9.
1
The nature versus nurture controversy asks: are we who we are because of our genetic blueprint or
because of our life experiences? “Nature” refers to the genetic inheritance we receive from our parents.
“Nurture,” encompasses external influences and individual experiences. (Spielman, 2020)
Let’s apply this to flavor preferences—say, a love for spicy food. On the “nature” side, some people are
born with fewer taste buds or less sensitivity to capsaicin (the compound in chili peppers that causes
the burning sensation), which makes them more tolerant to spicy foods. (Miller, 1990) But then
“nurture” offers a cultural context. A person raised in a household where spicy food is a staple—like in
parts of India, Mexico, or Thailand—may develop a fondness for it through repeated exposure, positive
associations, and even social bonding over meals. So while someone may have a biological disposition
that makes spice more palatable, it’s often the environment that turns that possibility into a preference.
9.2
Each of the four primary parenting styles—authoritative, authoritarian, permissive, and uninvolved—
carries its own psychological fingerprint, and while none are universally perfect or disastrous, the
developmental outcomes they produce are remarkably consistent across cultures and studies.
Authoritative parenting is widely regarded as the most balanced and beneficial. These parents combine
high expectations with emotional support and open communication. They enforce rules but explain the
reasoning behind them and encourage independence. (Spielman, 2020) Unsurprisingly, children raised
this way tend to be confident, socially adept, and academically motivated—they’ve internalized
structure but also know their voices matter. In contrast, authoritarian parenting is high in control but
low in warmth. These parents prioritize obedience and often use punishment as a behavioral tool. While
kids from these households may be well-behaved in the short term, they often show higher levels of
anxiety, lower self-esteem, and difficulty with social interactions, likely due to the suppression of
emotional expression and autonomy. (Lickona, 2020)
Permissive parenting is kind of the “cool parent” archetype—high in warmth but low in discipline.
These parents are indulgent and avoid confrontation, often letting children make their own decisions
prematurely. While this might sound freeing, it can actually backfire. Children raised by permissive
parents frequently struggle with self-regulation, exhibit impulsive behavior, and may underperform
academically because they haven’t developed the internal discipline needed for structured
environments. Then we have uninvolved parenting, which is low in both responsiveness and
demandingness. These parents are disengaged—sometimes due to stress, mental health issues, or
neglect. Their children often face the harshest developmental challenges, including attachment issues,
poor academic achievement, and a higher risk of substance use and delinquency.
11.1
What makes the humanist approach arguably the most “accurate” is that it recognizes the fluid,
evolving nature of personality. Unlike trait theory, which tends to view personality as static, humanism
understands that people change based on their life experiences, relationships, and inner reflections.
(Spielman, 2020) It’s also deeply empathetic: instead of pathologizing human behavior, it asks what
needs aren’t being met—like love, belonging, or purpose. While other theories offer valuable insights,
humanism offers something profoundly respectful: it meets people where they are and assumes they
have the potential to grow. In a world obsessed with labels and diagnoses, the humanist approach dares
to see people as dynamic, whole, and ultimately hopeful.
As someone who has worked in mental health and drug rehab, I don’t dispute that there are many
underlying factors that contribute to personality. However, I feel that the vast majority of my patients
are capable of overcoming those circumstances, provided they choose to put in the work. Maybe the
nature of my work necessitates that I maintain it’s the internal response to circumstances that defines us
more than the circumstance itself.
11.2
Culture provides the framework through which individuals learn what traits are desirable, how to
express themselves, and even how to understand the concept of “self.” For example, in Western
cultures, especially in the U.S., individualism is prized—so traits like assertiveness and independence
are often seen as markers of a strong personality. Meanwhile, in collectivist cultures like Japan or many
parts of Latin America, harmony, humility, and interdependence are more highly valued. (Hopper,
2023) So a behavior that might be labeled “confident” in one culture could be seen as “rude” or
“selfish” in another. That’s not just a semantic difference—it literally alters how people think about
who they are and who they’re supposed to be.
Ignoring cultural context risks oversimplifying personality theories or, worse, imposing ethnocentric
standards that don't apply universally. Psychologists once believed that personality traits were
biologically universal. But traits don’t always map neatly onto every society. The expression of
extraversion can look wildly different in Scandinavia compared to South Korea—not because people
are fundamentally different, but because social norms encourage or discourage certain behaviors. So if
we’re serious about understanding personality in any meaningful or respectful way, we have to study it
through a culturally informed lens. Otherwise, we’re just drawing conclusions about people using
someone else’s map.
References
Hopper, E. (2023, May 16). Individualist or collectivist? how culture influences behavior.
