Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T06:52:33.626Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3 - The Contents and Discontents of the Nature–Nurture Debate

from Section 1 - The Underpinnings of Sex and Gender and How to Study Them

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 July 2020

By
Steven W. Gangestad  and
Lei Chang
Edited by
Fanny M. Cheung  and
Diane F. Halpern
Fanny M. Cheung
Affiliation:
The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Diane F. Halpern
Affiliation:
Claremont McKenna College, California
Get access

Summary

Which more importantly contributes to who we are and how we behave, biological influences or socio-cultural–environmental influences? This question reflects the essence of the “nature–nurture debate,” as traditionally defined. This debate and its appropriate resolution have important implications. At the same time, the nature–nurture debate is not profitably framed in this traditional way. The traditional framing implicitly assumes that “biological” and “environmental” causes – “nature” and “nurture” – constitute separable causes, as, say, pieces of a pie can be sliced apart and separated. In fact, they are not separable. To understand the effects of “nurture,” one must understand outcomes of “nature.” Within a reframing of the nature–nurture debate, one can ask a number of questions about the roles that nature and nurture play. We describe these questions. And we discuss some implications for understanding the sexes and, specifically, women.

Keywords

Nature–nurture debatedevelopmental systemsheritabilityopen programs
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of the International Psychology of Women , pp. 27 - 36
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Suggested Readings

Steven Gangestad is Distinguished Professor of Psychology at the University of New Mexico. He received his BA from Stanford University and his PhD from University of Minnesota. His research covers topics in evolutionary behavioral science, primarily on processes that affect human romantic relationships, which he has largely explored through frameworks inspired by evolutionary biology. He has published over 130 refereed journal articles with 26,500 citations, h-Index = 70, Google Scholar. He is currently Associate Editor of Psychological Science.

Lei Chang is Chair Professor of Psychology and Head of Department of Psychology, University of Macau. Born in China, Chang received his BA from Hebei University and his PhD from University of Southern California. He has previously taught at the University of Central Florida and the Chinese University of Hong Kong. He conducts research in the areas of evolutionary psychology, including cultural evolution, life history, and mating research, and developmental psychology focusing on parenting, and child and adolescent social development. He has published over 200 refereed journal articles (70% in English outlets) with over 16,000 citations, h-Index = 54, by Google Scholar.

Barrett, H. C. (2015). The shape of thought: How mental adaptations evolve. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldhaber, D. (2012). The nature–nurture debates: Bridging the gap. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. (1974). Behavior programs and evolutionary strategies. American Scientist, 62, 650–659.Google ScholarPubMed
Pinker, S. (2016). The blank slate (2002/2016). New York: Viking.Google Scholar
Ridley, M. (2003). Nature via nurture: Genes, experience, and what makes us human. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar

