavior. Many criminals also take part in wide ranging criminal activities that are not pertained to one specific kind and since genetic factors are specific, blaming criminal behavior on genes might not always be the best option. Twin studies are often carried out for a similar purpose, so that two individuals from the same genes are used in the study. These twins are placed in different households, with opposite environmental factors, and the outcomes are studied. Findings of such studies have proven largely that criminal behavior is learnt, and greatly depends on the nurture aspect. We often notice parents of a certain kind, and their child tends to be totally opposite in nature or looks. Thus, using the nature theory to explain criminal behavior may not be correct. A person’s environment also depends on their own choice, and one can always make amendments to their surroundings, in order to shape a better future (Horwitz, pp. 226-234). Some individuals are also naturally drawn to crime, and these kinds of people, even though they have the ability of making amendments to the way they live, and improving their lifestyle, they choose to remain in the same situation. Suffering, in one way or the other fulfills some of their needs such as self-pity, and thus, they do not wish to alter who they are (McGuire, Mason & O’Kane, pp. 122-128). Numerous studies are still being conducted on understanding whether criminal behavior can be attributed to nature or nurture, and more advancement is being made in the nature versus nurture debate. However, along with this, psychologists have found various other factors that could also be held responsible for people indulging in criminal acts. It could thus be said that even though there is no one specific answer to whether criminal behavior is caused due to nature or nurture, studies have proven to quite an extent that the nurture factor plays a great role in determining who one grows up to be. Thus, the nurture factor is largely responsible from criminal behavior and other factors such as defects or misbalances in the brain, etc, may also need to be studied in order to reach to a conclusion. Works Cited Brown, P. Killing for Sport: Inside the Minds of Serial Killers. Beverly Hills: Phoenix Books, 2003. FBI. Serial Murder: Multi-Disciplinary Perspectives for Investigators, 2005. Retrieved on April 29, 2013: www.fbi.gov/publications/compulsive_murder.pdf Horwitz, Karen. White Collar Chalk Crime. New York: Createspace Independent Publishing, 2008. Lombroso, Cesare. Criminal Man. Duke University Press, 2006. Lykken, D. T. The Antisocial Personalities. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1995. McGuire, J., Mason, T., O'Kane, Aisling. Behavior, Crime, and Legal Processes. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000. Meloy, J. R. The Psychopathic Mind: Origins, Dynamics, and Treatment. Northvale, NJ: Aronson Inc, 1988. Raine, A. The Psychopathology of Crime: Criminal Behavior as a Clinical Disorder. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1993. Zimbardo, P. The Lucifer Effect. New York: Ebury Publishing, 2011. Read More