Sexuality: The Nature vs Nurture debate

The Nature-Nurture debate is a long running psychological debate. One which is still greatly of interest in matters of, behaviour, child development and even what makes a criminal. For the purpose of this essay I shall focus on one representative argument in the nature-nurture debate, this being sexuality. The belief of sexuality being a factor of Nature or Nurture will be discussed through the Psychological Levels discussed in Psychology: the science of mind and behaviour (2nd Ed) 2012. These being biological (Evoluntionary Psychology), Environmental (Behaviourism) and Social (Social Psychologists).

Evolutionary Psychology began with Charles Darwin upon the publication of his book ‘The Origin of the Species’ in 1859. Since then Evolutionary Psychology has only advanced. Around the time of Darwin’s work, Mendel (1855-68) was working on understanding genetics, he proposed that there were two of each gene given to a person by their mother and their father. This theory was later expanded to its fullest for by Watson and Crick in the 1950’s with an understanding of Chromosomes and Hormones creating DNA.

This could then be a great example of why LeVay (1991) suggested that there was such a thing as a ‘’Gay Gene’’ which determined whether or not an individual would be homosexual or heterosexual. His study was performed on deceased males, both homosexual and heterosexual. He discovered a difference in the size of the men’s brains. This was suggestion for their being a strand of the men’s DNA which determined their sexuality.

Following this research was that of Griffith Vaughan Williams (1993). He also believed that the Gay Gene existed and that it was passed from mother to son – much like an X chromosome. His study was conducted on over 50 pairs of brothers who were homosexual. He found that 46% of these brothers had at least three matching chromosomes. This was, he suggested, proof of natural sexuality.

However the results of the two above studies are from conclusive. 46% is not a high enough percentage in genetically related individuals to claim a homosexual gene, LeVay’s study was even less reliable as it turned out all of his homosexual participants had died from AIDs, this could have been a major factor in the difference in brain sizes. On the opposite side of the nature scale is the work of Buss (1998) (as cited in Peterson and Hyde 2010) which suggests that humans – females especially are naturally tuned to procreation, suggesting that heterosexuality is biologically determined.

Some Psychologists would say however, that sexuality is a creation of ones upbringing and the things they are exposed to everyday, this then is an argument that sexuality is mostly nurture. Since the removal of homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses in 1973, media has been able to introduce the topic more and more. People are now more commonly exposed to stories of homosexuality (and bisexuality) in magazines and newspapers from their role models, and on television programmes. Bandura (1977) came up with the Social Learning Theory. This theory suggests that children who witness an event, or repetitively observe behaviour are more likely to view this behaviour as an acceptable norm and partake in such behaviour.

Following up on the point of media coverage of sexuality is a study conducted by Ward and Friedman (2006). This research looked into the television viewing of adolescents and their attitudes of sexual behaviours. Their study found that when exposed to video clips of ‘sexually stereotypical roles’ the adolescents had a more positive attitude and higher belief that such sexual behaviour was normal. This backs the work of Bandura and would allow one to suggest, the more exposure given to homosexuality the more the behaviour seems acceptable and normal. This then suggests an increase in homosexual (and bisexual) behaviour being a nurtured factor.

The social learning theory would then be a good backing for what was found by Wellings, Field, Johnson and Wadsworth (1994). (as cited in Stainton Rogers and Stainton Rogers 2001) This being that they asked Males and Females how many times they had been involved in any homosexual activity. They found that more males than females had partook in some homosexual activity and that approximately 36% had engaged in homosexual intercourse. Yet 90% of all male participants in the study admitted to having a female partner and did not regard themselves to be homosexual.

This does then not completely back the views of Bandura (1977) and Ward and Friedman (2006). According to research into the views of homosexuality among American males (Whitley & Kite 1995) it would suggest that American Males are less accepting of homosexuality than American Females. It was said that males were asked to rate their views of homosexual men by answering whether or not they would socially accept them. Kite and Deaux (1986) concluded that the reactions of heterosexual males was different when talking to homosexual males dependent on their views of homosexuality. Less information about themselves was provided, requested from others and their ratings of the person declined when they knew the other male was homosexual than when they did not.

However, both of the above research were done before a time when sexuality was such a large media topic with such easy access to it. This then suggests that there are possible changing attitudes and that the environment in which a person is brought up can affect their viewpoints of a topic. (those brought up in homophobic families are perhaps less likely to be – or admit to being – homosexual).

The above evidence leads me to conclude that sexuality is almost certainly a result of both nature and nurture and that one’s biology itself cannot be the singular cause for the individual being homosexual or heterosexual. It seems to be due to a mix of factors including the persons biology and genetic structure, as was suggested by Williams (1993) and the environment the person is brought up in and they are exposed to according to the social learning theory. Bandura (1977). However, according to the above evidence it seems of better judgement to suggest that the sexuality of a person is far more dependent on their nurture than their nature as nature suggests human need for procreation which does not leave a place for homosexuality as being biologically determined.

References:

Holt, N., Bremner, A., Sutherland, E., Vliek, M. L. W., Passer, M. W. and Smith, R. E. (2012) Psychology: the science of mind and behaciour (2nd Ed) Maidenhead: Mc-Graw Hill

Kite, M. E and Deaux, K. (1986) Attitudes Towards Homosexuality: Assessment and Behavioral Consequences. BASIC AND APPLIED SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 7(2), 137-162

LeVay, S. (1991) A Difference in Hypothalamic Structure between Heterosexual and Homosexual Men. Science, New Series, 253, 1034-1037

Peterson, J. L. and Hyde, J. S. (2010) A Meta-Analytic Review of Research on Gender Differences in Sexuality, 1993-2007. Psychological Bulletin, 136(1), 21-38

Sci/Tech Doubt cast on ‘gay gene’ (1999) retrieved from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/325979.stm

Social Learning Theory Bandura (n.d.) retrieved from: http://www.learning-theories.com/social-learning-theory-bandura.html

Stainton Rogers, W. and Stainton Rogers, R. (2001) The Psychology of Gender and Sexuality (1st Ed) Open University Press.

Ward, M. L. and Friedman, K. (2006) Using TV as a Guide: Associations Between Television Viewing and Adolescents’ Sexual Attitudes and Behavior. JOURNAL OF RESEARCH ON ADOLESCENE, 16(1), 133-156

Whitley, B. E. and Kite M. E. (1995) Sex Differences in Attitudes Towards Homosexuality: A Comment on Oliver and Hyde (1993). Psychological Bulletin, 117(1), 146-154

This is an essay I wrote in Psychology for the first year of my degree at LMU. I own the rights to this article and the material.