References

Anderson, E. L., Steen, E., & Stavropoulos, V. (2017). Internet use and problematic Internet use: A systematic review of longitudinal research trends in adolescence and emergent adulthood. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 22, 430–454. doi:10.1080/02673843.2016.1227716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, S., & Leventhal, T. (2017). Residential mobility and adolescent achievement and behavior: Understanding timing and extent of mobility. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 27, 328–343. doi:10.1111/jora.12288CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barbaro, N., Boutwell, B. B., Barnes, J. C., & Shackelford, T. K. (2017). Genetic confounding of the relationship between father absence and the age at menarche. Evolution and Human Behavior, 38, 357–365. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2016.11.007Google Scholar
Barrett, H. C. (2015). The shape of thought: How mental adaptations evolve. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, L., Rostila, M., Saarela, J., & Hjern, A. (2014). Parental death during childhood and subsequent school performance. Pediatrics, 133, 682–689. doi:10.1542/peds.2013-2771Google Scholar
Both, C., Dingemanse, N. J., Drent, P. J., & Tinbergen, J. M. (2005). Pairs of extreme avian personalities have highest reproductive success. Journal of Animal Ecology, 74, 667–674. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2656.2005.00962.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (1985). Culture and the evolutionary process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Boyer, P., & Barrett, H. C. (2015). Intuitive ontologies and domain specificity. In Buss, D. M. (Ed.), Handbook of evolutionary psychology (2nd ed., pp. 168–180). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Cerasoli, C. P., Nicklin, J. M., & Ford, M. T. (2014). Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives jointly predict performance: A 40-year meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 980–1008. doi:10.1037/a0035661CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chabris, C. F., Lee, J. J., Cesarini, D., Benjamin, D. J., & Laibson, D. I. (2015). The fourth law of behavior genetics. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24, 304–312. doi:10.1177/0963721415580430CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chang, L. (2004). The role of classrooms in contextualizing the relations of children’s social behaviors to peer acceptance. Developmental Psychology, 40, 691–702. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.40.5.691Google Scholar
Chang, L., & Lu, H. J. (2018). Resource and extrinsic risk in defining fast life histories of rural Chinese left-behind children. Evolution and Human Behavior, 39, 59–66. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2017.10.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, L., Lu, H. J., Lansford, J. E., Skinner, A. T., Bornstein, M. H., Steinberg, L., … Tapanya, S. (2019). Environmental harshness and unpredictability, life history, and social and academic behavior of adolescents in nine countries. Developmental Psychology, 55, 890–903. doi:10.1037/dev0000655CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chang, L., Lu, H. J., & Zhu, X. Q. (2017). Good genes, good providers, and good fathers and mothers: The withholding of parental investment by married couples. Evolutionary Behavioral Science, 11, 199–211. doi:10.1037/ebs0000086CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, L., Mak, M. C., Li, T., Wu, B. P., Chen, B. B., & Lu, H. J. (2011). Cultural adaptations to environmental variability: An evolutionary account of East–West differences. Educational Psychology Review, 23(1), 99–129. doi:10.1007/s10648-010-9149-0Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clutton-Brock, T. H. (1989). Review lecture: Mammalian mating systems. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, Biological Sciences, 236(1285), 339–372. doi:10.1098/rspb.1989.0027Google Scholar
Cook, M., & Mineka, S. (1990). Selective associations in the observational conditioning of fear in rhesus monkeys. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 16, 372–389. doi:10.1037/0097-7403.16.4.372Google Scholar
Darwin, C. (1871/2019). The descent of man. Books on Demand.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. (1982). The extended phenotype. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. B. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. In Eckes, T. & Trautner, H. M. (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 123–174). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ellis, B. J., Figueredo, A. J., Brumbach, B. H., & Schlomer, G. A. (2009). Fundamental dimensions of environmental risk: The impact of harsh vs. unpredictable environments on the evolution and development of life history strategies. Human Nature, 20, 204–268. doi:10.1007/s12110-009-9063-7Google Scholar
Ellison, P. T. (2001). On fertile ground: A natural history of human reproduction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ellison, P. T. (2003). Energetics and reproductive effort. American Journal of Human Biology, 15, 342–351. doi:10.1002/ajhb.10152CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gangestad, S. W., Dinh, T., Grebe, N. M., Del Giudice, M., & Thompson, M. E. (2019). Psychological cycle shifts redux: Revisiting a preregistered study examining preferences for muscularity. Evolution and Human Behavior, 40, 501–516.Google Scholar
Garcia, J., Kimeldorf, D. J., & Koelling, R. A. (1955). Conditioned aversion to saccharin resulting from exposure to gamma radiation. Science, 122, 157–158. doi:10.1126/science.122.3179.1089CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gershoff, E. T. (2002). Corporal punishment by parents and associated child behaviors and experiences: A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 539–579. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.128.4.539Google Scholar
Grebe, N. M., Gangestad, S. W., Garver-Apgar, C. E., & Thornhill, R. (2013). Women’s luteal-phase sexual proceptivity and the functions of extended sexuality. Psychological Science, 24, 2106–2110. doi:10.1177/0956797613485965Google Scholar
Griffiths, P. E., & Gray, R. D. (1994). Developmental systems and evolutionary explanation. Journal of Philosophy, 91, 277–304. doi:10.2307/2940982Google Scholar
Grøntvedt, T. V., Grebe, N. M., Kennair, L. E. O., & Gangestad, S. W. (2017). Estrogenic and progestogenic effects of hormonal contraceptives in relation to sexual behavior: Insights into extended sexuality. Evolution and Human Behavior, 38, 283–292. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2016.10.006Google Scholar
