The study “Are You a “Natural”” was led by Thomas Bouchard and David Lykken, with an accompaniment from M. McGue, N. Senegal, and A. Tellegan—all of which were from the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. The main research question was the following: How much influence do our genes have on the psychological qualities of our personality? Their reasoning for doing this study was to prove that some parts of our personality may in fact be influenced by the environment—like most of us would like to believe, but other parts could be the result of our genetic makeup. With any study, one must follow up their question with a hypothesis; the hypothesis of these experimenters was that peoples’ personalities are a result of the mixture of nature and nurture, not just one or the other. The next step would be to begin the method of carrying out their experiment.
In this case, the research was carried out through survey, as well as interview. Sets of identical twins, both those who were raised separately, in different adoptive families, as well as identical twins who grew up in the same home were asked to be part of the study. They used identical twins for the study because they have the same genetic makeup. The twins having the same genetic makeup was important because it would show the effect of genetics on personality, by showing that twins who grew up with different parents could still have similar behavioural characteristics. Bouchard and Lykken then compared each set of twins that were raised apart with those raised together by interviewing each twin separately. All of the subjects “completed four personality trait scales, three aptitude and occupational interest inventories, and two intelligence tests” (Hock 22). In addition, each twin was asked questions about their upbringing (Hock 22). From these interviews and surveys, enough data had been collected to draw conclusions.
Due to the type of research, there was no independent or dependent variables, nor were there control or experimental groups. However, it was through the group of identical twins that were reared-apart that the researchers could find out if their hypothesis about genetics taking part in affecting personalities was true; the reasoning for this was that if identical twins who were raised apart had similar personalities, then this would mean that genetics must play a role in shaping who people become because those twins didn’t grow up with the same environmental influence. Once conclusions were drawn, they found that the correlation was positive because the twins brought up apart were found to be very similar to each other. Almost as similar as those raised together. The correlation chart showed that the degree of similarity in different aspects of personality never fell below .784 (Hock 23).
All in all, it was found that genetics do in fact have a large contribution in peoples’ personalities. This could be concluded from the fact that identical twins who were raised by different people, in different homes, were still nearly as similar to each other as those identical twins who were raised together. These similarities were mostly emphasized in the categories of personality, and social attitudes. Moreover, the study also found that the environment didn’t have as strong as an effect on the twins raised in the same home as one may have thought because the genes seem to have a much stronger effect (Hock 23). The researchers could say that when the environment doesn’t have a strong influence on someone, then the genes must become responsible; this works the other way as well. Hock stated, “It’s not the environment influencing people’s characteristics, but vice versa. That is, peoples’ genetic tendencies actually mold their environments!” (Hock 25). An example of this given in the book is that children who are more affectionate are usually a result of having affectionate parents. However, it is pointed out that the amount of affection that these children give could be related to their genes (Hock 25). In conclusion, nature and nurture both affect personalities, although genetics seem to have a slightly stronger influence.
Subsequent research has found similar findings to Bouchard and Lykken. Most studies conclude that genes do in fact play a role in personalities. Researchers studying genetic influences have found the following: “…people’s variation on the characteristics of extraversion-introversion, neuroticism, and conscientiousness is explained more (65%) by genetic differences than by environmental factors” (Hock 26). Even though every study’s findings has its critics, this one in particular has had consistent conclusions.
Every piece of research has some kind of importance to our world because it helps us to identify information that was unknown before, and therefore can impact the way things are looked at, or the way people go about doing things. This study in particular shows parents that even though they work hard to shape their kids into the best people possible, some things are just out of their control. The research findings have changed how we can look at the way people’s uniqueness is developed, and why they do the things they do—how parents raise their children may not be as influential as who the parents are (genetically speaking). One example to show this meaning would be similar to an example the book gave: a child who is adopted into a very affectionate family isn’t all that affectionate himself; this could be a result of that child’s genetics—the child could have been born to people that weren’t as affectionate as their adoptive family.
A connection can be made between these research findings and the famous approaches in psychology. First off, the research findings contradict the idea of behaviourists; behaviourists believe that peoples’ behaviour is a result of what they learn from the environment. They don’t acknowledge that genetics also play a role. Second, the textbook discusses behavioural genetics, which is all about the degree of one’s personality being a result of their genes. Under this section the following is touched on: dog breeders breed certain dogs together so they can have certain traits; behavioral geneticists believe that people also have this hereditary influence on certain aspects of their attitudes; although, people can’t be bred the way dogs can (Ciccarelli 513). Additionally, the same twin study was also summarized. Some of the personality traits that the identical twins were found to share are stated, and they include the following: “…identical twins are more similar than fraternal twins or unrelated people in intelligence, leadership abilities, the tendency to follow rules, and the tendency to uphold traditional cultural expectations; nurturance, empathy, and assertiveness” (Ciccarelli 514). This section in the textbook was a brief elaboration on what personality characteristics are inherited in particular. The five-factor model is also related to the study because about half of its traits have a genetic connection, which falls across different parts of the world (Ciccarelli 515).This is just a brief summary of a few of the famous approaches in psychology that are related to the Minnesota twin studies.
