Introduction
The debate over whether aggressive behavior can best be predicted by biology or by adaptation to the natural environment has been a common topic of discussion in psychology and related academic fields. As a result, various theories have been developed to help solve the debate. For example, one of the most notable genetic perspectives was advocated by Chomsky (1965), who suggested that humans are born with an innate ability to acquire language. Hence, the development of aggressive behavior occurs through an inherent mechanism of aggression acquisition.
Meanwhile, Freud (1915) proposed that human behavior and its variations are rooted in a fundamental drive called libido. On the contrary, environmental perspective theorists argue that behaviors can be acquired through nurturing. The most notable approaches in this realm are the behaviorism theory put forward by Watson and Rayner (1920) and the social learning theory of Bandura (1977). The following paper presents an analysis of both approaches and a review of four scholarly articles on the nature-versus-nurture debate.
Aggression as an Emotional State
Aggression, as described by Ramirez (2003), is a multifaceted emotional state characterized by behaviors such as confrontation, the intention to cause harm, and avoidance by those targeted. This phenomenon encompasses various forms, including verbal and physical aggression, as well as instrumental aggression, which aims to achieve specific objectives through assertiveness, and relational aggression, which damages interpersonal relationships. Throughout different stages of development—from early childhood to adulthood—aggression can manifest in different ways, impacting individuals and their social interactions.
A fundamental question in the study of aggression concerns its potential heritability. This inquiry focuses specifically on the role of genetics in shaping aggressive tendencies, acknowledging that aggression may be influenced by a combination of biological, genetic, physical, mental health, and social factors. Furthermore, the genetic perspective theory posits that genetic influences on aggression may extend beyond conception, persisting throughout an individual’s lifespan.
To investigate this issue, four articles have been selected for evaluation—two supporting and two opposing the idea of aggression being inherently hereditary. These articles offer insights into the genetic foundations of aggression, particularly within families where older members have been diagnosed with mental disorders (Girard et al., 2019). By critically analyzing and synthesizing these articles, this study aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the intricate relationship between genetics and aggression, shedding light on its multifaceted nature and potential implications for intervention and prevention efforts in both individual and societal contexts.
Discussion
Having clarified the essence of the work and the meaning of aggression in preschool-age groups, it is worth moving on to a detailed analysis. In the second level of the poster, two sets of research articles supporting one side of the argument were critically examined to assess which position was most reliable. On the left side are studies confirming the role of biology and genetics in shaping human behavior, and the second row confirms the view that upbringing has the strongest influence on predicting violent acts. This comparative analysis is carried out to answer the main research question: Is a person’s tendency to display aggressive behavior innate?
As shown on the right side of the comparative analysis section, one group of researchers argues that aggressive behavior is best assessed using genetic methods. Their views are supported by researchers such as Sellers et al. (2020) and Patel et al. (2020), who argue that biology underlies human actions and behavior in society. Their experiments were based on a review of the parents’ genetic profiles, family tree analysis, and the children’s behavioral outcomes.
The second group of researchers believes that such aggressive behavior is acquired. They believe that, depending on environmental factors, people can choose whether or not to engage in actions that undermine peace. These two opposing views have created a dichotomy between “nature and nurture” as the best predictors of aggression.
Sellers et al. (2020) and Patel et al. (2020) have provided empirical evidence consistent with the first view, which holds that genetics plays a significant role in determining aggressive behavior. On the contrary, Smarius et al. (2020) and Hagan et al. (2020) argue that aggressive behavior is acquired through environmental factors. In other words, they believe that nature plays a limited role in shaping people’s actions. Details regarding the content of their research articles will form the basis of the second section of this presentation, which will discuss the objectives, methods, and findings of the selected articles.
Scientists who support the role of nature in predicting aggressive behavior have assessed how human behavior changes across the lifespan. Smarius et al. (2020) assessed genetic predisposition to aggressive behavior using maternal parenting styles during childhood. They used maternal verbal aggression to predict aggressive behavior in two groups of respondents. The first included infants aged 5 to 6 years (n = 969). In the second phase of the study, they recruited children aged 11 to 12 years (n = 750).
