The Perennial Debate: Nature, Nurture, or Choice? Black and White Americans’ Explanations for Individual Differences

Abstract

This paper examines three common explanations for human characteristics: genes, the environment, and choice. Based on data from a representative sample of White and Black Americans, respondents indicated how much they believed each factor influenced individual differences in athleticism, nurturance, drive, math ability, violence, intelligence, and sexual orientation. Results show that across traits: 1) Black respondents generally favor choice and reject genetic explanations, whereas White respondents indicate less causal consistency; 2) although a sizeable subset of respondents endorse just one factor, most report multiple factors as at least partly influential; and 3) among White respondents greater endorsement of genetic explanations is associated with less acceptance of choice and the environment, although among Black respondents a negative relationship holds only between genes and choice. The social relevance of these findings is discussed within the context of the attribution, essentialism and lay theory literature. The results underscore the need to consider more complex and nuanced issues than are implied by the simplistic, unidimensional character of the nature/nurture and determinism/free will debates -perennial controversies that have significance in the current genomic era. NIH Public Access Author ManuscriptRev Gen Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 January 12. Why do people behave the way they do? Why do individuals have particular talents, skills, and abilities? Although various causal factors have been proposed, three explanations with strong social relevance have emerged as prominent: genes, the environment, and personal choice. These three factors play a central role in two major ongoing debates. The first, commonly termed the "nature/nurture" question, is typically conceptualized as a contrast between genetic (nature) and environmental (nurture) explanation. The second debate, frequently referred to as "determinism/free will," generally focuses on whether human nature is controlled by natural laws (genetic factors) and is therefore somewhat "determined," or is influenced by free will (personal choice). Although scholars note the obvious fallacies of framing these controversies in stark, "either/or" terms (e.g., Moore, 2001), it is crucial to understand the relative roles of these factors in people's everyday construals, especially given that commonsense explanations that people provide have important implications for how they react to their own and others' behaviors (Buchanan & Seligman, 1995;Weiner, 1986). This paper addresses two key questions: (1) which explanatory factor(s) do people offer to explain human characteristics?and (2) what are the interrelations among the perceived causal factors? Furthermore, given that causal beliefs often differ by ethnicity and social group (e.g., Marcus & Kitayama, 1991), our analysis considers the potential effect of ethnic group on these perceptions.What is the significance of our questions? First, burgeoning genetic research and t...

Understandings of Basic Genetics in the United States: Results from a National Survey of Black and White Men and Women

“…Alternatively, it appears that the gender effect may be partially due to the fact that only 15% of White men answered the genes determine race statement correctly, considerably less than any other ethnic/gender group. It is noteworthy that White men may have the most to gain in terms of maintaining their privileged position in the racial/gender social hierarchy by believing that group differences are genetic, and thus, natural and unchangeable [24,38]. However, we found no significant gender difference on the question about genetic similarity within gender, which might have been expected if this were the case.…”

“…The primary goal of the larger study was to explore genetic explanations for human traits and their impact on sociopolitical ideologies [38,39]. The surveys were administered by professional interviewers and averaged 40 minutes in length.…”

The Genomic Revolution and Beliefs about Essential Racial Differences

“…Perhaps these media reports are common but do not alter public beliefs about more essential racial differences. Finally, research suggests that the public is more inclined to attribute physical and health-related characteristics to genetic factors than outcomes such as talent and success in life (Condit et al 2004; Jayaratne et al 2009; Parrott et al 2005; Singer, Corning, and Lamias 1998); this may limit the extent to which messages about racial differences related to genetics and health will generalize to more general racial differences.…”

Gene–environment interactions and health inequalities: views of underserved communities

“…Therefore, our sample may not have had enough men to adequately account for potential gender differences in opinions on genetics and health inequalities. There have been a number of recent discussions about potential gender differences in knowledge and attitudes regarding genetics (Henneman et al 2006;Jayaratne et al 2009). For example, one study reported higher levels of knowledge among women regarding the genetic determination of race (Christensen et al 2010).…”

“…A number of recent studies have begun to explore the potential impact of genetic knowledge on views regarding genetics and geneenvironment interactions (Christensen et al 2010;Jayaratne et al 2009;Singer et al 2004). One study for example found that African-American and Latino participants were less likely to utilize genetic services based on a lack of knowledge provided to them through their health care providers (Suther and Kiros 2009).…”