[Link]. [Link]
behavior/#:~:text=On%20the%20other%20hand%2C%20people%20from%20collectivistic,more
%20likely%20to%20change%20across%20different%20contexts).&text=On%20the%20other%20hand
%2C%20relationships%20in%20collectivistic,often%20seen%20as%20more%20stable%20and
%20permanent.
Lickona, T. (2020, June 18). 4 parenting styles: How they relate to a child’s character. Psychology
Today. [Link]
they-relate-childs-character
Miller, I. J., Jr., & Reedy, F. E., Jr. (1990). Variations in human taste bud density and taste intensity
perception. Physiology & Behavior, 47(6), 1213–1219. [Link]
Spielman, R. M., Jenkins, W. J., & Lovett, M. D. (2020). Psychology 2e Rose M. Spielman, William J.
Jenkins, Marilyn D. Lovett. OpenStax.
1. I think in my own life, nature influenced my preference for spicy foods. It's possible that this is born
of some sort of nurture-based masochism. But, I grew up in the middle of rural PA-dutch country, and
all the self-hating types I grew up with were just fine sticking to the same bland foods everyone else in
the region enjoyed. This leads me to think it is something more innate to my own being. As far as a trait
born from nurture, that is probably my anxiety. I grew up in fairly oppressive religious culture and had
terrible nerves throughout my developmental years. It wasn't until adulthood when I moved away that I
began to see these traits subside.
I do agree with you that weight is influenced by both. Our metabolisms are very much a product of
nature, while our diets and habits tend to be greatly influenced by our cultures. (Fisher, nd)
2. This is an interesting question. My parents definitely strove to be auuthoritative. They were
encouraging, pushed me to excel, and always made time for me growing up. We always had great
communication and they really urged me to think critically and independently on most matters.
However, they both had somewhat short fuses. Their wishes for me to act independently were often
contradicted by how angrily they could respond if my actions caused them stress. I think their lived
reality never quite matched their expressed ideals. There were definitely punishments if I didn’t
consistently produce excellent academic work, for instance. As a result, there were many bridges you
didn’t cross and even now I have to censor myself around them. I wouldn’t say this ever veered into
purely authoritarian parenting. But, it’s an interesting example of how in reality most parents will
display qualities of all four styles in the course of their child’s development.
3. I appreciate your endorsement of the learning approaches—Bandura’s social-cognitive theory and
Rotter’s locus of control both offer compelling insights into how behavior is shaped by environment
and belief systems. However, I would argue that the humanistic approach to personality is ultimately
more accurate and comprehensive because it emphasizes something that many other theories neglect:
the innate drive toward personal growth and self-actualization. While learning approaches focus
heavily on external influences, the humanistic perspective highlights the inner, subjective experience of
being human—something that’s difficult to quantify but central to understanding personality.
Pioneers like Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow proposed that people are not just passive recipients of
environmental stimuli or reinforcement schedules, but are active agents striving toward purpose,
meaning, and authenticity. For example, Rogers’ concept of the ideal self versus the real self explains
how incongruence can lead to psychological distress, while congruence supports well-being and
personal growth. (Spielman, 2020) Unlike the deterministic lens of many learning theories, humanism
offers a more optimistic and empowering view. It recognizes that even in the face of difficult
environments or poor modeling, individuals can reflect, choose, and evolve.
4. One situation where cultural factors would be important to understand is when navigating small-
town social etiquette in rural Pennsylvania, especially in communities with strong Pennsylvania Dutch
or Amish influence. If you’re a newcomer attending a local farmer’s market, you might unintentionally
cross boundaries—like snapping a casual photo of an Amish family or trying to engage them in
conversation in ways that feel invasive. (PBS) Many Amish individuals avoid photography for religious
reasons rooted in humility and the rejection of vanity, so what seems like a harmless selfie could
actually be deeply offensive.
References
Fisher, P. (n.d.). What is your metabolic type?. How to find your metabolic type | What is your
metabolic Type | Live Lean Rx. [Link]
Public Broadcasting Service. (n.d.). The Amish and photography. PBS.
[Link]
Spielman, R. M., Jenkins, W. J., & Lovett, M. D. (2020). Psychology 2e Rose M. Spielman, William J.
Jenkins, Marilyn D. Lovett. OpenStax.
1. I feel nature is likely responsible for my sociability. I am fairly introverted, never getting especially
energized from being around others. As far back as I can recall my moments of alone time have been
sacred to me. However, I believe nurture explains how I socialize. I grew up in a household where my
parents expected me to perform exceptionally well in school, in all things really. Even around the
house, it was normal for us to quip off of one another, try to make one another laugh, and meaningfully
build on one another’s conversations. I wouldn’t call it competitive, but being entertaining and witty
was sort of polite, as it added to the listeners day. I carry this into social engagements to this very day.