As a result, it was found that verbal maternal aggression directly correlates with an increased level of anxiety among the first group of children aged 5 to 6 years. Overall, the results of this study supported the influence of parenting on the development of aggressive behavior among infants and children. The longitudinal time design was a strength, while the emphasis on maternal aggression as the sole basis for assessing parenting’s influence on aggression was a limitation.
Hagan et al. (2020) supported the role of environmental factors in shaping an individual’s aggressive behavior in a study aimed at examining the interactive influence of family history on aggressive behavior. Researchers studied the behavior of young adult women (n = 178) aged 18-35 years at American State University. The method utilized was a self-reported questionnaire, with the help of which it was found that childhood family environment was a strong predictor of aggression among young women. A small sample size and low internal consistency for the measures of proactive forms of aggression limit the study. However, its focus on the developmental period, often overlooked in aggression research, is a clear strength.
Meanwhile, Sellers et al. (2020) aimed at investigating the potential impact of the rearing environment on children’s aggression. Scholars analyzed the interconnection between genetic susceptibility and environmental processes. The method employed by Sellers et al. (2020) was a longitudinal genetically sensitive parent–offspring adoption design on AHDH symptoms. The research included evaluations of birth parent characteristics, enabling the examination of heritable risk, and analyzed whether genetic risk for ADHD was related to early child impulsivity.
Analyses were carried out using Cohort I (n=340) of the early growth and development study, with cross-validation using Cohort II (n=178). The findings suggest that genetically influenced attributes in the child had a direct effect on later behavior problems. The unique perspective of including birth and adoptive mothers in research that was chosen by the authors is the study’s strength. On the other hand, variations in complete case analyses and imputed data represent a limitation.
Finally, Patel et al. (2020) reported comparable findings in a study aimed at identifying factors underlying aggressive behaviors among men and women. In an anonymous online survey, 130 adult respondents from various ethnicities, ages, and nationalities were recruited to take part in the study using convenience and referral sampling methods. The researchers concluded that heredity had a more substantial impact on predicting aggressive behavior than upbringing.
The participants’ diverse experiences enhanced the study’s findings and strengthened the study. The primary shortcoming lies in the self-provided nature of the data, which limits the reliability. To determine which assessment domain reliably predicts evil behavior, it is crucial to analyze the results from the two sets of viewpoints presented by the researchers in the model results section.
Modeling the Outcomes
Chomsky and Freud are scholars who have advanced the nativist theory, which has been used to support the idea that aggressive behaviors are entirely innate (Hill, 2023). In contrast, Watson and Rayner provided support for the behavioral theory perspective, which counters the view that aggressive behavior is innate (Madden et al., 2021). The social learning theory, which argues that behavior is largely learned, has similarly thrived within this school of thought.
Genetics can influence the emergence of violent behavior postnatally. Warrier et al. (2021) discovered that abuse and inappropriate conduct towards family members have a genetic component, increasing the likelihood of engaging in risky behavior. These discussions show that the two opposing views on the influence of nature and nurture in triggering violent conduct are rooted in traditional literary theory.
As highlighted in the conceptual framework, three levels of control – inputs, routes, and outcomes – are useful in determining the strength of each argument advanced in this debate. At the input level, a person or situation may cause an individual to adopt aggressive behaviors. At the route level, an examination of one’s cognitive skills may lead a person to feel aroused, rejected, or experience mixed feelings towards the stimuli through an affective mechanism. This process may lead to an appraisal of outcomes or decision processes based on the adoption of thoughtful actions and impulse-control measures. This influence follows a cyclical pattern of engagement, as illustrated, in which thoughtful action and impulse control create social encounters that shape actions or behaviors.
The four journal articles reviewed in this investigation negate the idea that an individual’s tendency to demonstrate aggressive behavior is entirely innate. The two schools of thought, which affirm the influence of one or the other (nature vs. nurture) in predicting human behaviors, presuppose that genetics cannot be used as the only predictor of violent behavior. At the same time, no studies have been cited in this presentation, which supports the view that aggressive behaviors are entirely innate.
