Nature Versus Nurture

Are we born with an innate, specific natural program that will determine the way our lives will progress? Or will our course of development evolve based on how we are nurtured, our environment, and what we learn? Famously known as the nature/nurture controversy, this is the greatest question faced by developmental science. For example, when you see a teen who easily loses his temper and lashes out at others, would you say he behaves this way because of genes inherited from his hot-headed father or mother? Or would you say that he learned his behavior from growing up in a home where everyone was angry? This question is important because the way we answer it will influence our decisions about how to help people who are having difficulties in life. For example, if you believe that everything is nature, or genetic, what good will come from trying to help people with hardships? After all, it is all in their inherited “program.”

Quantitative Growth Versus Qualitative Growth

Does human development progress very slowly and systematically, like a vehicle being driven up a ramp? Or does life progress in larger units? Do people stagnate for some time and then advance rapidly when they reach a critical point, stepping up onto a new, higher stage of life? Quantitative growth implies small, gradual units of development, whereas qualitative growth implies very noticeable differences from one life stage to another. Quantitative growth is also referred to as continuous growth, as the growth progresses in a continuity that is very measurable and systematic. Qualitative growth, in contrast, is referred to as discontinuous growth, as it involves moving in uneven bursts from one stage to another.

The difference between these two kinds of growth can also be understood by thinking about people at various ages. Think about the differences, for example, in intellectual and emotional maturity between a 5-year-old and a 7-year-old, and then consider the differences in intellectual and emotional maturity between a 7-year-old and a 9-year-old. In both cases, the children are 2 years apart. The quantitative perspective would say that a 7-year-old is different than a 5-year-old in the same way that a 9-year-old is different than a 7-year old, as quantitatively they are the same distance from one another, 2 years. The qualitative perspective would disagree and say that the difference between the two age gaps is not the same. A 9-year-old is more mature than the 7-year-old in different ways than a 7-year-old is more mature than the 5-year-old. According to the stage approach, development is not continuous; instead, growth progresses differently during each age interval due to dissimilarities in quality between each stage of life. Another way of looking at this question is as follows: When children learn to talk, do they gradually use language in a slow and systematic way, word for word, adding to the quantity of their language abilities in evenly measured advances? Or does language develop in sudden bursts of capability, enabling the child to advance to a new stage of life?

Early Versus Late Experiences

Are the early years of life what determine the course of all future development? Or do we develop and change throughout life? Developmental scientists with an “early experiences” orientation argue that what happens in childhood is the foundation for all future behavior, beliefs, and personality. Other developmental scientists believe that later experiences are as important as early ones. According to this perspective, development occurs throughout life and every stage has the ability to produce change. For example, if a child had an impoverished, abusive upbringing and grew into a very difficult and delinquent adolescent, would you say that this adolescent’s misbehavior and criminality is now an integral and unchangeable part of who he or she is for the rest of the individual’s life, or can later life experiences also be influential for this adolescent, possibly contributing to a changed and more positive life for this person? The answer to this question is clearly an important part of determining how to help adolescents with difficulties in life. It would obviously be very difficult to help in these cases if we determine that once a person reaches adulthood, that person does not have the ability to change or be influenced. We will deal in much more detail with issues of the application of developmental science in later sections of this chapter and in the rest of the book.

The three fundamental questions of nature versus nurture, quantitative versus qualitative growth, and early versus late experiences guide the study of development and help direct the research and application in the various subdisciplines that focus on understanding the process of human development. However, it is important to understand that most 21st-century developmental scientists agree that development is ultimately driven by an interaction of both sides of these three questions. These questions are used as a framework to help us understand the various forces driving development. In the end it is clear that development is motivated by multiple interconnected components.

What Was Thought About Children?

Archeological findings from the Middle East, North Africa, and ancient Greece reveal pottery art and engravings depicting childhood play. Apparently, these early civilizations gave children the time and resources to indulge in their need to play, similar to the way Western society views childhood today. Nevertheless, under early Greco-Roman rule children were typically seen as less valuable than adults and were often subjected to harsh treatment, neglect, and abuse (Bakke, 2005).

In Europe during the Middle Ages (500–1500 CE), the pervasive approach to child-rearing was based on the religious concept of original sin. Children were seen as being born sinful and possessing an evil inclination from the first moment of life. The Bible contains several passages depicting children as sinful (“every product of the thoughts of his heart are but evil always” [Genesis 6:5]) and advocating harsh discipline (“He who spares the rod, hates the son” [Proverbs 13:24]).

By the end of the Middle Ages and the dawn of the Enlightenment, a new approach toward children began to surface in the writings of the English philosopher John Locke (1632–1704). In his Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1689) he described the mind of the newborn child as a tabula rasa, or blank slate. Blank slates are neither evil nor good; they are blank, like a white sheet of paper ready to be written on. Individuals become a function of the environment they grow up in. According to this view, children’s “slates” (i.e., their minds, their personalities) are “written on” by the people, places, and things they know, which in turn makes them the way they are.