Hampden-Thompson, G., & Galindo, C. (2015). Family structure instability and the educational persistence of young people in England. British Educational Research Journal, 41, 749–766. doi:10.1002/berj.3179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hills, T. T. (2006). Animal foraging and the evolution of goal‐directed cognition. Cognitive Science, 30, 3–41. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog0000_50CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jacob, F., & Monod, J. (1961). Genetic regulatory mechanisms in the synthesis of proteins. Journal of Molecular Biology, 3, 318–356. doi:10.1016/S0022-2836(61)80072-7Google Scholar
Jacob, R., & Parkinson, J. (2015). The potential for school-based interventions that target executive function to improve academic achievement: A review. Review of Educational Research, 85, 512–552. doi:10.3102/0034654314561338Google Scholar
Kurvers, R. H., Prins, H. H., van Wieren, S. E., van Oers, K., Nolet, B. A., & Ydenberg, R. C. (2010). The effect of personality on social foraging: Shy barnacle geese scrounge more. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, Biological Sciences, 277, 601–608. doi:10.1098/rspb.2009.1474Google Scholar
Low, B. S. (2005). Women’s lives there, here, then, now: A review of women’s ecological and demographic constraints cross-culturally. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26, 64–87. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2004.08.011Google Scholar
Lu, H. J., Zhu, X., & Chang, L. (2015). Good genes, good providers, good fathers: Economic development involved in how women select a mate. Evolutionary Behavioral Science, 9, 215–228. doi:10.1037/ebs0000048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marchetti, C., & Drent, P. J. (2000). Individual differences in the use of social information in foraging by captive great tits. Animal Behaviour, 60, 131–140. doi:10.1006/anbe.2000.1443Google Scholar
Marlowe, F. (2000). Paternal investment and the human mating system. Behavioural Processes, 51, 45–61. doi:10.1016/S0376-6357(00)00118-2Google Scholar
Marlowe, F. W. (2003). A critical period for provisioning by Hadza men: Implications for pair bonding. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24, 217–229. doi:10.1016/S1090-5138(03)00014-XGoogle Scholar
Mayr, E. (1942). Systematics and the origin of species. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. (1961). Cause and effect in biology. Science, 134, 1501–1506. doi:10.1126/science.134.3489.1501Google Scholar
Mayr, E. (1974). Behavior programs and evolutionary strategies. American Scientist, 62, 650–659.Google Scholar
McLeod, S. (2018). Nature vs. nurture in psychology. Simply Psychology. Online resource. www.simplypsychology.org/naturevsnurture.htmlGoogle Scholar
Newson, L., & Richerson, P. J. (2009). Why do people become modern? A Darwinian explanation. Population and Development Review, 35, 117–158.Google Scholar
O’Donahue, W., & Ferguson, K. E. (2001). The psychology of B. F. Skinner. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Öhman, A., Fredrikson, M., Hugdahl, K., & Rimmö, P.-A. (1976). The premise of equipotentiality in human classical conditioning: Conditioned electrodermal responses to potentially phobic stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 105, 313–337. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.105.4.313Google Scholar
Oyama, S. (1985). The ontogeny of information: Developmental systems and evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Peluffo, A. E. (2015). The “genetic program”: Behind the genesis of an influential metaphor. Genetics, 200, 685–696. doi:10.1534/genetics.115.178418Google Scholar
Puts, D. A. (2010). Beauty and the beast: Mechanisms of sexual selection in humans. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31, 157–175. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2010.02.005Google Scholar
Reader, S. M. (2015). Causes of individual differences in animal exploration and search. Topics in Cognitive Science, 7, 451–468. doi:10.1111/tops.12148Google Scholar
Roberts, A., & Soederberg, S. (2012). Gender equality as smart economics? A critique of the 2012 World Development Report. Third World Quarterly, 33, 949–968. doi:10.1080/01436597.2012.677310Google Scholar
Roney, J. R., & Simmons, Z. L. (2013). Hormonal predictors of women’s sexual desire in normal menstrual cycles. Hormones and Behavior, 63, 636–645. doi:10.1016/j.yhbeh.2013.02.013Google Scholar
Roney, J. R., & Simmons, Z. L. (2017). Ovarian hormone fluctuations predict within-cycle shifts in women’s food intake. Hormones and Behavior, 90, 8–14. doi:10.1016/j.yhbeh.2017.01.009Google Scholar
Seligman, M. E. (1971). Phobias and preparedness. Behavior Therapy, 2, 307–320. doi:10.1016/S0005-7894(71)80064-3Google Scholar
Shea, N. (2011). Developmental systems theory formulated as a claim about inherited representations. Philosophy of Science, 78, 60–82. doi:10.1086/658110CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sheth, S. A., Abuelem, T., Gale, J. T., & Eskandar, E. N. (2011). Basal ganglia neurons dynamically facilitate exploration during associative learning. Journal of Neuroscience, 31, 4878–4885. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3658-10.2011Google Scholar
Thornhill, R., & Gangestad, S. W. (2008). The evolutionary biology of human female sexuality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tomar, N., & De, R. K. (2014). A brief outline of the immune system. Methods in Molecular Biology, 1184, 3–12. doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-1115-8_1Google Scholar
Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1990). On the universality of human nature and the uniqueness of the individual: The role of genetics and adaptation. Journal of Personality, 58, 17–67. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1990.tb00907.xGoogle Scholar
Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In Campbell, B. (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man 1871–1971 (pp. 136–179). Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
Turkheimer, E. (2000). Three laws of behavior genetics and what they mean. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 160–164. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00084Google Scholar
Waddington, C. H. (1957). The strategy of the genes: A discussion of some aspects of theoretical biology. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Wolf, M., van Doorn, G. S., Leimar, O., & Weissing, F. J. (2007) Life-history trade-offs favor the evolution of animal personalities. Nature, 447, 581–584. doi:10.1038/nature05835Google Scholar
Zhu, N., & Chang, L. (2019). Evolved but not fixed: A life history account of gender roles and gender inequality. Frontiers of Psychology, 10, 1709. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01709CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×