Yan et al. (2019) found that aggression in children is not necessarily an inherent trait but is often influenced by external factors, such as upbringing and the family and child’s social environment. Girard et al. (2019) found a direct association between authoritarian parenting style and the development of aggressiveness in children. The manifestations are most pronounced during adolescence, driven by shifts in authority figures, hormonal fluctuations, and reduced cognitive control.
Based on this statement, it can be deduced that the four studies reviewed in this presentation are largely similar in findings, to the extent that they recognize the role of nature vs. nurture in predicting aggressive behaviors. However, they vary in their determination of which one of the two factors is more dominant in predicting aggressive actions. The findings of both articles promote a basic understanding of how people’s feelings are translated into actions, as shown in the modeling outcomes section of the presentation.
Conclusion
In this investigation, we have found that the debate over the effects of nurture and nature on human behavior has served as the basis for evaluating the claim that an individual’s tendency to exhibit aggressive behavior is entirely innate. This statement, if analyzed from “face value,” presupposes that only factors that occurred before conception, such as genetics and biology, are responsible for human actions. Conversely, it gives the impression that life experiences, learning, and environmental factors have no significant role to play in predicting violence.
Two sets of research studies have provided evidence for either case. Our investigation has acknowledged the existing dichotomy in the arguments advanced and rejects the view that aggressive human behavior is entirely innate. Instead, it presupposes that nurture and nature play similar yet distinct roles in shaping behavior.
Therefore, aggressive actions are often linked to both factors– either nurture or nature – but not one alone. Therefore, a person’s inclination toward aggressive behavior is not solely determined by innate factors. The following stages involve identifying the most permissive method for raising children to reduce learned aggressive behavior.
References
Girard, L.-C., Tremblay, R. E., Nagin, D., & Côté, S. M. (2019). Development of aggression subtypes from childhood to adolescence: A group-based multi-trajectory modeling perspective. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 47(5), 825–838.
Hagan, M. J., Waters, S. F., Holley, S., Moctezuma, L., & Gentry, M. (2020). The interactive effect of family conflict history and physiological reactivity on different forms of aggression in young women. Biological Psychology, 153.
Hill, P. G. (2023). Monsters in the classroom: Noam Chomsky, human nature, and education. Vernon Art and Science Incorporated.
Madden, G. J., Reed, D. D., & DiGennaro, F. D. (2021). An introduction to behavior analysis. Wiley.
Patel, S., Miyares, M., & Mishra, M. (2020). Causative factors for aggressive behavior and violent tendencies: Nature versus nurture. American Journal of Medicine and Medical Sciences, 10(6), 370-373.
Sellers, R., Harold, G. T., Thapar, A., Neiderhiser, J. M., Ganiban, J. M., Reiss, D., Shaw, D. S.., Natsuaki., M. N., & Leve, L. D. (2020). Examining the role of genetic risk and longitudinal transmission processes underlying maternal parenting and psychopathology and children’s ADHD symptoms and aggression: Utilizing the advantages of a prospective adoption design. Behavioral Genetics, 50(4), 247-262.
Smarius, L. J. C. A., Strieder, T. G. A., Doreleijers, T. A. H., Vrijkotte, T. G. M., Zafarmand, M. H., & de Rooij, S. R. (2020). Maternal verbal aggression in early infancy and child’s internalizing symptoms: Interaction by common oxytocin polymorphisms. European Archives ofPsychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 270(5), 541–551.
Sturmey, P. (2022). Violence and aggression: Integrating theory, research, and practice. Springer International Publishing.
Warrier, V., Kwong, A. S. F., Luo, M., Dalvie, S., Croft, J., Sallis, H. M., Baldwin, J., Munafò, M. R., Nievergelt, C. M., Grant, A. J., Burgess, S., Moore, T. M., Barzilay, R., McIntosh, A., van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Cecil, C. A. M. (2021). Gene-environment correlations and causal effects of childhood maltreatment on physical and mental health: A genetically informed approach. Lancet Psychiatry, 8(5), 373-386.
Yan, N., Ansari, A., & Wang, Y. (2019). Intrusive parenting and child externalizing behaviors across childhood: The antecedents and consequences of child-driven effects. Journal of Family Psychology, 33(6), 661–670.