I’m always performing a little bit, sharing any one liner or zinng that enters my head. It’s not trying to
be the most dazzling person in the room, I was just raised to try and be entertaining.
A trait influenced by both would be my ethics. I think that my moral compass is swayed heavily by my
own self-interest, but a lot off it doubtlessly comes from the values that were instilled within me at a
young age by my folks and community.
2. If I had kids, I would be extremely permissive. I think that the outsized “risk” of substance use and
sexual activity is actually a good thing. (Heyworth, 2025) Outside of the limiting dogma of society, I
think this reflects a normal and naturalistic tendency to engage with the world around you, as well as
honoring your innate drives. And frankly “disruptive social behavior” just sounds like effective
assertiveness which is largely rewarded by peers. One of the reasons I don’t have children is because I
grew up in an extremely restrictive religious culture, where I was never viewed as a potential partner
and I had no means of tapping into alternative social circles where I might have found greater
acceptance. If I had kids, I’d want them to be able to move freely, express themselves genuinely, and
take risks that would lead them to finding their tribe. I recognize that this would likely expose them to
negative influences, but sheltering them doesn’t help them to learn how to properly address these
matters either.
Society isn’t real. Laws are made up. I’d rather raise a child to be a healthy human creature, than to be
neat little cog for an inherently evil system. (Best, 2006) Original sin was when man first climbed
down from the trees. Life is messy, loud, and tough. I’d like my offspring to match its energy.
3. Honestly, I think the humanistic approach offers a richer, more holistic view of personality. Learning
theories, while valuable, often reduce humans to little more than reactive organisms—pawns of
reinforcement schedules and observational models. The humanistic approach, on the other hand, treats
people as proactive, conscious agents who are striving toward personal growth, self-actualization, and
meaning. People aren’t just shaped by what they’ve seen or been rewarded for—they have goals,
values, and an inner life that influences how they act in ways behaviorists often ignore. (Or at least I
do.)
Carl Rogers emphasized the importance of unconditional positive regard and self-concept—ideas that
reflect the importance of relationships, empathy, and personal agency in shaping personality. Maslow’s
hierarchy of needs puts self-actualization at the top, emphasizing that our personalities are driven by
more than habits—they’re driven by a fundamental need to become our best selves. (Spielman, 2020)
Learning approaches might be great for explaining how habits form, but they don't really answer the
deeper questions: Why do people pursue art? Why do they sacrifice for others? Why do they change
their lives after a crisis? The humanistic approach allows for a depth and dignity in personality
development that behaviorism often misses. I fear that adherence to other approaches lead to a kind of
self-negation. They encourage one to think of themselves less as an individual with agency, and moreso
as a thing defined by immutable labels.
4. One example where cultural factors are absolutely essential is in the critique of Soviet cinema,
particularly films produced during the Stalinist era. Take Sergei Eisenstein’s Ivan the Terrible. To a
Western viewer unfamiliar with the political climate of mid-20th-century USSR, the film might appear
as a stylized, operatic biopic about a paranoid tsar. However, a culturally literate critique reveals that
Eisenstein was navigating a perilous ideological landscape. (Halperin, 2021) Stalin himself
commissioned the film, intending it to glorify Ivan IV as a strong, unifying leader—a veiled self-
portrait of Stalin. Yet Eisenstein, through bold visual symbolism and psychological complexity, subtly
critiqued authoritarian power, portraying Ivan’s descent into isolation and despotism with a level of
ambiguity that was truly subversive.
Without understanding Soviet censorship, propaganda expectations, and the artistic doublespeak that
filmmakers had to employ under totalitarian rule, critics might either overestimate or completely miss
the subtext. A Western critic might call Eisenstein’s choices “excessive” or “expressionistic,” not
realizing that this formalism was a strategic cloak for political commentary. Cultural awareness allows
us to see Ivan the Terrible not just as a historical epic, but as a masterclass in cinematic resistance
under surveillance. Critiquing Soviet cinema without this context would be like trying to solve a riddle
while ignoring half the clues.
References
Best, S., & Nocella, A. J. (2006). Igniting a revolution: Voices in defense of the Earth. AK Press.
Halperin, C. (2021). The atheist director and the orthodox tsar: Ivan the Terrible in Russian Historical
Memory since 1991, 219–232. [Link]
Heyworth, K. (2025, March 17). Are you a permissive parent? 7 signs and expert advice. Parents.
[Link]
according-to-a-child-psychologist/
Spielman, R. M., Jenkins, W. J., & Lovett, M. D. (2020). Psychology 2e Rose M. Spielman, William J.
Jenkins, Marilyn D. Lovett. OpenStax.