In conclusion, this knowledge can be useful in the lives of others. It’s good to know that even if someone had a rough upbringing due to their environment, then their lives don’t need to be defined by that because their genetics will also play a role in who they will become; behaviour isn’t completely a result of one’s environment. Therefore, those who have thought that personalities are only shaped by the environment can now understand that who someone becomes can also be a result of characteristics that belong to different blood relatives as well as themselves. In addition, this information can be useful to parents because even though they aren’t perfect, their children can still grow up to be good people. Finally, this study has helped me to understand different things about myself; it explains why I am like each of my parents in some ways, and completely unique in others.
In this case, the research was carried out through survey, as well as interview. Sets of identical twins, both those who were raised separately, in different adoptive families, as well as identical twins who grew up in the same home were asked to be part of the study. They used identical twins for the study because they have the same genetic makeup. The twins having the same genetic makeup was important because it would show the effect of genetics on personality, by showing that twins who grew up with different parents could still have similar behavioural characteristics. Bouchard and Lykken then compared each set of twins that were raised apart with those raised together by interviewing each twin separately. All of the subjects “completed four personality trait scales, three aptitude and occupational interest inventories, and two intelligence tests” (Hock 22). In addition, each twin was asked questions about their upbringing (Hock 22). From these interviews and surveys, enough data had been collected to draw conclusions.
Due to the type of research, there was no independent or dependent variables, nor were there control or experimental groups. However, it was through the group of identical twins that were reared-apart that the researchers could find out if their hypothesis about genetics taking part in affecting personalities was true; the reasoning for this was that if identical twins who were raised apart had similar personalities, then this would mean that genetics must play a role in shaping who people become because those twins didn’t grow up with the same environmental influence. Once conclusions were drawn, they found that the correlation was positive because the twins brought up apart were found to be very similar to each other. Almost as similar as those raised together. The correlation chart showed that the degree of similarity in different aspects of personality never fell below .784 (Hock 23).
All in all, it was found that genetics do in fact have a large contribution in peoples’ personalities. This could be concluded from the fact that identical twins who were raised by different people, in different homes, were still nearly as similar to each other as those identical twins who were raised together. These similarities were mostly emphasized in the categories of personality, and social attitudes. Moreover, the study also found that the environment didn’t have as strong as an effect on the twins raised in the same home as one may have thought because the genes seem to have a much stronger effect (Hock 23). The researchers could say that when the environment doesn’t have a strong influence on someone, then the genes must become responsible; this works the other way as well. Hock stated, “It’s not the environment influencing people’s characteristics, but vice versa. That is, peoples’ genetic tendencies actually mold their environments!” (Hock 25). An example of this given in the book is that children who are more affectionate are usually a result of having affectionate parents. However, it is pointed out that the amount of affection that these children give could be related to their genes (Hock 25). In conclusion, nature and nurture both affect personalities, although genetics seem to have a slightly stronger influence.
Subsequent research has found similar findings to Bouchard and Lykken. Most studies conclude that genes do in fact play a role in personalities. Researchers studying genetic influences have found the following: “…people’s variation on the characteristics of extraversion-introversion, neuroticism, and conscientiousness is explained more (65%) by genetic differences than by environmental factors” (Hock 26). Even though every study’s findings has its critics, this one in particular has had consistent conclusions.
Every piece of research has some kind of importance to our world because it helps us to identify information that was unknown before, and therefore can impact the way things are looked at, or the way people go about doing things. This study in particular shows parents that even though they work hard to shape their kids into the best people possible, some things are just out of their control. The research findings have changed how we can look at the way people’s uniqueness is developed, and why they do the things they do—how parents raise their children may not be as influential as who the parents are (genetically speaking). One example to show this meaning would be similar to an example the book gave: a child who is adopted into a very affectionate family isn’t all that affectionate himself; this could be a result of that child’s genetics—the child could have been born to people that weren’t as affectionate as their adoptive family.
A connection can be made between these research findings and the famous approaches in psychology. First off, the research findings contradict the idea of behaviourists; behaviourists believe that peoples’ behaviour is a result of what they learn from the environment. They don’t acknowledge that genetics also play a role. Second, the textbook discusses behavioural genetics, which is all about the degree of one’s personality being a result of their genes. Under this section the following is touched on: dog breeders breed certain dogs together so they can have certain traits; behavioral geneticists believe that people also have this hereditary influence on certain aspects of their attitudes; although, people can’t be bred the way dogs can (Ciccarelli 513). Additionally, the same twin study was also summarized. Some of the personality traits that the identical twins were found to share are stated, and they include the following: “…identical twins are more similar than fraternal twins or unrelated people in intelligence, leadership abilities, the tendency to follow rules, and the tendency to uphold traditional cultural expectations; nurturance, empathy, and assertiveness” (Ciccarelli 514). This section in the textbook was a brief elaboration on what personality characteristics are inherited in particular. The five-factor model is also related to the study because about half of its traits have a genetic connection, which falls across different parts of the world (Ciccarelli 515).This is just a brief summary of a few of the famous approaches in psychology that are related to the Minnesota twin studies.
In conclusion, this knowledge can be useful in the lives of others. It’s good to know that even if someone had a rough upbringing due to their environment, then their lives don’t need to be defined by that because their genetics will also play a role in who they will become; behaviour isn’t completely a result of one’s environment. Therefore, those who have thought that personalities are only shaped by the environment can now understand that who someone becomes can also be a result of characteristics that belong to different blood relatives as well as themselves. In addition, this information can be useful to parents because even though they aren’t perfect, their children can still grow up to be good people. Finally, this study has helped me to understand different things about myself; it explains why I am like each of my parents in some ways, and completely unique in others.