In his book The Social Contract (1762), Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778), another Enlightenment philosopher, introduced the third historical approach to children. Rousseau believed that children are born innately good; in his view, if we allow children to develop uninterrupted they will naturally mature into good adults. He further suggested that bad behavior later in life is a function of the society in which individuals developed that corrupts their natural good.

What Was Thought About Adolescents?

Elements of these three views on children can be seen in the historical view on adolescents with some uniqueness ascribed to this evolving stage in life. The focus on adolescence as being a distinct and somewhat tumultuous stage of development can be traced all the way back to the Bible. Written, according to the most egalitarian views, beginning at about 900 BCE (Ehrlich, 2009), the Bible, in the 37th chapter of Genesis, recounts the story of Joseph, the second-to-last son of Jacob. The chapter elaborated on this 17-year-old “youth,” or “Na’ar” in biblical Hebrew, who is extremely idealistic, is obsessed with his appearance, is engaged in conflicts with his siblings, and is having a hard time communicating with his father. It sounds like the Bible is describing a teenager living in suburban Chicago rather than a religious figure living in the wastelands of Canaan.

A bit later in history, the Greek philosopher Plato (424–348 BCE) believed that adolescents had a growing capacity for reason, which, in turn, allowed for the beginning of the study of science and math (Arnett, 1999). His disciple Aristotle (384–322 BCE) stated that adolescents were “heated by nature as drunken men by wine.” By comparing adolescents to the intoxicated he was suggesting that adolescence is a time of great volatility and turbulence. Now you know why schools have a zero-tolerance policy for drinking; just imagine what would happen if you combine a naturally intoxicated adolescent and alcohol.

Fast forward to the Middle Ages, during the height of the crusades, when a group of youths decided to organize the Children’s Crusade around the year 1212 (Runciman, 1951). Many teens from various areas in modern-day Europe decided to march in their own crusade with a goal of reaching modern-day Israel, the Holy Land, and usher in the days of the Messiah. They marched south through Italy toward the Mediterranean Sea with a goal of crossing the sea and reaching the Holy Land. Along the way many of these adolescents were taken advantage of by locals and were abused; others died during the journey. The survivors reached the tip of Italy and tried marching through the ocean waters, expecting that God would part the sea for them as he did in biblical times for the wandering Jews en route from Egypt to Israel. As they entered the waters expecting a miracle, many of the youths drowned, ending this tragic episode. This historical incident is emblematic of the idealism and the unpredictable nature common in adolescents. The combination of these adolescent characteristics often leads to self-destructive behavior, as seen from the outcome of the Children’s Crusade. Similarly, during the Enlightenment, Jean-Jacques Rousseau described the adolescent period as the “stormy adolescence,” believing that adolescence was a tumultuous time of life.

By the end of the 19th century, a new focus was emerging on adolescent issues. In the United States, this “Age of Adolescence” (1890– 1920) ushered in new laws mandating school attendance and limiting the number of hours adolescents could work, changing the daily activities of adolescents in a profound way (Lleras-Muney, 2002).

The scientific study of adolescence began with the work of the first president of the American Psychological Association, G. Stanley Hall (1844– 1924). Hall coined the phrase “storm and stress” to describe adolescence. In his seminal two-volume book Adolescence (1904), Hall suggested three key characteristics of the adolescent experience: conflict with parents, mood disruptions, and risky behavior.

The next shift in the historical thinking about adolescence came with the work of anthropologist Margaret Mead (1901– 1978). Mead spent a considerable amount of time studying adolescents in the South Pacific island of Samoa, where she observed that their transition into adulthood was marked by very little strife. As a result, she concluded that adolescent “storm and stress” was not universal. Instead, she suggested that the stress found in Western cultures was based on social and cultural elements (Mead, 1928).

Present and Future

Several of these past ideas about the nature of adolescent development have served as the foundation for the overarching theories of adolescent development that guide current research and practice in the field. Elements of the original sin view can be seen in psychoanalytic theory, which will be examined in the next chapter. The blank slate idea is the forerunner to behaviorism and its emphasis on the environment as the driving force behind development. Finally, innate goodness can be seen as the foundation of some of the assertions of the humanistic theory of development, which highlights individual choice and our need to fulfill potential. Although less influential in the modern world of adolescent development, these ideas have had a profound impact on the conceptualization and treatment of adolescent psychopathology.

The modern study of adolescent development is grounded on a group of developmental theories reviewed in the upcoming chapter. As you will see at the conclusion of these theories, ultimately the current study of adolescent development requires an integration of theories and brings a multidisciplinary perspective to research and practice concerning adolescents.